Wayne, you keep asking your nonsensical questions, and they keep getting refuted by myself and others.
The only reason I continue to answer your questions is that some Y!A users might click on them and, not being very knowledgeable about evolution themselves, think you might have a legitimate argument.
By looking at the fossil record, it is quite apparent that 99.9999% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct, and that most of the species that presently exist have existed for only a very small fraction of the time that encompasses the existence of life on the earth.
Species stop existing either because they die out without leaving descendants as a result of changes in the environment that they cannot cope with, or they evolve into new species that do cope with changes in the environment. In some cases, part of a population of a species finds itself in a new environment and changes to fit that environment, while another part of the population of the species remains in the original environment and changes little over time, though sometimes the environment there may change somewhat, which results in some additional changes from the common ancestor.
That is why humans evolved separately and more distinctly in comparison with their ape cousins who did not change as much from the common ancestor.
The evidence for apes and humans having a common ancestor is in the fossil record:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html
And in the genetic record.
About fifty years ago, when it was first noted that apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, but humans have 23, the creationists subsequently pounced upon that as evidence against the evolution of humans from a common ancestor with the apes. The evolutionary scientists, however, using evolutionary theory and an understanding of genetic modification, proposed that two of the chromosomes must have joined together in the line that led to man from the common ancestor, thus reducing the chromosome number.
That prediction has been verified with the results of the recent human and chimp genome projects. It was found that human chromosome 2 is the result of the joining of two chromosomes that have homologues in the chimp. The decoding of the genomes revealed that human chromosome 2 has a stretch of non-functioning telomere coding in the exact place it should be if the two chromosomes had joined in the human line from the common ancestor with the apes, and there is also non-functioning coding for a centromere in the exact location where the extra centromere would be as it occurs in one of the homologous chimp chromosomes, as well as a functioning centromere in the same location as in the other homologous chimp chromosome.
Long before the genome projects verified it, this article contained an example of the proposition that two of the ancestral chromosomes joined together to form human chromosome 2. (The link is to an abstract of the article. The full article is available for a fee. Sorry)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/215/4539/1525
The following site (which is an NIH human genome site), however, does have this statement: "Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes - one less pair than chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and other great apes. For more than two decades, researchers have thought human chromosome 2 was produced as the result of the fusion of two mid-sized ape chromosomes and a Seattle group located the fusion site in 2002."
http://www.genome.gov/13514624
These sites explain the finding of the genome projects.
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chromosome_2
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
No creationist pseudo-scientist could make a before-the-fact prediction like that. All they can do is to make up pseudo-explanations after the fact of the finding.
Just for clarification. Since all of the great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, and the chimpanzee is our closest ape relative as indicated by comparison of the DNA of each species, the combining of the two chromosomes must have occurred in the line leading to humans after the separation from the line leading to chimps.
And when the two chromosomes were originally combined in one of the pair set, they could still have matched up with the separate chromosomes of the other set of the pair--like lining up two short straws alongside a long straw--so there would not necessarily have been a reproduction problem.
There may have been an evolutionary adaptation advantage in having on a single chromosome two particular genes that were originally on the two separate chromosomes. For example, the two genes may have complemented each other, and their ending up on a single combined chromosome kept that complement intact, whereas when they were on separate chromosomes they could easily have been lost to each other in the genetic shuffling process that normally occurs during reproduction.