I find the whole "there are no transitional species" argument highly amusing.
going by this rationale, there should be NO record, of any sort, of creatures capable of certain functions BUT NOT PERFECTLY SUITED TO EXECUTE THESE FUNCTIONS WELL.
You and I both know that this is far from the case.
I am grown weary of the Creationist crowd's disingenuousness. They never fail to ignore the arguments their philosophical ancestors have put forth - the ones that have been utterly trounced (eg: there can never have been any extinctions, etc...)
According to their philosophy, all forms of life must have been concurrent. This is not so.
According to them, there can never have been any succession of species (one form appearing at time=a, disappearing at time=g, another form appearing at time=m, disappearing at time=s, etc...). This is not so.
In earlier times, the very notion that species are related was anathema to them. NOW, having had too much proof paraded before their superglued-shut eyes for even them to completely deny it, they now claim to have never claimed species are not related, but that "adaptation does not lead to speciation". Geesh - a casual review of interbreeding patterns of the arctic-ring seagull species blows THAT out of the water, but damn me if I can figure out a way of making them see this.
And they wonder why we seem to be getting fed up with them.
You forgot the ploy that every time we find a transitional we create two more gaps.