We did NOT come from Apes! (How evolution works)

#funfact this is how we discovered that birds actually more closely related to dinodaurs (because they share a recent common ancestor)!

#science #biology #evolution #teaching #education #learning #howitwork #humans #apes #controversial #shorts #youtubeshorts #short #evolve #information

[Aaron-pvqq]

You are right, humans didn't come from APES, we are APES still. Eagles didn't come from birds, eagles are still birds.

[billrobertjoe]

i feel like this just creates more confusion. we did evolve from apes, just not the ones that are still alive today. we all evolved from extinct apes.

[USA-prsz]

Humans are apes, sahelanthropus was an ape, we evolved from sahelanthropus, therefore we evolved from apes.

[Dr.Ian-Plect]

Working zoologist here.
Well intended, but disappointingly and utterly flawed due to the opening premise. We *did* 'come from apes' which is a statement equivalent to 'evolved from apes' (which some people wrongly take to mean 'came from, but are no longer what they are', namely apes). We have ancestral species that are apes Here's the first few in the sequence for those wanting to understand this.
- H. heidelbergensis is our immediate ancestral species (and that of other groups such as neanderthals); _it is an ape_
- H. erectus is the ancestral species from which H. heidelbergensis, neanderthals, us etc. evolved. _it is an ape_
- H. erectus, all above, and all other members of Homo evolved from the genus Australopithecus, guess what it is?! _An Ape_
The lineage continues backwards before finally getting to non-apes.

What this girl is doing is conflating the 'March of Progress' illustration above her (which _is_ wrong or at least misleading) and the correct 'we evolved from apes'. The MoP shows a few ape species selected to illustrate how some species have progressed from quadrapedal to bipedal locomotion and many other progressive traits along the way. Where it is misleading is in regard to the perception that it shows an actual lineage from left to right, which is not so. It's a series of candidate species plucked from the ape tree to illustrate as outlined already. But it is not representative of an actual lineage, which, for a start, requires more members to bridge the gaps in evolutionary traits within the sequence.

[SpectatorModeYoutube]

I think the original graphic is just for ease of viewing, and I don’t think anyone actually thinks that’s how evolution works, at least I hope

[mw]

It is not that we came from apes it is that we are apes.

[deanmilne]

It is a linear progression if you only follow only one species. Its just that you've shown all related

[petersmythe]

Humans still came from apes. Just not an extant species of ape. They came from our common ancestor with chimpanzees. Which was, definitively, a great ape.

[jyrlando]

If you pick any of the branches you can still establish a linear progression going back to the original ancestor.

[tony]

We didn’t come from another species of ape that exists today but we did come from apes and are apes. Educate yourself.

[monķè]

We did come from apes.

I think the statement that urkes us is "humans come from monkeys"

We have a recent common ancestor woth monkeys but we dont come from monkeys.

But that ancestor is an ape, and so are we

[MKRex]

Wrong, humans are Apes, primates, placental mammals.

[tims]

WHAT?!?!? We STILL ARE apes. Of course we evolved from apes. This video is like saying we didn't evolve from mammals.

[johnfinch]

Well that was an entertaining fairytale.

[peanutbuttersoup]

My brother in Christ, we **are** apes >:3

[Togepyy]

Completely incorrect, humans did evolve from apes. All apes today indirectly descended from the Proconsuls roughly 20 million years ago. Any offshoot lineages after this time frame would still be considered apes, not to mention that uniquely human apes ( apes with only hominin like features ) wouldn’t appear until much later, thus proving that humans ARE apes, just a very advanced group of apes. In conclusion, humans descended from apes, and ARE apes in every evolutionary sense.

[The-AI-Debate]

Why I Disagree With Darwin’s Grand Claims – A Scientific and Logical Rebuttal

I have no issue with the fact that species adapt. That’s observable, repeatable, and consistent with both science and intelligent design. But Charles Darwin’s broader claims — that all life evolved from a single common ancestor, that humans evolved from apes, and that life emerged spontaneously from lifeless matter — go far beyond evidence and into the realm of philosophy and assumption.

Here’s why the evidence commonly cited does not justify Darwin’s larger theory:

1. Microevolution ≠ Macroevolution

Claim: Small adaptations, like bacteria developing resistance, prove that all life evolved from a common ancestor.

Debunk:
Yes, small changes happen within a species — that's called microevolution, and it’s due to the shuffling, loss, or selection of existing genetic information. But these changes do not create new body plans, new organs, or entirely new kinds of creatures.

• You can breed dogs for 10, 000 years, and you’ll still have... dogs.

• No one has ever observed new genetic information arising that leads to the creation of a new complex structure (e.g., an eye or wing) from something that didn’t have it.

• Genetic mutations usually degrade or break genes — they don’t build complexity.

Darwin took small, observable changes and stretched them into grand, unobservable claims without sufficient evidence.

2. Fossil Record: A Story of Sudden Appearance, Not Gradual Change

Claim: The fossil record shows gradual transitions from simple to complex life over millions of years.

Debunk: The fossil record, when honestly examined, is a record of abrupt appearance, stasis, and extinction — not slow transitions.

• Cambrian Explosion: Nearly all major animal groups appeared suddenly and fully formed, with no ancestors beneath them.

• Missing transitional forms: Despite over a century of digging, most species appear abruptly, fully functional. Where are the billions of “in-between” forms that Darwin’s theory demands?

• Living fossils: Creatures like the coelacanth, horseshoe crab, and ginkgo tree supposedly haven’t changed in hundreds of millions of years. If evolution is constantly reshaping life, why didn’t these creatures evolve?

The fossil record actually supports the idea of separate, distinct creations — not slow, accidental transformations.

3. DNA Similarities: A Weak Case for Common Ancestry

Claim: Humans and chimps share 98–99% of their DNA, proving we share a common ancestor.

Debunk: That number is outdated and oversimplified.

• The most accurate comparisons today put the similarity closer to 85–90%, depending on how gaps and unknown regions are counted.

• Even if we were 99% similar, the difference still equals millions of base pairs — enough to account for vast differences in appearance, brain size, language, morality, and abstract thought.

• Chimps also share over 70% of their DNA with mice — and 50% with bananas. This suggests shared design, not shared descent.

Similar DNA can mean a common engineer using similar code — not a shared ancestor.

4. Vestigial Organs: From “Useless” to “Misunderstood”

Claim: Vestigial structures (like the appendix or tailbone) are leftover parts from evolution.

Debunk: This is a “god of the gaps” fallacy — assuming no function because we don’t know the function.

• The appendix is now known to aid immune function and gut bacteria storage.

• The tailbone anchors multiple muscles essential for movement and posture.

• Most so-called “vestigial” organs have known purposes today.

This argument stems from ignorance, not evidence — and it's collapsing under modern medical science.

5. Embryology and Haeckel’s Drawings: A Fraudulent Legacy

Claim: Embryos of different animals look similar in early development, proving a shared evolutionary past.

Debunk: This claim is built on Ernst Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings from the 1800s, which exaggerated similarities and ignored differences.

• His diagrams were proven scientifically dishonest, yet they still appear in textbooks today.

• Modern imaging shows that embryos diverge significantly in form early on, reflecting their distinct developmental programs.

• Similar features in embryos don’t prove ancestry — they show common developmental constraints or purposeful design.

This “evidence” is outdated and discredited, yet it's still paraded to support Darwinism.

6. Radiometric Dating: Built on Assumptions, Not Certainty

Claim: Radiometric dating proves the Earth is billions of years old, giving evolution the time it needs.

Debunk: Radiometric dating is not a perfect clock — it's a system built on three huge assumptions:

• Constant decay rate

• Known starting amounts of isotopes

• No contamination

But in practice:

• Decay rates can be affected by environmental conditions and even quantum tunneling.

• Samples of recent volcanic rock have been dated as millions of years old using radiometric methods.

• Soft tissue in dinosaur fossils suggests they are thousands, not millions, of years old.

If the clock is broken or misread, the story built on it collapses.

7. Abiogenesis: The Ultimate Darwinian Problem

Claim: Life began by chance in a warm little pond.

Debunk: Abiogenesis — the idea that life arose from non-life — is not supported by any experiment or observation.

• Life requires information, coded in DNA.

• Information always comes from a mind — never from random chemical reactions.

• Lab experiments (like Miller-Urey) produce a few basic amino acids, but not life. Even if they did produce one protein, you’d still be millions of steps from a functioning cell.

You don’t get software without a programmer — and you don’t get a cell without a Designer.

✅ Final Thoughts: Adaptation, Not Evolution

Darwin observed change — and rightly so. Animals adapt. Species shift. But this is not proof of molecules-to-man evolution. Small changes don’t build new creatures. Fossils don’t show smooth transitions. DNA similarities don’t prove ancestry. Dating methods are flawed. Embryo drawings were faked. Life’s origin is still a complete mystery to naturalism.

The deeper you go, the more Darwin’s grand claims fall apart.

If we’re honest with the data, what we see is variation within created kinds, not a single tree of life. We see design, purpose, and complexity, not chaos or accident.

And that’s why I disagree with Darwin — not out of ignorance, but because I’ve looked carefully, and the evidence doesn’t match the story.

[Aposte-quotation]

We did evolve from apes what the F are you talking about??

[noeditbookreviews]

You should clarify and say we didn't come from any of the apes that are around today.

[The_Messy_Atheist]

I like to think of human evolution as something akin to cat breeds. Maine Coons, Ragdolls, & Munchkins are different breeds, but they're all still cats. Same with humans. There are distinct types of primates (bonobos, chimps, etc) but we are all still classified as primates, of which humans also fall under. Hope this helps and I didn't just confuse people even more. 😅