Some of these evolutionists are poor logicians.
You're not doing too well yourself:
If the universe is ateleological, there are no endpoints. The man's statement is self-contradictory.
No, it isn't, because a) you're talking about a different sort of "endpoint" than he is, and b) even by your own version, your claim is simply a statement of your belief, and not something that you have managed to establish or is so self-evident that it warrants your flat declaration that a statement about ateological endpoints would be on its face oxymoronic.
Telos is Greek for end or purpose. If the universe is teleological then its development is toward a purpose or end. That is central premise -- a self evident "if-then statement" -- of Aristotelean metaphysics. Aristotelean metaphysics prevailed until positivism supplanted it with the notion of an ateleological universe.
The central theses of Darwin's work are descent with modification and natural selection. My friends in the biology department, evolutionists all, tell me that the process of evolution for which these premises are central is a purposeless process, that it did not intent man or dog. I'm taking their word for it since they earned PhD's in their fields.
A purposeless process is by definition ateleological. There is nothing that can be designated an end in the metaphysical sense. We can talk about the present stage of evolution and what it has produced up till this moment. We cannot foresee what it might produce next, since the project is driven not by reason (unless you now think man is totally in control of his own fate) but by the interaction of organism and environment. Therefore it is improper to speak of ends either temporally or metaphysically.
It is also invalid to think of evolution as moving from low to high, except in the sense of from simple to complex. But to consider complexity morally or metaphysically superior to simplicity is to engage in value judgements, which are, strictly speaking, outside the province of science.