we didn't developed from apes

*laughs* I love your example! =p I don't know about whether my ancestors were apes, but I have been known to call my son a little monkey. Especially when he does silly things like try to climb my leg. Does that count?

Well... maybe you could use him as an example of vestigial behaviour shared among related species... I guess. But I wouldn't invest too much on that line of inquiry. =P

Thank you for the clarification. I would hate to be misunderstand. Indeed it simply is anoying that people are twisting the words of science for their benefits. I am not a scientist but I read a lot and find the evolution theory fascinating. There is still a lot that I do not know but I would never claim that to be related to other animals is bad. Should the creationists love them as a creations of their god?

OK tell me what you know about the physical evidence, the skeleton of Great Apes and humans and the fossil evidence. I've already posted what evolutionists admit about the fossil record if you care to scroll up.

To answer your question though. The Bible doesn't confirm your ideology nor does the theory of evolution which is a naturalistic UNDIRECTED process.

Whether one creationist says that a mutation can be beneficial or not depends on what they mean by "beneficial" Both will agree that mutations aren't beneficial in terms of creating a entirely new species or whatever might call for an increase in genetic information. But if you feel insecure without your tactics then go ahead use them. Here, I'll help. I'm about to parrot another ready made passage. At the end I hope to finish with a quick ready made quote: Evolutionist tacitly acknowledge that natural selection by itself CANNOT explain the rise of new genetic information. Somehow, they have to explain the introduction of completely new genetic instructions for feathers and other wonders that never existed in 'simpler' life forms. So they place their faith in mutations. Mutations the alleged source of all the new information also fails based on the standard evolutionary mathematics of such authorities as Gaylord Simpson and Fisher. With a PH.D. in physics from MIT, Spetner taught information and communication theory for years at John Hopkins University. He subsequently became fascinated with evolutionary theory and published papers concerning theoretical and mathematical biology in prestigious journals such as the Journal of Theoretical Biology, Nature and the Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress of Biophysics. Spetner whose technical knowledge of this subject is well in advance of the average biologist says that "anyone who thinks that an accumulation of mutations can lead to macroevolution ( a massive net gain of information) is like a merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume." Biologist have discovered a whole range of mechanisms that can cause radical changes in the amount of DNA possessed by an organism. Gene duplication, polypoidy insertions, etc. do not explain evolution however. They represent an increase in the "amount" of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information - these mechanisms create nothing new. Macro evolution needs new genes (for making feathers on reptiles for example

I might have misunderstood the original post a little, now that I go back and look at it. I thought you were disputing evolution, but it looks like you were only trying to clarify a point in it. Humans are definitely related to apes, but that doesn't necessarily mean we exactly descended from them. It is evident that early humans were very apelike, but there's no real evidence that at any point along the line they WERE apes, that I know of.

Thank you for clarification. Indeed I was just making the point that the theory does not say what creationist want to use as a contra. It maybe my English causing some misunderstandings. Thanks again for the reply.