We didn't "evolve from apes." We and the apes today share common ancestors.
The author knows this but can't make it the center of his piece because it is a gray area. And anti-science people don't like gray.
If you want to see an example of a partially evolved system go take a look at your appendix. We used to need it, but we don't any more. It is in the process of disappearing.
Since it's an obvious point of confusion, could someone please identify the common ancestor(s) of man and ape?
It would clarify the confusion over the whole 'evolved from apes' misunderstanding.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/photogalleries/ape_ancestor/
just playing semantics or better post a note to NG.
So in essence, your point is that since the author created a straw man (man evolved from apes) and then knocked it down, he's wrong, because in actuality man evolved from some single cell organism?
The theory of evolution requires things to evolve. Getting from a single cell to humans require millions of baby steps along the way. The only thing discovered so far are various ape-like creatures. For evolution to work, either we evolved from the apes or there is a fork in the road where one side is human and the other ape. Since you are specifically claiming that man did not evolve from ape, they must have shared a father who was neither man nor ape. That's quite a stretch.
Perhaps a more likely scenario is that there are similarities between organisms because a divine being created all of them with man being version 1000000.0
What was it's function, then, and how is it possible to determine that it is disappearing? Consider this an honest question. I've heard statements similar to this before but never the support for it. And for the record, I don't see how it could support or disprove evolution as it doesn't result in a new species but merely a variation; like skin color, which is protective against skin cancer.