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).
the idea that modern humans evolved from earlier hominids I told you that wouldn't prove a thing. It's irrelevant, and particularly since you have no theory against which to test it. Aha! you say. I have the proof of the theory. And here I'm saying - you don't have a theory to begin with.
Don't put the plow in front of the horse and tell the horse the pull. Proper order. Theory first. Proof second.