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.
I thought you said that evolutionists never made the conclusions about evolution from DNA similarity??? The very fact that you bother to respond to my post indicate that you are well aware that they did! That's one black mark for you! haha.
What did you do - go and pick up a book on logic to come up with this answer? The idea of evolution is indeed a willy-nilly and fuzzy thing, but the claim that man evolved from chimps or that they had a common ancestor is a formal claim. I have already expressed it formally. Here it is again:
X is similar to Y in Z
Therefore, Y evolved from X, or Therefore, Y and X evolved from K
The law of the excluded middle applies no matter how adamantly you say it doesn't because evolutionists have made the above conclusion.