I understand what you are saying and on the surface it seems potentially possible. But if you look deeper it really starts to unravel quickly. You must understand that evolutionary theory is all about the "tree"...organisms slow developing into new and different organisms over long ages, spreading like a family does (visually)...this is all about how one gob of cells turned into something more advance, then all kinds of splits and eventually to us right now...the human is as advanced evolutionary wise as today's tiger or chimp or lobster. This is how evolution works under the widely praised and accepted common descent theory/ aka self titled "fact".

Animals species gradually changing due to environmental factors and some gene mutations within their own species is not "common descent macro evolution" which is what is the mainstream evolutionary thought. That is more micro in nature, adaptation, variation, etc... I have no problems with this because it can be actually studied, observed and tested.

When we stretch out to broad brush these series of slow changes to turn into completely new Family groups that never existed before...then there is no objective real evidence to support it at all. There is subjective evidence, manipulated evidence, wishful thinking evidence, and simple "it just has to be so it is" evidence. Where is the real evidence of all this morphing and changing other that intellectual theory and flow charts? It just doesn't exist.

Prehistoric mankind...was some less advanced version of ourselves...not human like we are and descendended form chimps or apes which descended from some other creatue and so on? Poof...some factors and variables and a huge amount of years later here we is!! Where is the proof or evidence of this happening?

Historical science cannot be observed, tested or repeated, only the cold dead evidences in the ground normally. No one was there to view the life, and what went down. So from a few skulls, a leg bone here and there, maybe a tooth---this field of science writes an entire origins narrative on how man came into existence??? Really? These skull differences...why aren't they just adaptation and variation? How do the scientists know from a few dried bones what those remains represented: looks, thoughts, communication, emotions, work, community?? They don't, so they guess.

Now sure, all animal kinds including humans share certain traits to some degree. Mammals have many commonalities...that's what they are in the mammal classification. Just because we have hair, digits, teeth, walk upright, have faces, and poop our of our buts...that doesn't mean we are in the lineage of chimps or apes.

The bottom line on my thoughts are that this is all just theory from the evolutionary viewpoint. The scientists kind of own their little world so they all agree that it is basically fact. So that gets sent to the textbooks...then to the media...then to the students...ad eventually you have this overwhelming force that is anti-creationism.