Well, you'd have to talk to the graphic artist about what he had in mind, but no matter, as he's not the wellspring of evolutionary doctrine. If he got some morphological details wrong, then I say "fie" to him. At any rate, ancient apes did look very much like modern apes. If you saw a resurrected proconsul walking around, you'd probably think it was a chimp. A zookeeper might say, "woah, what is that!" but he'd be in no doubt that it was an ape.
Don't make claims that are simply wrong like that it has "ONLY EVER MEANT." It was not always held that man evolved from a different form of ape that was "ancient."
Don't project your own misunderstandings of evolution onto others! If evolution is correct at all, then it is necessarily true that apes have evolved over time, and that therefore the apes of yester-epoch are different from the apes of today. There is no conception of Darwinism that would have humans evolving over time, but apes staying the same. There has never been such a conception of Darwinism. To argue against it--and then to claim triumph--is comical.
I resent your comparison to "flat-earthers." It is ridiculous because we have INDISPUTABLE proof that the Earth is round.
Oh, really? What is it?
If we had INDISPUTABLE proof of evolution, Creationists would have no argument.
I sincerely think that's the case.
