[Coyoteman]

The fossil record that, if true, should have shown millions or billions of transmutated species (i.e., 90% ape 10% human, 50% ape 50% human, etc.) is non-existent and is, in truth, and embarrassment.

This is a very tiny fraction of the fossil hominid data, and is generally restricted to the more photogenic specimens. There is no "non-existent" there, as you claim. As for the different percentages of ape vs. human, take your pick!

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[chrisg2001]

So, I'd have to say that the odds of a hurricane assembling a 747 in a junkyward are probably higher than the odds that the creationists in this thread are going to reply to your post with a listing of which of the 14 hominid skulls in your list are 100% ape and which are 100% human :-) and can justify their answer.