[King Prout]

Ok, I'm game to give it a try.

The short answer: Man did not evolve from any current species of ape.

A longer, still very simplified answer:
The various biological and anthropological data indicate that Man and the current great apes evolved from an earlier common ancestral primate species, diverging over generations as each specialized for their changing ecological niches. The progenitor species is itself extinct, replaced by the divergent families of speciated descendants.
Moreover, the progenitor species was a divergence (or, as seems to be the case, based on genetic analysis rather than morphological comparison, was a SET of divergences) from an even earlier common ancestral group. That earlier group gave rise to the brances which eventually speciated into lesser and greater primate groups: the monkeys, the apes, and the hominids.

The above is a clear answer to your stated question. I am highly surprised that no one has ever answered your question in this manner. Whether or not you accept this explanation is irrelevant to its clarity.

If you do not accept this answer to your specific question (reminder "If man eveloved from apes, why are there still apes?") then it would seem your "satisfaction" is not derived from a desire for clarity or rational analysis.

If this is indeed the case, if indeed you remain "unsatisfied" on this point, this would indicate that the only explanation which would "satisfy" you would have to be one which kowtows to some kind of emotional and/or indoctrinated bias.

I cannot address those terms, and have no desire to try.

[PatrickHenry]

My usual answer to "Why are there still apes?" is to ask: If you have a tall child, why are you still short?

[gore3000]

If this is indeed the case, if indeed you remain "unsatisfied" on this point, this would indicate that the only explanation which would "satisfy" you would have to be one which kowtows to some kind of emotional and/or indoctrinated bias.

Let's leave the apes for a minute. Let's ask a better question - if the reason for species evolving is necessity (natural selection, survival of the fittest and all that jazz) then how come bacteria, who are reputed by evolutionists to be the first creatures, are also the most abundant, the most prolific, the most adaptable, the most long lived species and also constitute, in spite of their very small size - much smaller than a single human cell - some 90% of the biologic mass on earth?

Explain that one.

When evolutionists can prove to me that needing a million dollars results in a million dollars being deposited in my bank account, I will start believing in evolution.