"First, evolution is when one kind of creature becomes a totally different kind of creature, such as a lizard evolving into a bird, or a cow evolving into a whale."
No. Evolution is change over time. To be more specific, in population biology (the population being the unit that evolves) evolution is a change in allele frequency over time.
"But, this has never been observed, tested, or verified."
We have observed speciation, and we have many kinds of evidence that the level of change (if not the specific changes...) you mention has occurred.
"For over 60 years, evolutionists have tried to prove that fruit flies can evolve into some other creature by purposely causing mutations in the flies, but failed."
Is that what they were doing? Silly me, I though they were studying genetics and embryonic development.
"Mutations have never created new organs or new creatures."
Like I said, we HAVE observed speciation, which would require the genetic material of at least one individual in a population of the original species to change somehow. How do you propose this happens if it's not mutation?
"Evolutionists are desperate for evolution to be true it seems, because since we don't actually see evolution happening, they'll use the changes (variations/adaptations) within kinds, which are called species, as proof of evolution."
I've already told you three times that we have observed evolution. Maybe not as you understand it, but do consider that you understand it incorrectly. We HAVE HAVE HAVE seen speciation, change BETWEEN species, occur. And you just described evolution anyway!
"An example of this type of change are changes within the dog kind, such as wolves, german shepherds, beagles, poodles, etc. They are all still dogs, so therefore not the kind of change that is needed to prove evolution, or macroevolution."
No, that's an example of artificial selection, which can be seen as an analogy for natural selection (albeit not a great one because people like you don't get it at all). With artificial selection an intelligence does the selecting. With natural selection, the environment does the selecting.
"According to evolutionists/scientists, evolution has been going on for billions of years, so where are the living transitionals hiding?"
Living species are the ends of branches. They have the potential to be transitional. And all transitionals in the past were once living species and became branching points. In fact, it's possible for a transitional to be the end of a branch, the environment they're adapted just has to keep holding up.
"Shouldn't there be millions of living, chaotic looking transitionals running around outside today?"
You're assuming that the transition happens in very few steps. You also forget that a transitional species DOES have to be at least somewhat adapted to its environment or it won't survive long enough to branch.
"Also, shouldn't there be living ape-men transitionals, since there are apes still alive today?"
They don't have to be. A transitional species does not have to be extant. And the survival of any species branching from a transitional species is not dependent on the transitional species' survival.
"Transitionals are non-existing, even in the so-called geologic column."
They're actually all over the place.