You wrote "the hip looked just like a chimpanzee hip". The PBS link you gave says "Superficially, her hip resembled a chimpanzee's, which meant that Lucy couldn't possibly have walked like a modern human." The term "resembled" is much weaker and broader than your phrase "just like."

Elsewhere in the same transcript it says "[Lucy] didn't look like anything we had ever found before." and "Lucy had an ape-like face with a brain just a little larger than a chimps." If Lucy looked "just like a chimp" then what explains these quotes about the differences?

Because it sounds to me like you are cherry picking and distorting quotes, which is a standard creationist practice.

Earlier you wrote that humans separated from monkeys 10,000 years ago. This of course is not true. How old do you think Lucy is?

Lucy is not the only Australopithecus afarensis skeleton found. This includes AL 129-1 found by the same Don Johnson you quoted. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AL_129-1 : "It is estimated to be 3.4 million years old.[1] Its characteristics include an elliptical Lateral condyle and an oblique femoral shaft like that found in humans, indicating bipedalism."

Or there's AL 333-160. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis : "The foot bone shows that the species had arches in its feet, which confirmed that the species walked upright for the majority of the time.[33] The foot bone is one of 49 new bones discovered, and indicates that A. afarensis is "a lot more human-like than we had ever supposed before", according to the lead scientist on the study.[34]"

Or Selam, "Here we describe a well-preserved 3.3-million-year-old juvenile partial skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis discovered in the Dikika research area of Ethiopia. The skull of the approximately three-year-old presumed female shows that most features diagnostic of the species are evident even at this early stage of development. The find includes many previously unknown skeletal elements from the Pliocene hominin record, including a hyoid bone that has a typical African ape {hominid} morphology. The foot and other evidence from the lower limb provide clear evidence for bipedal locomotion, but the gorilla-like scapula and long and curved manual phalanges raise new questions about the importance of arboreal behaviour in the A. afarensis" (using the quote by Alemseged et. al from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selam_(Australopithecus) .

So even discarding the reconstruction of Lucy's hip, there is other evidence that A. afarensis was bipedal in way that chimps are not.

You write "Where is the creature with half wings and partial feathers?" This is not how evolution works.

To begin with, feathers existed long before wings. Sinosauropteryx is an example of a non-avian dinosaur with feathers. We've found feathers on Epidexipteryx, from 160-170 million years ago, which is 10 million years before Archaeopteryx. Hardly "overnight".

The "half wing" is a standard creationist argument, but essentially meaningless. First, there are many definition of "wing". If I stick my hand out the window of a moving car, I can use it to get upward lift. That makes it a wing.

Under this definition, the body of a Paradise flying snake is a wing, even though it looks nothing like a bird or bat wing. Unlike my hand, but like birds, the wing property of the snake body is the result of adaptive selection.

The evolutionary argument is that "wing" is a continuum of abilities, from very poor wing to a very good wing. All of them are wings. None of them are "half wings".

What a creationist will do is place absurd requirements on what a "wing" is such that any evolutionary reasonable interpretation for "half a wing" is disqualified for not being a wing.

That would be like saying that email didn't exist until the late 1970s because no previous system implemented the 32 distinct components that Ayyadurai says were needed to be "email".

You write "When something shows up in the record, it stays the same". As I pointed out earlier, that's because species labels "are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation", to quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil . When things change, we call it a new species. It is not a fundamental reflection of the biology.