Obviously it depends upon who you ask, and you’re free to search the net for yourself.
But outside of some scientists or otherwise qualified FR type posters who have a ‘quasi-religious commitment to the idea of’ macro-evolution most experts would agree there are no conclusively proven transitional fossils.
I don't think that probable transitional fossils cause any problem for the theory of evolution. Fossils provide expected sparse snapshots of a branching model of evolution. There are more probable transitional fossils for species that leave a greater number of recoverable fossils, than those that don't, which meets expectations.
How does your model of biology hold up to your high standard of conclusive proof?