New name for evolution, "The Bacteria Diet"

How do you explain this evidence: (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modernThis is from the page 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, which has a lot more evidence. You might want to take a look at some of it.But if you just blow it all off, as most hard core creationists do, you're not worth even bothering with, and I'll probably not even bother with you except for my own amusement.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Bolder, why are you ignoring post #5, above?I presented some evidence very early in the thread and you have ignored it for a day or more now.I might begin to wonder if you have no explanation for the nice sequence shown by those fossils.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.