It would appear so, but no, there is no goalpost shifting.
The evolution skeptics understand that the fossil record can be aligned species to species to show a purported trajectory of inter-species evolution. What we dispute is that a series of random mutations is what had lead from one species to another species. We often see species 1, species 2, etc., ... species N. But even the adjacent species on that imaginary line are still too far apart: they do not appear to be a product of a single mutation. So finding one more species does not really help your case: what I want to see is a cloud of specimens with species 1 at one edge of the cloud and species 2 at the other edge. Until I see that, all I see proven is that we previously knew of N species and now we know of N+1 species and all have similarities.
Let me give you an example. In atmoshpere it so happens that some clouds are formed independently and also at times a cloud would move to a different spot. Let us say you and I have an argument: is the rain over my head today coming from the same cloud that rained over the other part of town this morning? To prove the latter, you need to show continuity, -- wet spots connected all the way from place A to place B. It is not enough to show that it rained over place A, place B and also place P and place Q -- that only proves that there have been four independent clouds. You need to show a continuum of wet spots, and you need to show a continuum of fossils separated by a single mutation.
Ok, well first of all what you seem to be saying here is that you believe there are "transition fossils". If you do say this, do you think Ken Ham agrees?
Secondly, and perhaps more important, what you describe/ask for above is perfectly reasonable, however it doesn't question the theory that "evolution" has occured, it merely questions *how* this evolution occured, which is of course a hot topic of debate among scientists.
Some believe in a gradual, linear evolution, others believe in some sort of "punctuated evolution" where it flatlines for a while, but then over a relatively short period of time, there are tremendous spurts of evolution.
The scenario you describe above, and really the fossil record (IMO) seems to support the latter.
However, again, this doesn't question evolution itself, rather only what form it took.
As for this fossil, it appears to share many (skeletal) traits with all known primates today, that is, there are certain traits that are used, taxonomically to classify an organism, and this one seems to share traits in common with primates. Whether or not this represents a punctuated evolutionary step or a gradual one will, I'm sure, be debated, but this debate in no way impugns evolution itself.
I still maintain the quote by Mr. Ham shows a certain refusal to accept this as a transition, punctuated or gradual. Which is (at least probably) what he and others who reject evolution always demand. Or at least that's what I've always heard demanded.
Maybe they have changed their tune and now accept transition fossils; but that most certainly would be "goalpost shifting".