Biology

Abstract
This paper seeks to prove the claim that man has not descended from apes. It provides and elaborately explains three possible theories that somehow prove the validity of the claim.

Perhaps even before the time of Darwin, man had already started asking himself where he had come from, and somehow the Theory of Divine Creation  that man was rather created as himself and has not descended from any other animal  proved to be rather insufficient as a means to explain his roots. Scientific studies later on proved that there are several homologies shared by man and apes and the question remains as to whether man has indeed descended from this group of primates called apes. However, despite the obvious similarities between the two species, the results of this investigation say otherwise.

The Proofs against the Supposed Descent of Man from the Apes
The Common Ancestor. It is claimed that humans didnt evolve from apesbut that humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees (Where We Came From, 2001). The reason therefore for the similarities and the homologous morphological and anatomical characteristics between humans and apes may not be exactly due to the fact that the first descended from the second but that they could just be of the same ancestor. In a similar way, when you see similarities between two people of different ages, you cannot immediately conclude that the older one has begotten the other but that they could be both siblings. In logic, one can say that just because A looks similar to B, it does not necessarily mean that A has descended or originated from B, although we cannot deny that indeed there is some connection. In short, the claim that humans descended from apes may just have been one speculation or assumption based on morphological evidence, which may prove to be weak.

This common ancestor is believed to have existed 5 to 8 million years ago and shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages (Where We Came From, 2001). There have been claims that the ape or gorilla lineage branched off 1.6 to 2.2 million years earlier than did the human-chimpanzee divergence (Chen  Li, 2001), making humans even closer to chimpanzees than apes. The term evolutionists have given to this so-called common ancestor of humans and apes is known as Australopithecus, which means South African ape (Hasnain, 2009).  The theory of the common ancestor has been backed by several studies which stated that either mitochondrial DNA (Ferris, Wilson  Brown, 1983) or the extremely close immunological resemblance between the serum albumins of apes and man.

The problem, however, is that it could be that this theory is not that plausible after it was found that the beings called Australopithecus in this imaginary scenario fabricated by evolutionists really are apes that became extinct (Hasnain, 2009). If the Australopithecus had actually not existed, then it could be that man has really descended from apes owing to the homology in their physical structures.

Convergent Evolution. The homology in the morphology of humans and apes is, however, not a strong guarantee that the first have descended from the second. It is said that the resemblance in the skeleton structure of apes and humans has always served as strong evidence for common ancestry (Evolution of Man, 2010). It is however a poor assumption that similarity means relatedness, which means that two species can have homologous anatomy even though they are not related in any way (Evolution of Man, 2010). This is known as convergent evolution. Convergent evolution teaches one that two species which are distinctly unrelated from each other could have just have developed separately and at times coincidentally produced similarities in morphology.

In a similar way, based on pure simple logic, it does not necessarily mean that two people are related just simply because they look similar, even very similar. Menton (2002) states that these similarities may have just been due to an incredible run of countless lucky mutational coincidences. This simply means that it could have been that it is a mere coincidence that humans and apes look alike.
Deductive Logic. Robinson (2005) argues that If humans evolved from apes, then one would expect that there would be no apes left on earth all would have evolved into humans. This statement simply means that since evolution propels a species to change, and if it is true that apes have evolved into humans, then there simply seems no logical explanation as to why several apes nowadays have not evolved into humans.

Nevertheless, this claim could be refuted by the theory that certain species of animals may not have evolved because of their ecological niche. This means that certain apes in the jungle may not have evolved into humans due to the fact that the former are arboreal.

Conclusion
Man has not descended from apes. This is proven by scientifically-based claims that have established the existence of a common ancestor. Another proof is that the evolution of both humans and apes was merely convergent. Lastly, deductive logic disproves it. At this point in time, scientific researches on the evolution of man and apes have not been able to completely shed light on the possibility or impossibility of mans descent from their primate brothers. Further research is therefore highly recommended.