I did indeed answer your question. Sorry you missed it. What evolutionists seem to cling to are evidences of change - normal change - which happens in every species. This is NOT the same thing as seeing evidence of change FROM ONE SPECIES to ANOTHER. (Caps for emphasis, not yelling.)
No, I'm afraid you didn't. (You're not alone--I've asked this question of other antievolutionists here, and they didn't answer either.) You've said a lot about what the answer isn't, but not about what it is.
You had said, in post #39, "Yes, old fossils of apes exist, and yes, older forms of what looks to be man (but is it really?) exist, but where is the link?" My question, from post #41, was, What would you expect such a link to look like? In other words, how would we know the link if we found it?
In #52, you said, "some clear transition where the two species are clearly transforming from one into another." "Some clear transition" is not an answer--I'm asking you what such a transition would look like.
In #60, you made a long statement about your issues with evolution, but still didn't attempt to state what a transitional fossil would look like.
And that's all you've said. If you want to abandon the topic, that's fine--people have obviously moved on. But if you want to take another shot at it:
You claim there is no evidence of change from one species to another--no transitional fossils, especially from proto-human to human. My question is, let's say such a fossil existed--a fossil of a creature that was somewhere on the line between the ape-human common ancestor and modern humans. What would it look like? How would we know it for what it is? How would it be different from the fossils we do have?
If you don't want to try and answer what to your mind is a hypothetical question, just say so. But please don't just insist again that no such fossil exists and call that an answer.