Homo sapiens did not evolve from monkeys and apes. But we share common ancestors, as we do with all living things.
and another think...<br />
See, in my previous life I used to be a high school teacher... and when confronted with how to explain this theory (which I did among the other theories, too) I would draw a tree, a family tree if you will, and at the veeeery tips of the veeery long branches were all the organisms we see today. At the places where the branches fork (or branch, if you will) were the ancestors that led to the life-forms on the tips, and as you get closer to the trunk each forking off was the home to some other organism, but each time it displayed some common properties with those on the tips. <br />
Then because of some localized conditions, a region-only disaster, or some environmental change I could erase some of the branches; some close to the trunk, some at the forks. That is extinction crisis and selection.<br />
Then remaining on the tips of the branches were the most recent versions of the organisms we see today, COexistant, and at about the same level in their OWN evolutionary processes. Human (I don't call them just "man" since there are females, too) sits at the end of a branch, Chimp at another, Gorilla on another and so on, and they can all look back and see, VERY distant ancestors, but some of the bridges that would make the connections possible and just not there anymore. We used to call these missing links. My esteemed co-respondants above have mentioned some of them by name.
Evolution is a series of mutations. Not all populations are exposed to this mutation maybe.
That any human being supposes that "man" "evolved from monkeys and apes" proves beyond question that "man" is still nothing more than a monkey.
Because half the terms in your question are too vague. meaning not specific. Humans, apes, monkeys. Get cool and nerdy. Watch this. <br />
Chromosomes de novo mutate. New life forms evolve. Some life forms degrade.
I remember fighting-out questions like this in grade school. The Creation/evolution debate is a waste of time and it bores me to tears; but I will say that creationists who attempt to defend their position using science make fools of themselves. What's wrong with the use of metaphysics in the defence of Creationism?<br />
I have no direct answer to the specifics of the question and I haven't the slightest interest in knowing one way or the other....and I mean no offence.
Actually...the Creationist issue took root before the emergence of the fundamentalists. The Scopes Monkey Trial, Dayton, TN in the 1920's--I think.
In fact--the trial is where the conservative protestants drew the line in the sand; after that, christians were either fundamentalists or church-goin' atheists.
I hate to be so disagreeable--but the fundys who take the "hodge-podge of bible verses" and misinterpret things (etc.,) are the pre-millenial, dispensationalist-rapture watchers.
I guess I'm bored with media-hype-inflated issues.
Next time your in the library, You know the place with all the books, look up The Blind Watch Maker, by Richard Dawakns. Read it, you may fine it interesting and exciting.
the Apes lost the Monkey wrench so they couldn't change anything...and the monkeys quit monkey-ing around with their genes...
Read a book. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I don't believe in ' if '.
in the zoo or jungle I hope..
That's it folks, the nail in evolution's coffin. Give this young lady a nobel prize.