Most evolutionists will tell the story that both humans and apes evolved from a common ape-like ancestor, and not that humans evolved FROM apes or that we are apes (though that has become the ad populum narrative today).
The "issue" depends on an adjustable meaning for "ape." Genetically, anatomically, and evolutionarily, we are apes.
Now secondly, we allegedly diverged from chimps x amount of MYA (usually assumed to be 7). They developed this historical narrative because in light of their hypothesis it is a logical conclusion,
Initially, it was merely on anatomical grounds, but later, fossil intermediates and genetic data confirmed the finding. A long line of transitional forms between arborial apes and humans has been established. Because forest organisms rarely fossilize, we have many more transitional forms from the time our particular line began to move into the savanna out of the forest, but we have some forest intermediates as well.
YET we have yet to find an actual example. But even if they were “genetically isolated” (thus genetically distinct), where one group allegedly evolved and the other did not,
What an odd thought. Chimps are highly evolved in their own way. Why wouldn't they be?
why would one not have evolved in so many millennia while the other allegedly evolved so much?
As you now see, both evolved.
Next, all observable, demonstrable, isolated groups that adapt new traits, never (no not ever) become new types of creatures.
Except whales, humans,tetrapods, ants, termites, etc. There are many such examples.
When B. Wood and M. Collard in Science (“The human genus,” Science” 284 in 1999 (5411):65-71) did their study on alleged “human” ancestors they could not find a single human trait in either Habalis or Rudolfensis.
Well, let's take a look at that assumption...
A very early form of human found:
Among the features placing the new fossil in that singular shoe box are slim molar teeth; a particular pattern of tooth cusps; and the shape of the bony body of the mandible—all traits shared with later Homo. But the front of the jaw sports more primitive morphology, such as a receding chin line, characteristic of A. afarensis.
"This narrows the time period in which we can now focus our search for the emergence of the human lineage," says Kimbel, who found the AL 666-1 jaw in 1994. "It's very much a transitional form, as would be expected at that age. The chin looks backwards in time. But the shape of the teeth looks forward."
O.K. so even predecessors of H. habilis had a mix of human and apelike features. Habilis had a hand capable of both a precision grip with digits more curved than those of modern humans, showing that they were still capable climbers.
All traits were only ape.
See above.
Here's a chimp pelvis, an Australopithecine pelvis, an H. erectus pelvis, and a modern human pelvis. Which looks like the odd one out?
Right. But notice that the transitional ones were more chimplike than that of modern man, even if they were more human-like than chimplike.
Homo habilis differs from Australopithecus at the base of the skull. The foramen magnum (the opening for the spinal chord) is closer to the middle of the skull and the skull base is reduced in length but increased in width. The face decreased in width and the nasal opening was more sharply defined. The postcanine teeth were smaller than in Australopithecus.
Its cranial capacity was 500 to 800 cc. and values increase from the earliest specimens to latest ones. This range overlaps with Australopithecus at the low end and Homo erectus at the high end. It can be debated (indeed, there has been a debate several decades long) on whether early H. habilis should be classified as Australopithecus and late H. habilis should be called Homo erectus. H. habilis stood approximately 5 foot tall and weighed 100 pounds with females being smaller than males (Leakey, 1973b; Wood, 1987; Leakey, 1971b; Hughes, 1977; Johansen, 1987; Bilsburough, 1988; Tobias, 1972). Early Homo populations coexisted with australopithecines (Johanson, 1976).
In one brain endocast, there is a bulge corresponding to Broca’s area (an important speech center) in modern human brains. Two aspects of wrist bones (the scaphoid tubercle and the articular surface of the trapezium) were chimp-like. The thumb was similar to humans in the carpo-metacarpal joint and the flattened metacarpal surface. The foot was less flexible than in chimps and its degree of possible abduction was limited. Some characteristics of the lower leg were primitive and others were advanced, not found in any ape (Susman, 1982; Skelton, 1986).
http://bio.sunyorange.edu/updated2/pl new/73 hominids 3.htm
In other words they looked like apes, walked like apes, had jaws and teeth like apes, and they even had the brains of (you guessed it) apes.
See above. All of your beliefs about this species are wrong. Skulls were intermediate between humans and apes, with a foramen magnum lower and more forward than arboreal apes, and more like that of modern humans. They brain sizes were greater than apes other than our own line. The hand was a mix of human and chimplike characters. And as you learned, the pelvis was more humanlike than chimplike.
The earliest ergaster fossils (possibly an early but unsuccessful variety of human) lived around 1.9 mya and the earliest Chimps not till around 500,000 years ago
We actually have no idea how old they are from fossils, since forest animals rarely fossilize. However, chimps could have evolved from a common ancestor with humans relatively recently. Which would only mean that humans diverged first.
so according to the fossils (if I may use the illogical logic of the EBs) Human kind pre-existed chimps by 1 million years thus chimps evolved from humans
You're projecting. Scientists don't think humans evolved from chimps. The evidence indicates that they both evolved from a common ancestor.
