Has evolution(the part that says out ancestors were apes)ver been proved?

No.

The ancestor would be classified as an ape, but would be different from ape's today.

The 98% similarity is incorrect, it is around the 70% figure.

The 70%DNA similarity suggests common designer/creator. It is also unsurprising given both are land based, both are mammals, both have skeletons, blood, hair, skin etc, both eat, excrete, and breath.

The fossils show no transition from ancient ape to modern man. All the supposed ones turn out to be 100% ape or 100% human. eg Neanderthal man has 99.9% DNA of modern man and 'interbreed' with earlier Europeans. My other half has only 99.8% DNA similarity to me and we have 5 healthy kids. She is human, 100%, as am I, 100%. I conclude Neanderthals are also 100% human.

Notice that very few complete fossil skeletons have ever been found, and so it is usually based on skulls. The problem is that is not enough to give us an indication of the true nature of the fossilised creature. All you get is artistic impressions, usually based on the Evolution hypothesis. Lucy would be a classic example of this.

Yes. Known as Pan Prior, it is the chimpanzee–human last common ancestor. This species existed 4 to 6 million years ago, and no more than 8 million years ago. This is based on genetic studies, since no fossils of this common ancestor have ever been found.

Please study evolution. Evolution does not claim our ancestors were apes. Evolution claims that apes and humans had a common ancestor, there is a world of difference. As to you question about proof, the majority of the scientific world are happy with the evidence produced to call it proof.

Evolution is proved up to 90 per cent. But the missing link between monkey and man is yet to be found out. In Hindu epic Ramayana depicts the existence of tailed man (Hanuman) with capacity to speak and resembling man and monkey a million years back.

Second part is that it do not explain the evolution of other living things like trees and birds.How the big tress like oak evolved from grass?How Whales evolved?How big birds evolved.Survival of the fittest must be applicable to all living things?

The fact that 98.8% of human DNA is identical to the DNA of chimps proves that we are cousins to them and descended from the same ancestor. And we share DNA with most other apes as well, just not to as high an extent. In terms of macro-evidence, hominid paleontologists have discovered and dated a sequence of earlier forms of humans that show the transition over time from an ape like morphology to the humanoid shape we have now. What else could you possibly require to accept that humans evolved from the same ancestor as modern apes? Millions of scientists and educated people find that sufficient proof.

If you are one of the minority of religious fundamentalists who chooses to "doubt" these such scientific truths, I would challenge you to produce more solid evidence for "proof" of the existence of your deity than you would require for validation of the reality of human evolutionary origins. Good luck with that.

ADDED: The lengthy, but fallacy-riddled, response below from dload contains nothing useful to the subject. It parrots misinformation that "creationists" have cobbled together in a rather pathetic attempt to discredit the generally accepted principles of biology, because their rather childish and inflexible religious beliefs are threatened by the revelations of Science. Dload's comments about DNA and "hoaxes" are, quite simply, lies. I doubt that he or she made them up themselves, but they should be more scrupulous about quoting such drivel from unqualified sources. The fact that "atheism" is mentioned in their lead-in is a dead giveaway that the response is motivated by a sanctimonious agenda. Science is the antithesis of religion -- it requires rigorous and replicable proof, not blind faith. Accepting the reality of species evolution is not a refutation of religious belief -- in fact many deists and even the Catholic Church accept it as a true determination of the source of life. It's only a tiny minority of protestant Christian fundamentalists who find it necessary to promote lies to try to undermine people's understanding.

Lies are lies, and those cloaked in self-righteous sanctimoniousness are the worst lies of all.

Evolution can be split into two parts - Micro and Macro. Yes, I understand atheism doesn't like this idea of breaking down a larger topic and will probably disapprove of this, but the entire scope of evolution is quite large. It needs to be broken down, it's not as simply as just saying yes evolution is real or no it's not, rather separate facts from assumptions. Part of it maybe honest facts, but the rest is questionable...

Basically a creature can adapt to it's environment has been strongly proven (Micro) in sciences and research. However, the part where they morph from goo to fish to monkey to human (Macro), has only ever been assumed and never witnessed, therefore it's a strong faith and still labelled as a theory. The part that says our common ancestors were apes was originally started as a well known hoax which lasted 50 years before being disproven, then wipe off but evolved from there into many other assumptions - people tend to follow as facts.

Too many assumptions are used when it comes to Macro!

"The fact that 98.8% of human DNA is identical to the DNA of chimps" - sorry but this is wrong...

Human DNA is much more identical / closer related to the DNA of tobacco plants, not anywhere close to that of the chimps. You however don't spend your time trying to prove we came from plants... You are mistaken it was a human genome being about 96% closely matched to the chimp. The number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is ten times smaller than for example that between mice and rats. But the researchers also have identified several sequences of genetic code that differ greatly between human and chimp. The DNA ordering is also completely different in both cases. Despite the similarities in human and chimp genomes, the scientists identified some 40 million differences among the three billion DNA molecules, or nucleotides, in each genome. They use assumption and write off all those differences making a huge leap of faith and claiming that it came from billions and billions of years of evolution, which will never been correctly calculated or seen...

There is not ONE observable evidence for Darwinian evolution of a change of kind to date... for example different species of dogs will always remain in the dog family, never morphing into something they are not, plus they are even protected from this occurrence. A dog might even attempt to mate with a cat, but no species merge or change will take place. However, a dog can interbred with it's own creating new offspring species which can turn into mutts or designer dogs. Either you can get more issues and problems with this new bred or you get the best of both dogs improving on it. Over years we can notice the dog species will change and adapt, wild to domesticated, yet not once change into something completely different.

So where did the idea of the ape-man come from?

The most famous example of an apeman proven to be a combination of ape and human bones is Piltdown man. In 1912, Charles Dawson, a medical doctor and an amateur paleontologist, discovered a mandible (lower jawbone) and part of a skull in a gravel pit near Piltdown, England. The jawbone was apelike, but had teeth that showed wear similar to the human pattern. The skull, on the other hand, was very humanlike. These two specimens were combined to form what was called “Dawn man,” which was calculated to be 500,000 years old.

The whole thing turned out to be an elaborate hoax. The skull was indeed human (about 500 years old), while the jaw was that of a modern female orangutan whose teeth had been obviously filed to crudely resemble the human wear pattern. Indeed, the long ape canine tooth was filed down so far that it exposed the pulp chamber, which was then filled in to hide the mischief. It would seem that any competent scientist examining this tooth would have concluded that it was either a hoax or the world’s first root canal! The success of this hoax for over 50 years, in spite of the careful scrutiny of the best authorities in the world, led the human evolutionist Sir Solly Zuckerman to declare: “It is doubtful if there is any science at all in the search for man’s fossil ancestry.”

Artistic imagination has been used to illustrate entire “apemen” from nothing more than a single tooth. In the early 1920s, the “apeman” Hesperopithecus (which consisted of a single tooth) was pictured in the London Illustrated News complete with the tooth’s wife, children, domestic animals, and cave! Experts used this tooth, known as “Nebraska man,” as proof for human evolution during the Scopes trial in 1925. In 1927, parts of the skeleton were discovered together with the teeth, and Nebraska man was found to really be an extinct peccary (wild pig)!

It is a well guarded fact that many evolutionists rejected Darwin's theory of evolution over 20 years ago. Stephen Jay Gould, a professor at Harvard University and one of the foremost authorities on evolution in the world said, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms (missing links) in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontologists,...we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study". Natural History, Vol. 86. Gould is still an evolutionist, he just rejects much of Darwin's theory.

Therefore according to the fossil records it should be monkey -> human -> pig. We use to be protected in trees, ambidexterity using both hands and feet, swinging through the trees with agility and stamina. As of today, it is estimated to have 7 billion or more humans.

Lots of fossils have been found, but only ever assumed to have linkage between ape and man, to this time zero have been confirmed and a few hundred have been crossed out as only ape fossils. By simply saying it takes billions and billions of years - it no longer applies to you or the next generation or even the next, before they work out it was right or wrong - therefore it's just a faith, taking some ones word for it till then. The hoax shows people are more willing to get fame and fortune rather than seek the truth and even after it's proven wrong - people still follow it as if it's 100% fact.

Do I believe in evolution, actually YES - but only part of it. But click that thumb down now for I'm only Christian and ask for actual prove in your faith just like I do to my own... I consider all religions, including atheism and theories, to have some facts, but the rest to be fill with questionable assumptions and motivates. I like to see from all points of view, so please correct me if I'm mistaken.