Coyoteman,
I’m sorry but this is laughable. The debate is because the one or two decayed fossils do not point to anything clear.
The “ergaster” specimen still do not possess transitional traits, features of both homo and austral, the question is only what to make of the (primarily) skull shape.
That doesn’t negate the fact that while thousands of ape and human fossils have been found, no such numbers have been found of any transitional types, and the few and far between ones listed as “transitional” (none of which actually show transition, i.e. uniquely homo and austral. characteristics) are all highly inconclusive. This fact alone should show that there were no intermediary species and makes logic dictate that these few decayed skeletons are ape fossils that have decayed. There are fossils you wouldn’t be able to differentiate between a cat’s skull and a young weasel’s, but no evidence is around and no claim is made that weasels are evolved cats. Yet you present that as logic for an ape/human connection in spite of the fact that intermediaries simply don’t exist and the math doesn’t add up (thousands of primaries, according to your side, thousands of humans, and a bobbing inconclusive skeleton or tow in between to show intermediary steps that if existed, would be more plentiful than the primary apes, as they’d be their offspring).
As you would say, your religion of evolutionism may cause you to ignore these, but that shouldn’t stand in the way of science or reasoning.
You are wrong. You have blinded yourself so thoroughly that you will not see anything beyond the narrow framework you have created for yourself.
The experts who have actually studied ergaster have established a number of traits which are transitional. Creationist authors have also disagreed on where to place ergaster, whether ape or human, for the same reason.
Even creationists can see the intermediate nature of the species, but you refuse to. I think that says more about you than ergaster.