No. No one from Darwin on ever said that a transitional is some kind of malformed freak. You can't use the "fully formed" nature of a thing to show that it's not an intermediate stage between one form and another. The population changes precisely because it is staying well adapted even as the environment changes. That IS the theory.
I don't think we're talking about malformed freaks, are we. How do you suppose critters without wings evolve wings over large periods of time if it doesn't happen in stages or bits at a time? Oh, right, It's invisable. It happens; but, not so you could really tell or ever see it. It all just cooks together inside the critter really knowing the critter needs to fly then one day, wings pop out it's butt and it commences to flapping.. Right. Do we get a toaster with that. Something intelligent and useful should come from this conversation. We already know it takes long periods of time for these things to happen gradually over time and it's invisable. The time, obviously, because it's never been observed to ever happen. So if we say it takes millions of years (though we can't prove that anything has actually been around that long) then people will have to drop their expectation of ever seeing it happen and we can claim any bloody thing we like.. Yep. Snake oil. I thought this was supposed to be science. It's nothing more than a different religion trying to disprove God apparently. I don't see much science in it. There's a lot there pretending at science. But this is more like a debate between protestants and Catholics than a debate on science.
This thread is a stark reminder of just how bad the arguments used to be, and, sadly, occasionally still are.