It's anti-science to make flat-out assertions without evidence to back them up. "None of the above" is very hard to reconcile with the evidence, since, as has been pointed out before, the creationists themselves disagree whether some of these guys are in the "non-human ape baramin" or the "human baramin". If nothing else, that establishes that H. erectus, H. ergaster, et al, are neither clearly non-human nor clearly human.
Oh but it's not. It's just looking at the evidence with a stricter and more skeptical set of assumptions.
You find fossils in a particular strata and if you believe in evolution you assume those fossils were the ancestor of something. If you don't believe in evolution, you might consider that those fossils belonged to something that never evolved but went extinct. Or you might think some evolution occurred but it is still basically the same creature as one still with us.