In the human body what is the most compelling evidence that we are ancestors of apes or other lower primates?
594431
1. There is no such thing as a "lower primate". Only creationists who are ignorant of evolutionary science would ever  use such a term. All organisms have been evolving for EXACTLY the same amount of time. There are no "lower" organisms.\n\n2. We are not simply the descendants of apes, we ARE apes. Humans are one of the 5 currently living great ape species. \n\n3. The most compelling evidence is in the degre of genetic homogeneity, with over 95% of genetic material shared between humans and the chimp species.
364515
If you are going to comment about evolution, at least do yourself the favor of actually learning what it is.\n\nHumans did not evolve from the species of apes and monkeys that you see today.  Instead, all current primates (including humans) evolved from a common ancestor.  That was an "ape" that lived thousands of years ago, but it didn't look like the monkeys and gorillas you see today.\n\nGo to a museum, read a science book, or watch the Discovery channel sometime.  They all show you how humans evolved.\n\nIt doesn't take faith to believe in evolution.  It just takes the ability to open your eyes and look at the evidence.
292034
We all had a common ancestor.  It just so happens that apes evolved differently to suit their environment than humans; we didn't evolve from each other, just divergently from our ancestor
841059
Mankind did not land on Earth. Rather, we evolved from lifeforms already present on the Earth. Our evolutionary roots can be traced a few million years back and the species that most closely resembles us in terms of genetic makeup(which is also most probably the one from which we completed the final stage of evolution) is the chimpanzee.
558604
In terms of actual, hard paleontological and archaeological evidence, there is no disagreement amongst the scientific community that Homo sapiens originated in Africa.\n\nThis has nothing to do with the fact that three of the modern species of great ape, which are also the three which are most closely genetically linked to modern humans are found in Africa.  This is strong corroborating evidence, but it is the actual physical bones and tools of early humans that are first found in Africa.\n\nThis also takes place LONG after the break up of Pangea.  A map of the Earth at the time would look pretty much exactly the same as it does now.  The main differences would be on the coast lines, where differences in sea levels during glaciations or in inter-glacial periods would reveal or conceal large sections of coastal real estate.\n\nThe African origin of humans is also evidenced in mitochondrial DNA studies and other projects mapping the human genome and regional variations.  The greatest genetic diversity among all human populations occurs amongst African peoples.  Genetic comparisons between groups such as the San and !Kung tribes of the Kalahari, the Mbutu tribes of the Congo basin, and populations in East and West Africa show more genetic variability than exists between Asians, North American Indians and Europeans.  This indicates that Africa was the site of the original development of the human population, and that all the other groups of human 'races' are actually descended from just one group of the diverse African genetic mileau (the East African branch actually).  \n\nYes, that means that if you were able to trace back through the family trees you would find that the Grand Wizard of the KKK is actually more closely related to the Masai warriors of Kenya than Oprah Winfrey is (who is of West African descent).\n\nFrom Africa, humans spread out all over the globe, crossing land bridges and sailing across stretches of water to reach Australia at least 45,000 years ago (by the Upper Swan River near Perth, as well as the Willandra lakes region in the southern interior by 40,000 years ago), and crossing the Beringia land bridge exposed between Alaska and Russia to colonize North America about 12,000 years ago.\n\nThe only debate in scientific circles is whether there was one or several migrations of humans out of Africa.  The first anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) appear in South Africa, at the cave complex of Klasies River Mouth by 100,000 years ago.  After that, the same phenotypic subspecies, with a distinctive round cranium, thin walled skull, lack of a strong brow ridge and a protruding chin (also known as a mental eminence) started appearing in the Middle East, Europe and Asia.\n\nSome indicate that this suggests that anatomically modern humans arose in South Africa, and spread out once again from there to take over or intermingle with all of the populations of earlier Homo sapiens (such as the Neandertals) that had migrated out of Africa.  There are others who have proposed a 'regional continuity' model, where the populations of Homo sapiens that had moved out of Africa and into Europe and Asia somehow totally independently for some reason developed the exact same phenotypic changes in morphology seen in the South African population, and Homo sapiens sapiens evolved throughout the entire range of the species.  No one has yet managed to propose a viable mechanism for this unusual pattern of evolution.  It has always seemed to me to be a vaguely racist hypothesis, as if even scientists are unwilling to accept the evidence that all humans could possibly have come from Africa THAT recently.\n\nStrong, independent physical evidence comes from the fields of palaeontology, archaeology, geology, biogeography, and genetics that humans definitely originated in Africa, and moved out from there to colonize the rest of the world.  There is also evidence that it happened as many as three times (Homo erectu
530595
One huge misconception about evolution is that the sequence is fixed. The apes *are* evolving. They are changing in response to their environment. But that environment is different than the one our ancestors had 3-6 million years ago. So they won't change in the same way our ancestors did.
230135
There is evidence to say that we are still evolving. Many people believe that our brains have gotten larger.\n\nProblem is that evolution through natural selection takes millions upon millions of years. The human lifespan is nothing next to this. That is why it is so hard for us humans to wrap our minds around the concept of geologic time & evolutionary changes.\n\nHere is the deal w/ the whole monkey issue:\n\nWe did not evolve from monkeys. Biggest misconception ever. Certain groups of people like to keep this myth going b/c it helps their cause.\n\nActually we (human line) branched off millions of years ago during the Oligocene. The line that we think of as apes & monkeys form a different branch of the evolutionary tree. We are not directly decended from monkeys OR apes. They are on different branches all their own.\n\nSome theorists believe (i.e. S. J. Gould) something called punctuated equilibrim in which at certain times in history evolutionary changes occurred in short spurts due to changes in the climate/environment which in turned allowed natural selection to occur. Makes sense --> no change = no natural selection = no evolutionary changes.\n\nWe have seen in the past that some groups of people are naturally immune to select diseases. IF a particular disease occurs in which only 1/4 of the population is immune & the rest die out, then you have a change in the evolutionary gene pool.\n\nNatural selection still occurs today. The peppered moth is one example.
5138
Exactly. Humans did not evolve from primates. The theory of evolution is full of holes.
129358
Humans or human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms. Biologically, humans are classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for "thinking man"): a bipedal primate of the superfamily Hominoidea, together with the other apes: chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons.
648502
That's a really poor way of saying that apes and humans both have DNA which is 97% identical in the sequencing of certain alleles... It does indicate that we share a common ancestory, but the 3% difference is HUGE.
398128
we did not evolve from apes\nwe are not "children" of apes we are more like "cousins"\nwe have common ancestors and we have all evolved to suit different situations
1175000
I believe that certain people are descended from monkeys, and others are not. Ask me sometime, and I'll point out which ones  are which.\n\nBut as far as what people prefer to believe, people prefer to believe that which gives them more meaning in life or more comfort that they won't have to account for themselves. That is why people believe as they believe, evidence is insignificant compared to that.
958806
Humans and the other apes evolved from a common ancestor. That ancestor split from what we call monkeys some time before that.\nwww.talkorigins.org has a lot of good information. There is a good article here:\nwww.nature.com/nature/focus/hominid\n\nI also second the recomendation of www.becominghuman.org
264365
Because we didn't evolve from apes we share a COMMON ANCESTOR with other apes (we are actually a species of ape, but you were probably using the term in the common, not the scientific, sense).  That common ancestor no longer exists.\n\nFor those who say that evolution is false:\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n\n2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.\n\nCreationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution.  This is true.  However, it does provide evidence that macroevolution may be possible. Taken in the context of the other evidence for evolution, microevolution provides a mechanism by which macroevolution could occur. On its own, it doesn't prove that macroevolution occurs, but it does suggest that it is possible.\n\n3. The fossil record.\n\nAlthough the fossil record does not provide a “complete” record as fossils form only under certain conditions, it does show a gradual change in the morphology of species as well as numerous extinct species.  There are a number of methods used to date fossils, and the time period from which a fossil comes can be determined with reasonable accuracy.\n\n4. Imperfect structures (the blind spot of the mammalian eye, for example).\n\nI want to mention the bind-spot of the mammalian eye specifically because creationists often hold up the human eye up as an example of something that is too perfect to occur by "chance" (i.e. as the result of the natural selection of beneficial changes among random mutations).\n\nThere are also numerous examples where the morphology of a species is constrained by similar patterns in its ancestors (quadrupeds, vertebrates, etc.).\n\n5. Developmental biology reflects evolutionary lineage.\n\nCreationists like to bring up a man named Haeckel in response to this argument.  Haeckel suggested that development reflects evolutionary origin.  It was later discovered that several of the sketches he used as evidence over-exaggerated certain features, and some were of different embryos all together. However, many of his sketches do accurately reflect the morphology of the embryo. Haeckel's methods were sometimes wrong and his ethics were poor, but it just so happens that his theory turned out to be fairly accurate.\n\nAny developmental biologist can tell you that embryos of related species show similar morphology in the early stages of development. The point at which their development begins to diverge shows a strong correlation with the relative point at which the evolution of the two species diverged. Human embryos look similar to chimpanzee embryos for a lot longer than they look similar to ca
930216
Proof is in the eye of the beholder. And one cannot prove anything to someone who doesn't want to be convinced that his or her own ideas are wrong.\n\nThere may not be anything which you would consider to be proof, but there is evidence, and the evidence comes from each and every related scientific field.  I believe in evolution because of the evidence for it, and the lack of any evidence for alternative "theories," like creationism or Intelligent Design.  Such evidence as:\n\nThe progressive nature of animals, plants, and fungi within the fossil record. These fossils were clearly not all deposited and fossilized at the same time, since they are all in different strata, and isotopic dating indeed confirms that those buried deeper are older. Below is a list of progressively more complex life forms and the aproximate age of the fossils as they appeared.\nMicrobial (procaryotic cells) 3,500 MYA\nComplex (eucaryotic cells) 2,000 MYA\nFirst multicellular animals 670 MYA\nShell-bearing animals 540 MYA\nVertebrates (simple fishes) 490 MYA\nAmphibians 350 MYA\nReptiles 310 MYA\nMammals 200 MYA\nNonhuman primates 60 MYA\nEarliest apes 25 MYA\nAustralopithecine ancestors of humans 4 MYA\nModern humans 0 .15 (150,000 years) MYA\nOne can criticize the accuracy of the isotopic dating method until Christ returns, but until creationists can come up with a more accurate and reliable method to date rocks and fossils, they are simply whining. When properly done, isotopic dating methods are highly accurate, and other independent methods collaborate the findings.  Creationists tend to NOT perform these procedures correctly.  Why?  Because they don't want accurate results.  Evidence AGAINST evolution is not evidence FOR creationism.\n\nStructural homologies. Why do humans have tailbones? Why do boas and pythons have vestigial limbs? Why do whales have pelvises? The mammalian ear and jaw are instances in which paleontology and comparative anatomy combine to show common ancestry through transitional stages. The lower jaws of mammals contain only one bone, whereas those of reptiles have several. The other bones in the reptile jaw are homologous with bones now found in the mammalian ear. Paleontologists have discovered intermediate forms of mammal-like reptiles (Therapsida) with a double jaw joint--one composed of the bones that persist in mammalian jaws, the other consisting of bones that eventually became the hammer and anvil of the mammalian ear. Any scientific theory that wishes to explain how life formed on the planet must explain why different species share similar structures, as well as homologous metabolic processes, such as the clotting cascade in blood. Even the most advanced fishes do not have blood that clots, but in the more advanced fishes, parts of the cascade are present. In the simple fishes, less of the parts are present. Yet the fossils of the first simple fishes are found in much deeper geological strata than the advanced ones, meaning they are much older and came about first. Evolution explains all of this nicely; common descent. Creationism doesn't explain it at all. \n\nThe distribution of species. On the Galapogos Islands, there are many species of animals and plants that are similar to those found on the mainland of South America, but are radically different in many ways. Specifically, the 14 different species of finches found there, the Marine Iguana, and the Galapogos Land Iguana. What is the explaination as to why these animals appear on the islands and nowhere else? Simple. Due to the prologed geolgraphical isolation and the unique requirements to survive on that island, natural selection picked those animals that were different form the rest. They survived to pass on their genes, and they established a population.\n\nSimilarities During Development \nEmbryology, the study of biological development from the time of conception, is another source of independent evidence for common descent. Barnacles, fo
190230
Humans did not evolve from apes nor the other way around.  However humans and apes do share a common ancestor.  This ancestor was not human or ape but it was the foundation from which they both evolved on two separate and distinct paths (evolutionary tracts). In fact most people have heard the apes are the closest species related to humans, but the truth is, Chimpanzees are the closet to us, genetically, physically and in mental capabilities. Apes and Humans diverged on separate evolutionary tracks about 8 million years ago while Humans and Chimps only diverged at about 5 million yrs ago.\nThere is a 4% genetic-sequence difference between chimps and Humans, which means that our DNA is 96% identical. But we did not evolve from one another, we just shared a distant, now extinct relative.  Hope this clears things up.
1097944
According to current theories of macroevolution, humans did not descend from apes, monkeys, or any other species currently in existence.  A large amount of research (genetic comparisons, fossil record, comparative taxonomy, etc.) suggests that humans and modern apes had ancestors in common.  \n\nOf course, we would probably consider those common ancestors to be more like apes than humans.  (Perhaps apes would consider them to be more like us?)  This is not unexpected.  Different members of a species can and do differentiate along different paths.  Some paths are pretty straight: they don't change much over time.  Some paths wind all over the place.  The paths that survive are those that are best adapted to survive in their particular environment.  Humans are so successful as a species because we've developed the capacity to adapt to almost any environment on Earth.  That's evolution!\n\nIf you want to learn more, check out the link below!