Precisely which question from which of your posts? That's what you get for dodging the question.
Let's say I grant you this - fact - of evolution, however you mean it, define it, imagine it. I don't care. But might there be some theory you have to help explain it? Might it involve certain words, ideas, mentioned by Darwin in Origin of the Species, such that the word, chance, is mentioned, and, mutation, and natural selection, and now something termed genetic drift? And how might these be woven together as some sort of explanation?
How can one understand you if you don't understand what you mean, yourself? What is this theory that might explain this fact, as you see it?
I've already told you (and I readily concede again) that I'm neither a biologist nor a paleontologist. If you're trying to say that you know more about this or that aspect of evolution studies than I do, why should I dispute that? But please don't throw sand into the air to obscure the original point that I wanted to make, the point that I made again in post #11 on this thread, which is that the fossil discovery that I mentioned would, if it occurred, invalidate the idea that modern humans evolved from earlier hominids within the last few hundred thousand to few million years. And that means that evolutionary accounts of how modern humans came to be are subject to falsification (which they must be if they're to have any status as a scientific theory).
If you want to dispute about this particular point, we can. But it doesn't rest on any detail about how evolution works, but rather just on the fact of evolution (as you put it).