Do you consider your back to be "half formed?" Honestly? Do you ever wonder why human beings suffer from back problems? Our backs are not fully developed for an upright stance. Our legs are pretty much nearly fully adapted (we do have problems with our knees which are related to this), and of course our arms are "fully adapted and integrated." Our backs, however, are no longer capable of supporting us horizontally, but are not quite up to supporting us vertically without problems. Who knows, with the passing of time maybe we'll outgrow this problem...
There's a great deal about humans that is poorly developed -- so far, and which could therefore be considered transitional. Our eyes are very nice, as far as they go, but we are virtually blind to the full range of the electromagnetic spectrum. If we could see radar, radio, cosmic rays, etc. we could have learned much more about the world much faster. And it would have been very useful if we could see bacteria. Think of all the lives that might have saved. Our defective eyes really held us back.
Then there's the digestive system. Humans are terribly subject to (gasp!) constipation, a disorder which rarely affects our dogs, for example. This is because our internal intestinal configuration hasn't really adjusted yet to our upright posture. Our toes are a joke, when you take the time to think about them. Of what use is the little toe? Is it there only so your mother could play "this little piggy went to market ..."? A physician could go on and on with a list of our physiological imperfections. But this little sample should indicate that we are hardly a perfectly-formed species. Not yet. Maybe not ever.
Which is my point. It's a fully formed, integrated functional, creature as are all other creatures and fossils that I have ever seen. And like the archaeopteryx, it probably exited the fossil record the same way it came in.
There are two problems with the theory of variation through micromutation, the overwhelming lack of evidence in the fossil record and the lack of an even remotely plausible mechanism for beneficial variation. Other than that, it's a great theory.
Do you consider your back to be "half formed?" Honestly? Do you ever wonder why human beings suffer from back problems? Our backs are not fully developed for an upright stance. Our legs are pretty much nearly fully adapted (we do have problems with our knees which are related to this), and of course our arms are "fully adapted and integrated."
As a matter of fact, I do have a bad back. 8-o But even if I grant your point, the fact remains that the human body is an example of a "high-functioning," staggeringly complex design. I have a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, and taken simply from a mechanical point of view, the human body makes the space shuttle look like a tinker toy in terms of comparative mechanical complexity.
Also, your example is a case of "dysteleology" as William Dembski phrases it, and is more a problem for theology than natural science. (The section I quoted above is worth at least a quick read.) The term "Intelligent Design" is not to be taken to mean "optimum design," but rather design by an intelligent agent. For example, although I know that the AMC Pacer is not an example of optimal design, I know that it was designed by an intelligent agent and not by chance.