Was the common ancestor an ape then?
Yes, one of the common ancestors (the one we share with chimps and the one we have been talking about) was 100% ape. Maybe you didn't read the earlier posts ...
Of course the common ancestor of man and chimpanzees was an ape. At no point did anyone on this thread or the IRC thread say otherwise (except for a creationist who was putting words into someone else's mouth). Richard said this on the same thread but he didn't say "chimp" or "monkey" once.
It has been explained to you over and over again that the common ancestor of men and other apes was an ape.
And even when I
drew a picture to show you that the common ancestor between humans and chimps is an ape you seemed to ignore me ...
I have attached a homemade diagram [...]
I have included the common ancestor (our common ancestor with chimps) in the ape section on purpose. I have also included another common ancestor, the one we share with monkeys

Thank you for addressing this (following) point, I am happy to know that you are not just glancing-over the words on the page and actually considering my argument.
Remember that much earlier in the discussion I mentioned that the process in no way is related to the words used to label it?
What process are you talking about, give me examples so I can understand your intent with "process".
Happy to oblige ... way back in the beginning I mentioned that the term "selection" has a specific meaning in biology which is separate form the day-to-day meaning of "selection". Here is a definition of the process that biology labels as "selection"...
4. Biology. any natural or artificial process that results in differential reproduction among the members of a population so that the inheritable traits of only certain individuals are passed on, or are passed on in greater proportion, to succeeding generations.
and more specifically natural selection ...
natural selection
The process by which organisms that are better suited to their environment than others produce more offspring. As a result of natural selection, the proportion of organisms in a species with characteristics that are adaptive to a given environment increases with each generation. Therefore, natural selection modifies the originally random variation of genetic traits in a species so that alleles that are beneficial for survival predominate, while alleles that are not beneficial decrease. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection forms the basis of the process of evolution
You are begging the question with "process of evolution".
Okay, I will accept that point, perhaps I was a bit hasty having not formally explained why I am using "evolution", "the theory of evolution" and "natural selection" at different points in my argument.
Evolution and its sidekick natural selection are the terms under dispute. Everything pivots on this term natural selection. You would also need to define for me the difference between "evolution" and "Theory of Evolution", since evolution and natural selection are used interchangeably.
The word evolution refers to the theory of evolution. I am using it as short-hand (as most people do) instead of typing-out the whole term again and again. This is common practice. Very seldom do you hear people refer to gravity as "the theory of gravitation" or people referring to planetary orbits as "the theory of planetary motion".
So "evolution" = "the theory of evolution" and can be interchanged.
"Natural selection", on the other hand, does not describe the entire process of evolution. Evolution comprises three main processes; natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow. The process of natural selection was the entirety of Darwin's theory of evolution because in those days there was no knowledge of DNA.
Natural selection is by no means a "sidekick" of evolution, it is part and parcel of the theory of evolution.
Evolution and its sidekick natural selection are the terms under dispute.
If, as you state, "evolution" and "natural selection" are the terms under dispute then why are you objecting to me using both? At no point has the meaning of "evolution" been incorrectly used when "natural selection" should have been used.