Like the Archaeopteryx, it's ambiguous data. Is it a transitional creature or a fully formed and functional creature? The problem with the fossil record is that it typically shows species entering into and disappearing from the fossil record without change. Stasis is the norm. In fact, scientists are hard pressed to find one convincing transitional fossil, when the fossil record should exhibit nothing but transitional fossils.
It takes a creationist to set up a dichotomy between "transitional" and "fully formed and functional" and try to sneak it by. How do you know you're "fully formed and functional" by the standards of some later life form?
When I walk, am I not fully formed and functional or just not fully located?
The only thing ambiguous about Archy is whether he goes in the bird bin or the dinosaur bin. You could flip a coin, he's THAT transitional.
As long as you've been around, this kind of ignorance does not look good. How many previous posts have "corrected" your ICR/whatever talking points?
You obviously are confused. A transitional creature is a fully formed and functional creature. Otherwise it would'nt live to reproduce.
The key point is that a transitional creature has an ancestor and a descendant that show a progression of evolutionary changes. Like much of the fossil record. Saying all fossils are transitional creatures is an overstatement. Some of them died out, the rest ARE transitional.
I'm genuinely curious why you think these are different or incompatible concepts.
"when the fossil record should exhibit nothing but transitional fossils."
Well, to be technical, all fossils are, to some degree, transitional, because they creatures are all dead now.
Fossils are snapshots. By the nature, it's like getting some frames of a movie.