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.
I have answered your question. However, since you missed it - here it is - again: a transitional fossil would have to show CLEAR transition between one species to another - without a doubt. The fact that evolutionists cannot decide if something is human or ape means that it is not clear that one is becoming the other. There have been many hoaxes and many so-called links which have proven to be made of composite fossils: i.e. fossils which are made up of bones from more than one species. This is not a transitional fossil, obviously. Nor can one call a transitional fossil something which one cannot clearly identify. An objective scientist would have to be able to authenticate that 1) the fossil was an intact fossil and not a composite, and 2) that it shows CLEAR transition from one species to another - not that it resembled one or more species. I am not seeking to abandon the topic, but this is as clear an answer as it is possible to make on the subject. While you may disagree with me (which is fine), please do not claim I have not answered your question.