Your scorn for the theory of evolution is noted.
But, just this once, I will attempt to explain what the theory currently concludes on this question.
Apes lived primarily in a forested part of Africa. This, incidentally, is why there are so few fossils from the 6-10 million year range--so much of the habitat was forested, and forests are a poor environment for the production of fossils.
Sometime around, or just after, 6 million years ago the climate began to change; the forests began to shrink, while the grasslands expanded.
One group of apes remained in the forest, and because their environment changed hardly at all over the subsequent several million years, neither did they. There was a lack of selection pressure.
Another group of apes ventured toward, and eventually into, the grasslands. They needed to adapt to survive; there was selection pressure. They developed upright posture to see over the grasses and to move about more easily without trees (brachiation is best in the forests, two-legged gait is better in open environments). They eventually developed sophisticated tool use, as their hands were finally free from locomotion. They developed increasingly larger brains, for reasons evolutionists are still debating. These and many other changes eventually led to humans, with transitional steps of Australopithecus and various early versions of Homo.
So, my analogy is not inept. The two cases are entirely parallel. Apes split into two groups, one remaining where they were, the other splitting off and adapting to new environments over some 6 million years. Europeans remained where they were, Americans split off and adapted to a new land over some hundreds of years.
In each case there is a parent population and an offspring population. I think the analogy is a good one.
So, I am awaiting your response. From that, we will learn a great deal about you. If you ask reasonable questions, I will be happy to respond in kind, and to share the knowledge I have accumulated over several decades of study.