Why do people think humans are related to the apes? Where is the proof?

Answer 1

There isn't proof.

Answer 2

You will never find "proof"--certainly not enough to convice the religious nutcases who insist on clinging to the literal proof of the bible.

There is, however, lots and lots and lots of evidence for the theory of evolution in general and for the descent of man from the apes in particular.

The fossil record is one--while there are missing links, we have a pretty good idea of how the evolutionary chain went. And our picture is getting better all the time. Radioisotope dating and analyzing the rock layers where fossils are found let us figure out times and put the pieces together.

DNA and other physical similarities are another. These are the best way we have of figuring to which exactly which of the living apes (chimps) we are closest related.

Embryonic similarities between creatures are particularly telling. During our embryonic stages, we grow and lose gills and other body parts that our distant ancestors had.

Evolution via natural selection provides the best overall description of how the variety of life we see around us came to be. There is no competing scientific theory that does this (sorry, intelligent design is not scientific theory), so it's the theory that just about every scientist follows.

Any theory of the past will never be absolutely provable in the mathematical sense, but evolution is about as solid a theory as you can get.

Answer 3

There is no proof. And most humans don't think that, just alot of scientists. But the scientific thinking is flawed too, because their is not evidence. And the fact that the genome is so close doesn't matter, because there are different species who we are also above 90 percent related to. Charles Darwin put forth the THEORY of evolution about 100 years ago and every scientist in the earth sciences now feels obligated to believe the THEORY, always remember that word, THEORY, because a lot of dogmatic science beliefs are grounded in THEORIES, with no proof whatsoever. And no matter what evidence turns up, you cannot get a scientist to consider it and revise his opinion, no matter how much the evidence is conclusive. In fact, the more the evidence proves something wrong, the more the scientists will hold to the original THEORY.

Everything you've been taught about the objectivity of science and scientists, particularly the earth sciences is wrong. There is no objectivity or detachment. Whenever a new or revising discovery is found or put forth, it is ridiculed, ignored, and/or discredited.

Answer 4

If you want to be a science geek, you have to start paying attention to the evidence, not the wrapping. Social science is driven by hype, while science prefers to stay within the approximation of the truth. The " proof " argument is not the way of science. Mathematicians " prove " things, scientists weigh the evidence. The evidence says you are of the ape family and genetically close to chimps. So?

Answer 5

There is evidence, not proof:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
And here's a little tidbit about "theory"

Stephen Jay Gould:
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Answer 6

fossils, genome is 97% same, similarities in overall looks and individual organs, behavior of certain humans.

Answer 7

we`re just about 97% the same....get over it...besides its been years since theyve found that out...is reality hitting you too hard? JK

Answer 8

The evidence that apes are our closest ancestors, and actually are ancestors to us 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:

The 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.
Microbial (procaryotic cells) 3,500 MYA
Complex (eucaryotic cells) 2,000 MYA
First multicellular animals 670 MYA
Shell-bearing animals 540 MYA
Vertebrates (simple fishes) 490 MYA
Amphibians 350 MYA
Reptiles 310 MYA
Mammals 200 MYA
Nonhuman primates 60 MYA
Earliest apes 25 MYA
Australopithecine ancestors of humans 4 MYA
Modern humans 0 .15 (150,000 years) MYA
One can criticize the accuracy of the isotopic dating method until Christ returns, but when properly done, isotopic dating methods are highly accurate, and other independent methods collaborate the findings.

Structural 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.

The 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. Before the island split off from the mainland, a common ancestor to both the Galapogos Iguana and the mainland Green Iguana populated that area. Later, the island split away from the continent, and the animals that remained on it were still comfortable. 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.

Similarities During Development
Embryology, the study of biological development from the time of conception, is another source of independent evidence for common descent. Barnacles, for instance, are sedentary crustaceans with little apparent similarity to such other
crustaceans as lobsters, shrimps, or copepods. Yet barnacles pass through a free-swimming larval stage in which they look like other crustacean larvae. The similarity of larval stages supports the conclusion that all crustaceans have homologous parts and a common ancestry.
Similarly, a wide variety of organisms from fruit flies to worms to mice to humans have very similar sequences of genes that are active early in development. These genes influence body segmentation or orientation in all these diverse groups. The presence of such similar genes doing similar things across such a wide range of organisms is best explained by their having been present in a very early common ancestor of all of these groups.
The unifying principle of common descent that emerges from all the foregoing lines of evidence is being reinforced by the discoveries of modern biochemistry and molecular biology.
The code used to translate nucleotide sequences into amino acid sequences is essentially the same in all organisms. Moreover, proteins in all organisms are invariably composed of the same set of 20 amino acids. This unity of composition and function is a powerful argument in favor of the common descent of the most diverse organisms.

Transitional fossils. Despite creationist claims that there are no transitional fossils, they do indeed exist, and there are many of them, across a wide range of species. Humans, horses, whales, and birds, just to name a few. There are transitional fossils showing the evolution of fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to bird, and reptile to mammal. There are even transitional species that are still alive today. The lungfish, for example.

Genetic variation.
Evolution would require genetic variation to happen, and a considerable amount of genetic diversity exists even among members of the same species, identical twins notwithstanding.

Microevolution.
Creationists once claimed that after God created everything, animals stopped changing. This has been so thoroughly debunked that even the most hardcore creationists accept that microevolutionary changes occur. The problem for creationists is that microevolution happens within a time fram that is even less then the blink of an eye in a gelogical scale. It is not unreasonable to infer that over hundreds of millions of years, conditions could lead to a population of animals evolving into something very different from the parent generation. Creationists are always asking evolutionists to show them an example of this, but they demand an example within a time scale that simply isn't reasonable. Not that creationists have ever been reasonable about debating these things. Microevolution is the same process as macroevolution, but over a much shorter time scale.

DNA analysis:
DNA analysis shows that genetic similarities between living things of all species of plant an animal show a close correlation with their closeness within the phylogenic tree. Shared DNA is very strong evidence of familial relationship. Of course, creationists dismiss this evidence as nothing more than God having used a similar design, and similar creatures will therefore have similar DNA. This is a weak, and sad effort to dismiss DNA evidence for evolution. Further, it doesn't explain why we share "junk DNA" with other animals. If a woman came to you with a baby that was a dead ringer for a guy when he was the same age, and a DNA test proved that he was the father, wouldn't it be a little laughable to you if that guy said that the baby had similar DNA because they looked alike? Likewise, if the DNA test showed that he wasn't the father of a baby that looked nothing at all like him, then said that it was his kid, but the DNA was different because the baby didn't look like him?

Disingenious? Of course. In fact, it is downright dishonest. DNA correlates with the degree of the relationship.
Period.

Just one of any of these evidences I've cited could not be considered evidence, much less proof. But the totality of it all, when brought together, requires an explanation, and common descent explains it best, which is why 99% of the 400,000 scientists in all related fields accept evoltuion as the best theory.

But if that isn't enough, literal creationism makes its own predictions...
1) No fossil record would exist prior to the week of creation, which would be approximately 6,000 to 40,000 years ago, depending on which biblical chronographist you choose to side with. Despite creationist claims to the contrary, isotopic dating methods ARE reliable, when properly done, and ALL evidence points to a fossil record which reaches back much further than even the largest estimate of YEC's.
2) According to the literal interpretation of Genesis, all animals and plants were created within a literal six earth-day period. There should be no fossils found during this creation week at all.
3) At this point, death had not yet entered the world (supposedly). All the world's animals and plants are now in place, and live forever (Because Adam and Eve had not yet sinned). If that is the case then we should only expect trace fossils like burrows, coprolites, shed trilobite or crab exoskeletons, animal tracks such as cattle, deer, human, dinosaurs etc. All baramins (= Biblical "kinds") should be present in this period. We should find no indications of death. We could also expect to find traces of human habitation. However this period is also very short, Genesis 5:3 gives an upper limit of 130 years. No major catastrophes are recorded in the Bible so fossils from this period are unlikely. No extinctions are possible without death, except perhaps in plant species. This would mean that no animal index fossils would be possible, although there may be plant index fossils. The big problem with this creationist prediction is that index fossils are found, even before the Cambrian period and the extinction event that preceded it.
4) If (physical) death was present before the Fall, then the expected fossils would also include dead bodies and be indistinguishable from the Post-Fall period. Extinctions would be possible for all species as would animal index fossils.
5) After the "fall," all agree that death is now possible. In addition to the trace fossils expected in the Pre-Fall period we would expect to find fossils of all living things present at the time: humans, sheep [Gen 4:2], cattle [Gen 2:20], birds [Gen 2:20], fish [Gen 1:28], fruit trees [Gen 1:29], seed bearing plants [Gen 1:29], Nephilim [Gen 6:4] etc. We should also find signs of more extensive human habitation such as cities [Gen 4:17].
Extinctions would be possible for all species and higher classifications, whether baramin or genus etc. We could also see speciation, but only within the baramins. This would allow the possibility of index fossils for this part of the YEC geological column. No new baramins should appear.
At the end of the period we might possibly find animal tracks outside their normal geographical ranges as the animals moved towards the Ark. Armadillo tracks in Mesopotamia for example.
6) The fossil record within this strata would be expected to contain all animals, past and present, represented, all at the same time, within the same strata. Instead, what we do see are certain species represented in certain strata, but not in others above or below it, and the fossils in successive strata show a definite progression. For example, there were multicellular organisms long before there were flowering land plants, fish before amphibians, amphibians before reptiles, reptiles before mammals and birds. We also see a gradual diversification within these classes as the fossil record progresses from further in the past to closer to the present. This is a big problem for creationism, since all of these classes should be represented in the same strata.
7) In the initial part of the Flood we would expect large numbers of fossils and a large number of species to go extinct. However no baramin of land animals or birds would go extinct [Gen 7:3]. Extinction is possible for fish or plant baramins. Each land animal baramin would be reduced to a single species. Bird baramins may have more than one species as there were evidently both ravens and doves on the ark; I am not sure if these two are in the same baramin or in different baramins.
The stratigraphic ordering of fossils would also be affected by the Flood. We would expect birds, pterosaurs and bats to be able to fly above the Flood and to survive for longer than land animals. The land animals would be hydrologically sorted with sauropods on the bottom, elephants above them, then medium sized dinosaurs and mammals mixed up followed by smaller and smaller mammals. Animals like seals, Ambulocetus and otters that could swim well would be expected to appear out of strict hydrological order as they would be likely to survive longer in the floodwaters due to their better swimming ability. For this reason we would expect whale fossils to be placed generally high within the Flood layers despite their size. By the end of the Flood period we would expect few fossils since anything left alive by then would either be going to survive the Flood, such as plants or fish, or be on the Ark.
Index fossils should be able to be used to tell the time within the Flood year on a hydrological basis. If a Flood-period rock layer has fossil elephants then it is probably earlier than a Flood period rock layer containing fossil Archaeopteryx. But we do not see this.
8) In the immediate Post-Flood period we would expect a very small number of fossils. Where a species survived outside the Ark, such as plants or fish, we would expect a reduced population spread all over the world. Thus a sparse fossil record with a reasonably wide geographical distribution. For species on the Ark we would expect them to effectively disappear from the fossil record for some time, as there would be only two individuals of one species to represent each baramin. This would probably include a great reduction in trace fossils, such as tracks and coprolites. However if any such trace fossils were found they could well be in unusual locations, for instance Kangaroo tracks found on the Asian mainland between Ararat and Australia. For extinct baramins we could possibly find one or two dead individuals, T. rex for example. Once the animals are off the Ark it is possible for a whole baramin to go extinct again. No new baramins should appear. Again, this is not what we see.
Once the animals had travelled from Ararat to their normal geographical areas we would expect to see a single species within each baramin reappear after a gap in the fossil record. We should then see that single species speciating at a rate fast enough to generate all the known Post-Flood species within that baramin.
Further, one would predict that it would take a great deal of time for regional species, like Australian kangaroos and koalas, to make their way to a suitable environment. The bible doesn't offer a miraculous transplantation, so we can safely assume that these animals got there on their own, reproducing, dying, and leaving both trace and index fossils of the kangaroo, for example, starting at Mt Ararat and gradually branching out. This would take some time, so these fossils would be expected to be found near the landing location of the ark close to the end of the flood, but not in the same strata great distances from this location. After a period of time, we should see their fossils in later strata further from Mt Ararat, but none further on, and so forth until the kangaroos completed their journey. What we actually see in the fossil record is completely different. We also see multiple extinction events were entire classes of animals get wiped out with no survivors. Other classes that do survive, then diversify and propogate new, similar yet different species. Multiple creation events by God might serve as an Ad Hoc Hypothesis to explain this, but that is unsupported by scripture.
9) The bulk of all fossils would be found in the flood strata. Nevermind that there is no geological evidence for a global, year-long flood, but what we see is fossils spread out over great periods of geological time.

For more details and predictions, visit the second link I listed in Sources.

In short, the predictions for literal creation don't fit any of the observations. This does not prove evolution. That would be the either or fallacy. Evidence against creationism is NOT evidence for evolution. Now, if the YEC's could just understand that evidence against evolution is not evidence for creation, things could be settled. What scientists are left with is a series of observations and facts which need an explanation. Evolution is the best explanation.

Literal creation doesn't explain anything.

BTW, I am a christian, and I believe that we were created...through evolution...by God's design.

I don't understand how YEC's can't believe that God is omniscient enough to make life that can adapt and change.

El Chistoso