What he did, was make a joke. You didn't seem to get it.
Under evolution, one would expect transitionals.
Under evolution, we all are transitionals.
Therefor the argument that evolution is internally inconsistent based on the transition aspect fails completely.
Actually NO. You won't "expect" them, you would have to have them as a prerequisite: No billions of transitional - no bacteria to baker Evolution.
And even if you'd assume Evolution, That still wouldn't mean that "we are all transitionals", some maybe dead ends, other may be the top of perfectibility.
One can of course argue for "in kind" transitional. For instance the original "superhorse" may have had several "transitionals" before turning out stable in horses, donkeys and zebras.
But that's change within type, not change from type to type. For instance, what about the common ancestor of horses and cows? Where are all the millions of "transitionals" between that hypothetical "common ancestor" and the present forms we can observe in nature? In fact, where is the fossils of that hypothetical common ancestor?
The Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution appears to the neutral observer as an enterprise that found a couple of letters and words and then designed an epic science fiction script about it meeting requirements of a vague philosophical mould. Because of the contradicting interpretations and facts found, they keep on changing the narrative and then say "hey, science is self-correcting - so don't worry". That their is something wrong with their paradigm doesn't seem to come to their little minds.
Let's face it the Evolution Theme is based on very few hard verifiable facts,a lot of innuendo, extrapolation, non-sequiturs, appeals to authority, popularity, mockery of critics, public funding, ignoring contradicting evidence and a blind faith in implied ontological and required methodological materialism (which they prefer to call Naturalism).
That theory dominates origins biology for reasons not in line with good scientific practice, but ideological, pop-cultural and political ones. And it's perverting other sciences as well. I'm just thinking about the "gender is a social construct" crowd. But I think there are many other examples.