I already pointed out that this is a fallacy in logic (law of the excluded middle). The conclusion has nothing to do with the premise. (By the way, you and Donh need to get together - he said no evolutionist ever made such a suggestion as this).
This has not been refuted. Using only the mathematics of the above, it is not unreasonable to see a possible connection of origin between X and Y. It is not proof, as you say, but there is a possibility. Explain where your "theory of the excluded middle" is located on a prominent science page so that I can see for myself whether it applies.
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.