Perry, to quote from Evolution Dismantled as you do, is not the way to clarify complex issues such as the provenance of our ancestral species. The right sources of reference are from the painstaking research and analysis of paleoanthropologists who devote their lives to understanding these things, some of whose words are missapropriated in your copied text.
As for "many prominent Scientists have quoted Homo erectus as Homo sapiens". Firstly, can't you see that it sounds just like Watchtower propaganda? No scientist uses the expression "many prominent scientists" because it carries no weight of evidence. What is critically important is the geology and stratum in which the fossil was found, the detailed evidence of morphology to place it within the existing phylogenetic tree. Not forgetting the multidisciplinary dating appraisal of the soils and rocks as well as the fossil.
Secondly the labelling of species (taxonomy) is a permanent scholarly tug of war between the "splitters" and the "lumpers", those who wish to form new species or genera and those who would place them under existing labels. There are no divinely ordained "kinds". . . So whatever the taxa, habilis, erectus or heidlebergensis as species, it does not deny them being ancestral to sapiens.
The science regarding human evolution has not yet been fully written, there is a lot yet to be discovered and discoveries are being made more frequently than ever in this field. Understandably science is a long way off from having a complete record-- but what the evidence most certainly is NOT showing us, is any basis for a mythical and miraculous creation of Adam and Eve.