Surely, FRiend, you don't expect to win arguments with insults, do you?
"Humans cam from apes"?
Do we agree on what we mean by either "humans" or "apes"?
If by "apes" you mean large non-human primates alive today, then obviously, we did not come from them.
But if you extend your definition of "apes" to include some creatures represented in fossil records, then we could well have.
CodeToad: "ANYTHING I say is every bit as scientific as your opinion."
No, you're wrong on that because nothing you say is "scientific" unless you take it from a recognized scientific source, which obviously you didn't.
So of course, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not to call them "scientific" unless they genuinely are.
CodeToad: "Sharing DNA does not require common ancestors.
If you can’t think of another explanation or two, you’re as dumb as your comment."
Sure, I can think of many other possible explanations, but none -- zero, zip, nada -- of those other explanations meet standards set for a confirmed natural science theory.
Most of them fall into categories such as religion or unsupported-by-evidence fantasy.
The humans from apes false argument was lost a long time ago. Those that cling to this false hope need to read more and spend some time in the field observing reality