Why are there no human apes alive today?

If humans really did evolve from human apes then why are there no human apes alive today ( or well atleast no known) ?How come the chimpanzees and the orangutangs and the gorillas survived untill this day practically staying the same shape ( I havent got any information about the monkeys evolution in the past) While more advanced forms of semi humans died out ore evolved ?I mean. There is only 1 species of humans today. I can get kids with anyone of the races i would like but there is really only one known. I think it doesen't make sence at all.How would the primitive apes have survied along side with the most advanced form of humans. While all the semi humans died out ?Edited by Admin, : Remove space in title before the question mark.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add the "(1 FINAL MESSAGE PER MEMBER TIME)" to topic title.Edited by Admin, : No reason given.

Ok no satisfying answers yet, Maybe the question wasn't asked correctly ?Definition species. Something that can reproduce with something else. This is a good description of species.Definition races. A sub form of species. Like black N white people ( Im not a racist no hate males please)I read in Illustrerad vetenskap ( swedish science magazine ) That they have found evidence of a Neander thal mated with a common human. Or well they found a fosil with a neanderthal skull and common human body. Wich means that the neander thals were simply another race of humans, or well i think it is much more likely than counting neander thals as an own species.Answering with that they didn't survive is only answering how not why.The real question is, Why should i believe that humans evolved from more primitive ape like versions, When there are no such creatures today. There are only apes and humans. No knowmn human apes. And the fosil evidence isn't especially satisfying at all, There are no links i have actually found.And what was once considerd as the missing link now turned out to be bluff. Like the piltdown human or nebraska man. Or like this, if we have not found any living missing links between humans and apes, If we have not found any missing link in the fosil record. Why should i believe that we evolved from apes ?I hope i get some more satisfying answers now

Chimps, orangutans, and gorillas all came from the same common ancestor we did, and they've been changing as well. Other branches have developed and died out. The apes we see today (including us - remember, we are primates as well)If Darwinism is true, * were. Quit frankly humans are a class of our own.

LoL this is what i loooove with theese forums about faith or reigion. It is so easy to start flamers unintentionally ^^Who said im a creationist ? Well humans are to be considerd as our own species quit frankly. Do you know why ? Because our brain capacity is far superior to any other creature. I was actually saying If evolution is true so there was no reseon to flame at all lol. But what ever. Are you saying im agaisnt science just because im against evolution ?

What is science? Is it scientific to beleive in abiogenisis or big bang ? Infact that is less scientific then any religion that ever existed. Atleast from a mathematic perspective.The hypothesis about humans evolving from apes is not welldocumented nor is it science.For exampel, have you ever read a science magazine lately ? When i read about evolution i often get the impression that every time some new fosil is found significant changes are being made in the " tree of life"Im guessing you are aware of this. So is it really well established or well documented ?Instead of blindly believing in evolutionist. How about studying the evidence your'e self. The recreations of human apes in science magazines are intentionally made to look more like apes the older it is.For exampel, When the nebraska man was found. The scientific magazines flowed with images of a human ape, Based upon nothing more than a tooth, that later turned out to belong to an extinct pig species....Neanderthals are another exampel of how you can not trust in the evolutionist recreation of human apes. The first Neander thal fosils were made very ape like. But it turned out the fosil this was based on belonged to a deformed old man.Another exampel of the evolutionists wishing thoughts were Archapitetus, Said to be the first walking ape, But this was only based upona few fragments from the jaw. Do you think this was enough o recreate a walking human ape ?Of course not. Obviusly in theese cases plus the piltdown and the new guinnea man, Alot of wishing was involved. The evolutionist tried to form the evidence to make it look like they wanted. This was not scientific.Do you really think the evolutionist has changed at all ? Should we really believe in what the evolutionist says without studying the evidence for our selves ?No the evolutionist are constantly bending the evidence to make it look the way they want it. And im afriad saying that the human evolution is well documented is simply falsce. First of all there are very few fosils considering all the species who lived, so its not a very good base at all.So im afraid it is not unscientific to believe that humans did not evolve. Im not saying the creationist are much better ( Allthough infinetly better from a mathematic view point) But making suchs claim as that im unscientific by not believing in evolution is no better then a priest saying that atheist are evil.

Indeed i agree.But when a human thinks he has found the truth. He is not open to anything else.Ok Homo ergaster is new to me. Why do they have so complicated names anyway ?

Do i really need any links ? I am trying to use only common knolledge because i hate using links.Abiogenisis is impossibel and is very likely to be the worst myth ever made by humans. And the form of Darwinism that is allto common today. Evolutionist should simply solve this by saying something created it but they choose to stick to it.I believe you need to go and study books if you are questioning why i am not linking facts for common knolledge. I recomend this video were richard dawkins speaks himself =)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
For learning about what i said

Very long post. Hurt my eye there.But fine i guess i can comment on the chain.Australopithecus africanus was originally hyped to be the first upgoing humanoid in the history, Later more detaieled evidence shows that it was remarkable ape like. This is allso the species lucy was (If i remember right) But if this species was found today. It would be placed in zoos like all the modern apes are, and noone would call them human apes.There seems to be a huge gap between C and D or is it just me ?Only the 3 first were possibly all chimpanzees. Or some simmulair ape like species. While all the rest are humans ( Assuming evolution is true )So thanks for giving me a better insight of the supposed chain. But i will try to make some new arguements if you hate creationist so badly (LOL)D-N are all diffrent races of humans as suggested by the name homo. However there are extreme significant diffrences among the modern variations of man today. ( How do i insert images ?)http://blog.photos2view.com/files/tallest-shortest-man.jpgWe have small short pygmees, We have very tall races as well. Some people are big, some are small, some short. Some tall. Imagine that if Darwin was borned 3000. Do you think he would be able to use skelletons from this era to make it look as if the default form of humans has evolved ?Of course that would be an easy thing to do. The reseon i am suspicius to the human apes is not because i have been brainwashed by creationist. It is because i think the supposed evidence could easily simply be diffrent independent forms of human rather than a progressive state of humans.Since recreations of extinct homonids are not to trust on. ( Especially when media is evolved. Just look at archapitetus piltdown nebraska man) I am more interestted in seing whats known about the fosils rather than what they were supposed to look like.We didn't have a clue about how dinosaurs skin looked or so. But later on scinetist mananged to discover some things. But the remakes of extinct homonids are made to look more like humans the closer they are to us and so on because the scientist who recreates them assume evolution is a fact.We have evidence that homo erectus used tools, and were social. So they were no primitive ape like freaks. They were very likely to be sofisticated talentented race of humans just like us.Homo erectus - WikipediaAnd there is no evidence that the homo neanderthal were submitted to our ancestors in anyway. Theese now more extinct race were talented humans as well. Here in the link you can see the first reconstruction based on a deformed skull and a more modern one based on newer evidenceNeanderthal - Wikipedia( Yeah wiki sucks but it is easy to acces ^^ )Now if the more recent remake of neanderthal went out on the street in modern clothes. What would happend ? Nothing most likely. We have much more exotic forms of humans alive today.Along with the new guinnea man that was said to be one of our ancestors that lived today but later on turn out to belong to a modern race. ( Another HOAX)Cro magnon is a very wellpreserverd fosil. But if Darwin was never borned, noone would get the idea to say it belonged to a diffrent race.There is alot of sever holes visibel with the raw eye. And it is not impossibel that D-N Simply are diffrent variations of modern humans. Or infact thats exactly what it is.There is alot of variation today that is far greater than what have been found in the fosil records. So if someone wanted to. They could have taken diffrent fosils from deformed people and made it look like the default form evolved.This is what i love/hate with evolution forums. As soon as someone agaisnt evolution speaks 5 other persons atleast comes with their jumbo posts to attack you lol =P. I love a good flamewar but i can't handle so much people ^^Ps i pity theese retards not understanding how impossibel abiogenisis is.

lol. Retard XD We are not talking about anything reseonable. Abiogenisis means that a cell alsters itself without anyone moderating it ( Or the form teached in schools) And i can't understand how anyone can be so stupid to beleive in it.

The reseon i had problems replying is because im kinda bussy irl.And when i spoke about archaptitetus i actually meant Austraphicitetus.I guess we have gone very off topic. Nvm my misstakes. I will soak this new information up =P I have read about evolution and so but it was a while ago.So what next ? can i simply surrender and close the discussion ? There are no humans apes alive today, because they all died out while the more primitive monkeys stayed undeveloped and survived. It makes sence.I think i will stick to religius topics from now on.