This is simply foolish. You stated in post #162 that
To help you in this obviously sincere quest I have shown you empirical evidence for a whole bundle of partly ape-like, partly human-like creatures, and also explained that evolution does not proceed in linear fashion from one species to the next but is a process of continual branching and re-branching. What the fossils provide is abundant evidence of populations changing over some millions of years in the direction of larger cranial capacity, flatter faces, human-type teeth. Out of all the populations we have evidence of, which particular one(s) if any were ancestral to modern humans is a secondary matter: the process is well illustrated.
But you, of course, will not accept there was any such process, however eloquently the fossils speak of it. So tell me, MoF, if the skulls I've shown you aren't transitional fossils between ape-like ancestors and humans, what are they?