>>8
When two species share the same niche, it's not that unusual for one to drive the other into complete extinction.
You'd be surprised how many similarities there are between humans and other apes. You have a point (albeit an unintentional one) when you say it's odd humans are relatively hairless, but that's neatly explained when you realise humans are
neotenous apes.
And as for the walking upright bit, most apes can walk upright for brief periods of time. They don't generally walk upright all the time because they don't have to. Different habitats and all.
>>9
Ring species show changes in similar organisms like birds, but not a change from one kingdom or class to another.
If you're expecting a mammal to evolve into a fungus, you're out of luck.
That's very much like pointing out that on any given old tree, all the growth happens on the twig level, and nobody's ever seen large boughs being added.
Why say we are descended from chimps if chimps are descended from something earlier?
The only people who say biologists claim humans descended from chimps are creationists.
If we can trace the evolutionary tree of mammals back to something like mammal-like reptiles, why not say we came from Sauropsida or prior?
We share a common ancestor with all other species on the planet, which is pointed out often enough. It's just that right now, we are apes, and the closest ancestor we share with the species we most recently diverged along with (chimpanzees) was an ape as well.
Creationists in particular like to make a big deal out of this because they feel it personally offends them. I would surmise this is because of inbreeding.
Anyway:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html