Hi Bex

The differences between apes and humans is so significant, that human beings reject ALL ape parts, yet not all pig parts.

That is simply not true. Baboon livers have been used experimentally as xenotransplants but this has largely been dropped for the very simple reason that we are so genetically similar to the great apes that diseases that can affect apes can also affect humans. Given the genetic separation between humans and pigs this is much less of a concern as diseases are far less capable of affecting both organisms given the genetic divergence that has occurred since our common ancestor with pigs. Further pigs are easier and cheaper to breed in large numbers, have large litters and don’t raise so many concerns about our treatment of such intelligent creatures as apes do. Currently only inert, dead, pig tissues are used in transplants, heart valves for instance which are killed and sterilized first while the Baboon livers were transplanted live and active into humans. This has not been successfully done with pig organs as yet though with more genetic manipulation it may well be possible in the future. So it’s simply not true to say that humans reject all ape parts and it is not true to say that we are more compatible with pigs in fact the opposite is true and our compatibility with apes in disease organisms is the largest reason why we do not use ape’s as organ donors at this time.

Quote
A long list emerges when we consider the preferred characteristics of animals appropriate to be organ donors for humans. First, the animal should be of compatible anatomy and physiology for the intended organ to function well in humans. Next, no possibility of cross-species (i.e., animal-to-human) infection should exist. In fact, an ideal animal donor organ should resist human diseases (especially viral) as well. Further, this animal species should be inexpensive to feed and breed, with short gestation times and multiple births per litter to achieve economies of scale. Such an animal should also present no immunologic barriers to transplantation into humans. Finally, use of this animal in this manner should engender little or no ethical controversy.
An animal species meeting all of the above criteria does not exist. Nonhuman primates (apes and monkeys) are most like humans anatomically and physiologically. Further, they may possess resistance to certain human diseases. In fact, this attribute (resistance to HIV and hepatitis B virus) has led to the experimental use of baboon livers as xenografts (6). Nonetheless, the xenotransplant community seems to have abandoned hopes of using nonhuman primates as xenograft donors primarily because of infectious risks to human patients and their contacts. Some monkey viruses—for example, herpes 8—are deadly to humans in a matter of days (7). The costs of raising pathogen-free herds in large enough numbers to satisfy clinical demand are felt to be prohibitive. Finally, the ethical obstacles to using nonhuman primates as organ donors for humans are considerable (8, 9).
The pig, with its large litters (up to 10 littermates), short gestation times (4 months), anatomic/physiologic similarities to humans, widespread use for human consumption (an estimated 90 million pigs consumed yearly in the USA), and long history of providing medicinals (skin, insulin, cardiac prostheses, clotting factors) for humans, has become the most likely candidate for consideration as an organ donor. To be sure, important differences in porcine physiology, including that of the coagulation cascade, may represent significant obstacles (10–12). Immunologic barriers, though increasingly understood, are also far from being overcome.
Animal organs for human transplantation: how close are we?
Marlon F. Levy, MD - Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2000 January; 13(1): 3–6. PMCID: PMC1312205

Now I realise some people maybe compared to monkeys and pigs on occassion, but must we take it literally?

If we wish to face the truth as revealed by the evidence then yes we must seriously consider this possibility especially given the very very extensive list of evidence in support of this idea.

Would they be so brave if it came to testing their theory out medically?

For very obvious reasons, opposite to the claims you are making, it would probably not be a good idea at this stage to use ape organs because we are too closely related to them for our own safety. Rejection is less of a problem with unmodified ape organs than with pigs but genetic engineering may be able to solve that issue.

We can fit any species into being human or ape (or other animals) if we find any fossil that happens to have resemblences and at times hard to distinguish which it may belong to, but it still doesn't prove that we come from a common ancestor.

You really need to read up on the literature on this point, what you are saying is, as for the point above on transplantation, simply wrong. Read the stuff that RazD has been posting and see if you can understand the sorts of evidence that these findings are based on and why your last statement is so profoundly wrong.

We don't know enough to state it's a missing link, since it could quite easily be an unrecognised species.

The science behind this is very solid, we have a huge list of fossil evidence on which the stated lineages are based and the data is mathematical not just aesthetic. We don’t just say, that one looks a bit more human than tha tone so it must be an ancestor it takes a great many very detailed measurements of intricate features of the bones and of the dating information from the site it was found to put together a picture of what is related to who.

Either way, they'll keep closing the gaps where and when it suits them, because evolution is so easily manipulated and moulded (I'd compare it to playdough).

That last statement suggests strongly that you understand very little about ToE or human anthropology. That's not an insult, none of us was born knowing this stuff, we all have to learn it. Are you interested in learning how it works and why these findings are virtually universally accepted by scientists and even by religious leaders around the world? Do you wonder why it is only such a small minority or christians who reject these findings? The Pope, leader of the largest single christian sect has come out clearly supporting these scientific findings. Do you wonder why?

All the best Bex.

Russell

For every lone genius working away in solitude that shifted the paradigm, shattered the pedestal, or smashed the status quo, ten thousand quacks didn't understand the paradigm, couldn't find the pedestal, or whiffed when swinging at the status quo.