Some evolutionists believe man evolved from apes. What do the present day apes evolved from?
914470
Something would have gone wrong with apes, resulting human evolution.
1157187
Your question is a very reasonable one --and brave, since you'll certainly get answers from religious zealots who have completely closed their minds.  Let me start by saying my *only* personal agenda is a search for the truth, no matter where it leads me.  Unlike many, I'm not here to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. \n\nThe short answer is that I doubt it's possible in this kind of forum to get into enough details to convince a confirmed *creationist* that humans evolved from simpler life forms.  But I hope to encourage an open-minded person to continue with their own research, and not be tempted by overly "easy" answers.   \n\nThe long answer (most of it written by me, some of it transcribed manually; none of it pasted)...\n\nI, too, was unclear about the evolutionary process for a long time.  While I'm not an expert (and *nobody* has *all* the answers) I think I can help you get to a place where it makes *sense* to you as it now does to me, since you appear to have an open mind.  (Agnosticism is good!)  \n\nAfter hearing people's arguments and questions for many years, I am convinced that there are six huge factors getting in the way of a general acceptance of the *overwhelming* scientific evidence for evolution.  \n\n1 - the common misconception that evolution claims apes or chimpanzees changed to human beings, and the perceived indignity -- and indignation -- that goes along with that idea... or with *any* suggestion that we evolved from a lower form.  It's nothing but ridiculous human arrogance!\n2 - the lack of human conception for the vast time life has had on Earth to evolve\n3 - the human temptation to rush things and jump to ridiculous (and therefore naturally hard to believe) conclusions.  Evolution involves not three or four steps, like fish to amphibian to ape to human!)... not hundreds, or even thousands of big, visible steps... but perhaps hundreds of millions of minute, subtle changes in a life form.  Remember, we have had the time!\n4 - the mistaken notion that creatures evolved because they "decided" to, or "wanted" to.  When we say, for example, that fish needed to absorb oxygen more efficiently from the water, so they evolved gills, that's not to imply it was a choice.  Evolution is about mutations... changes that were random from one generation to the next, over long periods of time.  Those changes that happened to be good for the creature meant that creature survived long enough to reproduce, which meant there would now be lots of little babies with that same feature.\n5 - a fearful and/or stubborn refusal to abandon faith in a Creator, since doing so might condemn the unbeliever to eternal suffering\n6 - It's just *easier* to think about a Creator.\n\nI know you want to see some details of our "life's path" to make sense of it, and I will provide that, below.  Just a bit more, first.\n\nThe central ideas of evolution are that all life shares a common ancestor, and that it has changed over time (obviously, if we are to explain getting from A to B).  While it's hard for many people to imagine the changes that would result in, for example, human beings from lifelessness, the first thing to keep firmly in mind is that we are talking about an *unimagineable* amount of time to play with... the earth having been around for some 4.5 billion years, as you said.\n\nUnderstandably, few people can appreciate how much a billion is.  Do you realize that roughly a billion *seconds* ago, "The Godfather, Part 2" was about to win the Academy Award for Best Picture?... that Richard Nixon was President of the U.S.?... that Hank Aaron had just broken Babe Ruth's record of 714 career home runs?  1974 was drawing to a close -- one billion seconds ago.\n\nIt's a lack of appreciation for this vast amount of time which, I think, makes people skeptical.  They wonder how, in any amount of time they can envision, an ape can c
362839
Darwin's theory does hold true. First of all let me state that Darwin NEVER said that man evolved from apes. He stated that in order for a species to survive it would have to change. Survival of the fitest. If species weren't able to adapt to changes then the species would fail.
807648
The better question is, "if evolution is true... what cause some of the monkeys to evolve and the others to stay the same?
1069841
Chrales Darwins theory of evolution from apes is wrong! If we EVOLVED from apes, why are apes still here?? Chrales Darwin evolved from Adam and Eve the same as all mankind\n\nDr Pratt
1183298
no, humans aren't evolved from anything.  they were created by God.
900194
Divergence leads to different developments in species, even those that share a common ancestor. We didn't come from apes as they are today. We came from an ape-like ancestor (primate) that we share with the apes of today, but there were divergent events at some points in history that lead to the developments of homosapiens and the other various primates of today.
716973
Evolution is one of those very dangerous subjects in which just knowing the surface of the subject can be misleading.  Humans did not evolve from monkeys.  We evolved from the ancestors of current apes.  Think of it like a fork in the road.  The apes took their path, and we took ours.  And all evidence does point to Darwin's theory of natural selection being correct.\n\nEdit:  To those of you saying that evolution only occurs over thousands of years.......this isn't necessarily true.  Over the last 50 years bacteria have evolved to become antibiotic resistant.  Since bacteria reproduce on a much shorter time period and they don't have the DNA repair mechanisms that eukaryotes have, their DNA mutates much more rapidly than ours.\n\nAlso, monkeys will NOT eventually evolve into humans in 1000 years as one person claimed.  Humans are not the tip of the evolutionary tree as some would like to think; we are just another branch on the evolutionary bush.
397371
why, if humans evolved from apes, are there still apes hanging around?\n\ndoesn't evolution say we should outperform them to survive, and so they die off??
1098773
We did not evolve from apes. I find it hard to believe evolution can create two different species.  That's like a cat evolving into a duck.
1154759
Post an addendum to your question - you don't need a whole new question.\n\nLeoin is obviously blissfully unaware (or more likely doesn't want to hear) that man and ape SHARED a common ancestor and evolution is based on branches not strength lines.\n\nOne more bit of amateur science to try to bolster an obviously wavering faith.
41337
We don't believe in Darwin's theory. Like my honey said, if man came from monkey why haven't monkeys continued to mutate. After millions of years, monkeys are still monkeys.If monkey mutated to the form of man, shouldn't  man continue to mutate to something.....
765050
"Evolution operates on several assumptions, the first being that there is no other way to explain how life got here without a god, so it must be true by default. "\n\nAbsolutely wrong.\n\n"Many people just say that the fossil record proves evolution, but they don't realize that it doesn't actually represent intermediates between two species but dead branches that became extinct."\n\nThe fossil record shows transitional forms, the kind that the theory of evoltuion predicts should have existed.\n\n"Modern humans did not evolve from neanderthals since they sometimes lived at the same time and place as other early humans, like you might see depicted in some drawings."\n\nTrue, but modern humans did evolve from a earlier primate ancestor that wasn't human.  Neanderthals are more like our cousins.\n\n"If changes can happen within species by chance, like different strains of bacteria, it also does not logically follow with absolute certainty that a single-celled organism can over millions of years evolve into more complex organisms and later evolve into a bird or a human. "\n\nBut the metabolic similarities, the universality of the genetic code, the fact that mitochrondria are in fact desceneded from bacteria, these are all best expained by common descent.\n\n"Not to say that it's wrong, but you can't prove something by inductive reasoning alone."\n\nEvolution is proved by the evidence.\n\nThe below links contain more than enough evidence to convince a reasonable person.
421998
The adherents of Darwin's principle of evolution say Yes, those that believe in creation by God say No, but common sense teaches that we are human being and we never change from anything or to anything. Man is unique in nature and has always remain man since existence. Also since we have not been able to identify any being that has changed to another since men have been keeping records (apart from process of metamorphosis)my conclusion is "Man did not descend from apes"
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.
1181131
You clearly had a poor science class.  Never has the Theory of Evolution stated that man is descendant from APES....\n\nThe Theory of Evolution states that Apes, along with Man, is descendant of a previous life form.  \n\nThink not of Evolution as a Ladder, but as a branching bush.\n\nMan came from previous Hominids, and so did Apes.  \n\nThe separation of races came from the environments.  You see that, in general, the races close to the equator are more dark skinned.  You also see that the races with out as much direct contact to the sun have white skin, which is more susceptible to sunlight, so they recieve more.   \n\nIt's like how the pupil in your eye grows larger and smaller depending on how much light there is.  White skin is comparable to a larger pupil, to get more light.  Dark skin is comparabe to a small pupil, to not recieve as much light, because the environment already has a lot of direct sunlight.\n\n\nAs for all the anti-evolution books below, you may read them, but then read these, the articles all proving the books wrong.\n\nhttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/creator.html\nhttp://www.ncseweb.org/icons/\nhttp://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1244_darwin_on_trial_a_review_12_7_2000.asp\nhttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_atkins/behe.html\nhttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/denton.html\nhttp://www.kcfs.org/pandas.html
305257
First of all science hasn't proven that man evolved from apes. If we did evolve from apes ? How come there are still apes in the jungle? How come all the apes haven't changed to Human beings. How come no one has ever stumbled upon an ape in the process of transforming into a human. \nYou know what . The reason man is so brainy is because he was created in the image and like of God. As a matter of fact science has shown that the average man does not use 90% of his brain capacity.\nGod expects you to do somethings for yourself, use the brain that he has given you to find cure to diseases and solve earths pressing problems instead of questioning his existence.\nPerhaps you should take a trip to Mars or Pluto, may be you might find some fellow ape-men, or sub-species of \nape-men .Wake up man!