I understand your original point, that the ergaster is much lower on the chain than any other fossil of homo erectus. My point is that it’s not homo erectus. It’s similar to the Australopithecus which had unique baboon features and traits. It’s also one of the lesser intact fossils.
The main point is that we’ve found a plethora of clearly ape fossils and clearly human ones and nothing of substance in between (whereas, if evolution had occured, the numbers of each group would be similar, there’d actually, in all probability, be more transition ones than ape and there’d definite be more than just a few deformed,inconclusive ones). Even evolutionists debate the validity of the ergaster classification and many consider it less of an offshoot and more of a decomposed figure of an Australopithecus.
There is a lot of debate of the various features of H. ergaster precisely because it is intermediate (a transitional). If it was either fully Homo or fully Australopithecus there would not be such a debate.
These intermediate traits qualify ergaster as a transitional, and nothing creationists have come up with has changed that. Now, you may not consider it as a transitional for religious reasons but that does not affect scientists and their researches one whit.