Allow me to clarify: You're "playing" with "terms" because you're using ones the poster doesn't understand. Kindly limit your vocabulary to words used by Jack Chick.
No they aren't.
That is where the 'new' terms come in.
A man is not an animal.
So, the transitional species would be a kind of both, now wouldn't he/it? Yes, but there would be no point at which the species is not "animal". Humans are classified as part of the kingdom Animalia. So the evolutionists are looking for something that is neither completely animal or human. This is not accurate. The specimen would in fact be completely animal.
No, the thing would be neither be animal nor human.
It would be a transition from the one to the other.
Once, again playing games with terms.
But leaving aside the word games, it would be a transition from an ape to a man, an intermediate creature which does not exist, nor ever existed.
These are the transition creatures that the fossil record was suppose to show but never did, so now you are looking at skulls.