js is right that creationists do draw a line between them. But it’s for a very good reason. No conclusive ones that are in tact show uniquely human and uniquely ape characteristics together. The one you highlight has uniquely ape features. See also this link, I know that the source has a stated agenda (unlike the evolutionists at talk origins, who deny their agenda, but who go about purporting it in the most vicious of ways).
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp
“one of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.
Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.”
See this link as well, even more problems raised http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/problems-with-the-fossil-record.htm
See also some commentary that hits the nail on the head about the tactics of many evolutionists to suppress scientific debate http://www.discovery.org/a/2321
Genus Homo is our own genus, and is distinct from any of the ape genera for a number of reasons. Please show how Homo ergaster falls more closely within one of the ape genera rather than genus Homo.
And please explain how and why you discount the features which have been used to place it within the genus Homo.