That link you posted (http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter10_1.php) spends a lot of time following scientists' arguments over classification, then concludes that there are no pre-human ancestors so creation must have occurred.
The arguments cited in that website show instead that transitionals are indeed present. That's why these fossils are the subject of so much debate over classification, with some favoring Homo and others favoring Australopithecus -- they are intermediate between the two!
Rather than supporting the contention you had hoped, your link shows the opposite.
well by golly- they mentioned creation and the sudden appearance of FULLY FORMED man, so that automatically dissmisses the facts- Getting tired of this- The main point was totally ignored by you- Clear manipulation during assembly of skull fragments to support the preconceived notiuon of evolution.
"It has been confirmed by many researchers today that these creatures are members of the Australopithecus series. All of their anatomical features reveal that they are species of ape."
'Some favoring homo- some favoring Austra' then 'there is indeed transitionals'
Nope- there is indeed uncertanty and much speculation but no clear transition in species
"The fossil record shows that there is no evolutionary link between these extinct apes and Homo, i.e., human species that suddenly appears in the fossil record."
"Even the evolutionist Richard Leakey states that the differences between Homo erectus and modern man are no more than racial variance:
One would also see differences in the shape of the skull, in the degree of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. Such biological variation arises when populations are geographically separated from each other for significant lengths of time.83"
"Neanderthals were a human race, a fact which is admitted by almost everybody today. Evolutionists have tried very hard to present them as a "primitive species", yet all the findings indicate that they were no different from a "robust" man walking on the street today. A prominent authority on the subject, Erik Trinkaus, a paleoanthropologist from New Mexico University writes:
Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans.86 "
and by the way- you are STILL ignoring the serious problem of the lack of transitional species that should be littering the earth and easily found- instead- you present contentious scant bone fragments as your 'proof' which are in no way proven, and infact, other evidences point ot hte fact that they are indeed not transitions at all? That's the best evolution can do? Throw up some VERY iffy fragments and call it transitional? Darwin himself admitted that if life evolved, there would be VAST amounts of trial and error going on as species struggled to use the random mutations to their advantage in order to 'evolve' into other species (although Darwin didn't understand that mutations could nbot possibly produce evolution- ) and there should be excessively copious amounts of these 'trial and error' 'transitional' fossils found- yet htere are none- all we find are completed species fossils going back as far as cambrian age when they came on the scene in abundance- fully formed. This is a major problem with the evolution model- one that can't be brushed off by claiming that because a site mentions that a sudden appearance suggests creation, then the FACTS that they present are invalidated- sorry- but the factes are never invalidated until PROVEN wrong by counter facts- Which has never happened in regards to the facts presented about lack of transitional species.