Jovaro, first of all, using Talk Origins as an authoritative source on anything is like using a fox as an authoritative source on chickens! Please use something in some science articles and not propaganda based on imagination.
For instance, their ideas of the evolution of the eye based on extant features in organisms runs closely along the lines of saying that people with green eyes are descended from plants because their eyes are green! There is simply no connection! Photosensitive cells are NOT precursors of eyes! They are simply photosensitive cells. What TO is NOT telling you is that the evidence for highly complex, compound eyes (in the trilobite, for instance) shows up in the fossil record in the earliest strata with animal life! In fact, the trilobite is the index fossil for the Cambrian strata.
As to the rest of your post, "survival of the fittest" is a circular statement and carries no meaning, logically, because of that. Your posted definitions confirmed that. Who is the fittest? The one that survives. Which one survives? The one that is the fittest, of course! There is NO outside reference point for 'fittest' in order for the statement to give logical information. It is sort of like saying "girls are females." Great. Who are girls? Females. Who are females? Girls. It's the same sort of idea -- a totally circular argument which gets nowhere and thus has no meaning.
You state animals without fully developed wings are nevertheless functional with partial wings. The examples you gave are the flying squirrel, which does NOT have wings at all, and the bat, whose wings are fully functional. So where your 'rock hard' evidence comes in there escapes me entirely.
As far as your 5% of an eye is concerned you are simply nuts. Take away half the muscles, for instance, and the eye swings irreversibly into the head in one direction or another. This definitely limits vision, if not functionally ereasing it. You want half a lens? Sorry, but that results in blindness. Half the blood supply? Your eye dies. Half to the optic nerve? Severely hampered vision. Half the nerves? If you take the light-sensitive nerves your eye will not react to the light properly and will either remain in a restricted pupil state, resulting in limited vision, or an open pupil state, burning the eye on the first bright day. Half the optic nerve will render the entire nerve non-functional.
Not to mention 95% of any of them.
In short, your argument is ignorant at best and totally ridiculous the other 95% of the time.
Please consider a college course in biology or anatomy and also one in basic logic. At least then your responses, no matter what you believe about origins, would make a little more sense.