I told you that wouldn't prove a thing. It's irrelevant, and particularly since you have no theory against which to test it. Aha! you say. I have the proof of the theory. And here I'm saying - you don't have a theory to begin with.
Don't put the plow in front of the horse and tell the horse the pull. Proper order. Theory first. Proof second.
If the fossilized bones of a modern human were found in previously undisturbed 50-million-year-old sediment, it would be impossible for modern humans to have evolved from earlier hominids which are only a few million years old. Hence it would be false to claim that modern humans evolved from the earlier hominids that we currently recognize (because the discovered bones would be far older than those hominids ever were).
I maintain that this argument—which is essentially the same argument I've made twice before and won't repeat again—is independent of any particular mechanism or detail of evolution theory. It's a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. If you disagree, make your case.
Folks may want to take a closer look at just how science works. Many posts in this thread have made significant errors in scientific method. For example, many are spending time on how to prove a "theory." From this and related threads, some want evolution labeled as a "theory" so that it will not be taken seriously and so creation science or intelligent design can be given equal footing.
If you want to do science, at least do your homework.
I am not going to give a lecture (that costs extra), but here's a hint--look up the role of hypotheses and hypothesis testing in science.
The rest is left as an exercise for the student.