i felt the same way

I have but they could have also been there own species altogether. We are simply making the assumtion that they are related

so it is known the common ancestor between say a plant and the first animal like organism but i just dont know it

but

lets say it wasnt known

it could still safley be assumed because that how the rest of life works. its like one big family tree

ill find a diagram online

this is a horrible looking timeline lol but its the timeline and evolutionary tree of humans

jeez

you cant even read it lol

i really wish we could go into voice chat and i could explain the tree to you

this one is a bit better but i wish it had the lines

which one is "Lucy"

The very first one

Austrolepithicus

Then I guess not the very first one

The third one

So how do we know that they were not simply their own species?

It’s a somewhat hard question to answer for me but maybe that’s because of my ignorance. But I know a few reasons. For one they roamed the same parts of Africa as we did. We know that they did not go extinct that they clearly just evolved because of other fossils found of later evolution of the species.

And to be fair it is it’s own species

But slowly through times it evolved into other species which after many other changes turned into us

That’s a poor wording on how evolution works

theoretically

No

There’s evidence for it

Sure but evidence doesn't mean proof

There’s fossil records that show the link between austrolepithicus and and next evolution

Yes it does

Evidence means proof

Absolutely

You can’t have proof without evidence

If you have evidence of a man who killed someone then that is proof that he is a murderer and he killed someone

Sure an abundance of evidence can lead you to a conclusion

Yes

Absolutely

The only reason you should be lead to a conclusion is from and abundance of evidence

ok....let's say I wear reading glasses

You solve equations from an abundance of evidence to get the answer

Ok