I did not request a picture.
You have gone on and on about my/creationists describing an intermediate human. However you are unable to articulate what a transitional fossil should like yourself.
How do you know if any fossil is transitioning from a common ancestor, which you have no idea about, into either an ape or human?Further to that we all know how valid your sketchings are after the initial misrepresentations of Neanderthal were falsified by DNA.
So let's look at this guy. I think it is Homo Habilis.
Homo Habilis skull.
Ardi's skull above
Above demonstrates how skulls are reconstructed to suit whatever evolutionists believe as flavour of the month.
Above female Bornean Orangutan. Orangs have more morphology in common with humans than chimps.
Now you explain what you are saying demonstrates the transition from some unknown ape to Ardi to Lucy to Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus to mankind.
How do you know these above are not simply apes or modern day ape ancestors? We know about convergent evolution, parallel evolution, Lluc had flat facial features 12 million years ago and indeed a female Bornean Orangutan skull looks more human than most of your erectus and habilis skulls.eg no sagital keel.
Where is the demonstration of human ancestry given even Turkana Boy, Homo erectus/ergaster, looks just the same as the rest?
Now don't cop out of this Loudmouth. Can you or can you not articulate, as to what makes any of these transitional from a common ancestor of chimps and humans you have no description of, to mankind and modern day chimps? How does the fossil record support ancestry to chimp like and ancestry to nothing like a chimp?