Every "transitional" was, in its day, a fully-developed, walking-around, eating, drinking, and reproducing species. They didn't have half a leg sticking out of their backs or something -- which is probably what the typical creationoid thinks of when he calls for transitionals. So when the creationoid -- blinders firmly in place -- examines the fossil of a transitional and sees nothing amiss, he has no problem dismissing it. After all, it's a full-blown species isn't it? It is exactly what it is, no more and no less. It doesn't wear a sign that proclaims it a transitional. So what's "transitional" about it? Thus, the creationoid exhibits his total incapacity (or unwillingness) to connect the dots and see the bigger picture. Hopeless. Simply hopeless.
Another dodge, yes. If it's "integrated and fully functional" it's not a transitional. Darwin would spin in his grave to hear he postulated dis-integrated non-functional steps as other than dead ends.
Yup, indeed, survival of the fittest and all that. The problem for evolution though is how does a creature become more fit by exchanging its forelegs or arms for wings when it cannot yet fly? The question is how the many changes required for making a bird a viable flying organism could have all taken place while making the species undergoing the changes more viable at each step. These are the questions which evolutionists always fail to answer and which they are totally unable to answer. In fact they are not even able to state the order in which the many different features of birds could have arisen (let alone show any evidence for such an order of transition). Again this is quite interesting since large transitions should have the most evidence for them.