For those not blinded by religious horror it ought to be absolutely obvious. Not much of an inference.
How does this chart indicate that Australopithecus evolved? Agruably you can say it devolved since it's cranium is bigger than the chimps, or, more reasonably, say it was a type of primate that became extinct -- which appears to be a widely held view among scientist in good standing in the evolution club.
Why would you say it devolved if it is more adapted to bipedalism than any previous fossil primate and had a larger cranial capacity? You're not making any sense here.
It became extinct in the sense that there are no living representatives of that species. However, it is a fine candidate for being the ancestor of later forms such as H. habilis and, indirectly through those later forms, H. sapiens. (If some later africanuses overlapped in time with some habilis specimens, so what? There are still monkeys, fish, and protozoans, too.)
Regardless, the fossil record is subject to debate.
There are reasonable debates among real scientists and there are the relentless, discredited, back-again-dumb-as-a-stumpisms of creationism. There is no question among real scientists that humans arose from apes. The real debates among real scientists, no matter how amplified and distorted by creationists, are not about that.
Also, J, K and L show Neanderthal man. Why would they be on a chart of the family tree of man?
We may well carry Neanderthal genes. The latest genetic evidence weighs strongly against total replacement of pre-existing local by the last Out-of-Africa wave.
Also, if the chart were being made today it could just as easily have replaced one or more of the Neanderthals with early H. sapiens specimens like Homo sapiens idaltu (160 kya) and Qafzeh 9, 90-100 kya. It would be just as smooth a progression. Several closely related (probably not speciated from each other) branches were experiencing the same trend toward intelligence, tool-making, etc.
You're working too hard to not know the real evidence, to refuse to infer, to spread misinformation. This is not the path to understanding.
I assume someone will challenge this. New analysis shows three human migrations out of Africa, Replacement theory 'demolished'.
OK, Vade. When an pro-evo objects that evolution does not claim that man evolved from apes, I'll cite you as the authority that it does :-)