Ape to Man or Common Ancestor

Your thread is titled Ape to Man or Common Ancestor, and I think the discussion so far indicates that there's a problem with terminology that stems from the word "ape". Without an adjective for modification, the term "ape" is just too ambiguous.The way that you're using the term "ape" implies this evolutionary tree:

ape      human
          \        /
           \      /
            \    /
             \  /
              \/
              ape

But the ape at the bottom of the apex is not the same ape at the top left, and so if you get into a discussion using only the word "ape" it will quickly become unclear which ape you're talking about.The evolutionary tree is much more clear when labeled like this:

modern
         ape      human
          \        /
           \      /
            \    /
             \  /
              \/
           ape/human
           ancestor

But even this is not quite right, because in reality humans *are* apes, and the common ape/human ancestor would probably be called an ape, too. It's better to create a more accurate evolutionary tree:

chimpanzee,
    gorilla   bonobo     human
       \         \        /
        \         \      /
         \         \    /
          \         \  /
           \         \/
            \        /
             \      /
              \    /
               \  /
                \/
            common ape
             ancestor

Gorillas, chimps, bonobos and humans are all apes, and far enough back in time they all shared the same ape ancestor, one that appears to be extinct from the evidence we have available at the present time.This is not a view that many creationists find acceptable.--Percy