No, I am saying that that poster is saying apes and humans make evolution. That's all he said, apes and humans. So that's all I'm talking about - apes and humans. I didn't mean anything else.
What sidelined is saying (and I think I'm not putting words into his mouth, just restating what he has to say) is we only have the terms "apes" and "humans" and our language is stuck with those (in popular terms anyway).
However, what we find fossils of are things that are not clearly either. That is where rough terms like "ape-man" come from.
As I noted they aren't just showing aspects of both current apes and current humans but there is also a number of specimens that mark points in time that show more aspects of humans over time.
I noticed one poster today commented that these simply show adaptations to changing conditions. These conditions were supposed to have changed from the flood (about 4500 years ago?) to a point in time when records should show these (the romans were into africa before 2,000?). The idea that these forms are laid out in this order (ignoring the real ages) and changed in just this way in only 100 generations seems a bit absurd to me.