Well, here we go again.  The debate will surely get fired up once more between the scientists and the non scientists about where we come from.  First a short history.  Very short.

A bubbly mass of goo millions of years ago formed quite by accident into a kind of self-replicating mass that consumed it's environment for energy and reproduction.  As the replication was flawed, and more and more of these little critters interacted and managed to merge and combine, variations arose, complexity developed, and before long not all of them were the same.  These difference continued to pile up and next thing you know, we had creatures as different as fish, birds, humans, lizards, bacteria, etc.

Well, since humans are OBVIOUSLY (tongue in cheek) more advanced and loved by "god", it's just not possible that we came from the same place as, say, chimps or orangutans.  I mean, they're HAIRY right?  Well, that's exactly what most scientists (read, people who study the world around us and actually learn their craft before making opinions) propose.  And everyone else simply refuses to sign on, probably out of arrogance of some degree or other.  I mean, what about the chimp ancestor and the human ancestor?  There would have to be a fossil or some kind of evidence to prove that that was how it happened right? 

Well, not really.   Absense of proof isn't proof of absence (even though many of the creationists I've spoken to also believe in Bigfoot, and there aren't any bones or fossils of them either; talk about an awkard moment in a conversation), but what do we have here, here, and here?  Is that the final answer? Undoubtedly, no.  Will it convince any true believers? Probably not.  Is it just what the scientists predicted would happen?  You betcha.