I don't think most critics of evolution would dispute that your pics might constitute a limited form of micro-evolution, or at least the possibility thereof. But for the picture to be complete, you'd have to take the evolutionary line a lot further back than you've done there. And as far as I'm concerned, the problem with the theory of evolution is that it does not very well account for the beginnings of the process, the development of complex molecules, amino acids, proteins, DNA, etc., i.e., how the whole process overcame the law of entropy and the laws of probability. You would have to posit some organizational property inherent in matter that would be almost equivalent to intelligent design.
> your pics might constitute a limited form of micro-evolution
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!
> you'd have to take the evolutionary line a lot further back than you've done there.
I haven't the time to do all your Google work for you.
> it does not very well account for the beginnings of the process
It does not claim to. That's in the realm of chemistry, not evolution.
> how the whole process overcame the law of entropy and the laws of probability
It has not "overcome" either. It is well in accordance with both.
An artiodactyl (two toed ungulate) evolving into a legless, finned animal completely adapted to salt water oceans and you call that a limited form of micro-evolution.
Do I sense the goal posts moving again?