Find a book on logic and look up "law of the excluded middle" in the logical fallacies section. The conclusion x evolved from Y does not flow from the original premise. And logically, I would be just as correct in assumning that chimps evolved from men as you would be in concluding that man evolved from chimps! Your saying that there is a "possibility" is not science - it is faith. There is no reason to believe that man evolved from chimps unless you have a faith in evolutionary theory. What happened to your pure scientific approach? What happened to "oil and water". It seems you yourself are more religious (take it on faith) than scientific when it comes to evolution.
Man did not evolve from chimps. Man is X and chimps are Y. Somewhere along the line, they have a common ancestor, I believe. A theory has been presented to the world which is the only SCIENTIFIC THEORY that has ample evidence. You can choose to ignore it because you want to stick with the safe "goddidit" approach to life, I am more inclined to see otherwise. A possible theory, backed by evidence has an amount of faith in it. Your theories have zero evidence and constitute pure faith. That's fine, but it is not for me.
The law of the excluded middle applies to formal logical reasoning about discrete sets, it does not apply to analogical reasoning, or reasoning by induction on statistical evidence. When dealing with statistical evidence, you are dealing with fuzzy (or poorly determined) sets. The tradition laws of logic to which you allude apply to unambiguously discrete sets, they are innacurate when applied willy-nilly to fuzzy sets.