I see plenty of those sub-human species at Walmart every day. But, in all seriousness, when one species splits, one may develop and the other may not. It doesn't mean there has to be a bunch of missing links still there.
The first debates about the nature of human evolution arose between Thomas Huxley and Richard Owen. Huxley argued for human evolution from apes by illustrating many of the similarities and differences between humans and apes, and did so particularly in his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature. However, many of Darwin's early supporters (such as Alfred Russel Wallace and Charles Lyell) did not initially agree that the origin of the mental capacities and the moral sensibilities of humans could be explained by natural selection, though this later changed. Darwin applied the theory of evolution and sexual selection to humans when he published The Descent of Man in 1871.[19] First fossils A major problem at that time was the lack of fossil intermediaries. Despite the 1891 discovery by Eugène Dubois of what is now called Homo erectus at Trinil, Java, it was only in the 1920s when such fossils were discovered in Africa, that intermediate species began to accumulate. In 1925, Raymond Dart described Australopithecus africanus. The type specimen was the Taung Child, an Australopithecine infant which was discovered in a cave. The child's remains were a remarkably well-preserved tiny skull and an endocranial cast of the brain. Although the brain was small (410 cm3), its shape was rounded, unlike that of chimpanzees and gorillas, and more like a modern human brain. Also, the specimen showed short canine teeth, and the position of the foramen magnum was evidence of bipedal locomotion. All of these traits convinced Dart that the Taung baby was a bipedal human ancestor, a transitional form between apes and humans. The East African fossils Louis Leakey examining skulls from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. During the 1960s and 1970s, hundreds of fossils were found, particularly in East Africa in the regions of the Olduvai gorge and Lake Turkana. The driving force in the East African researches was the Leakey family, with Louis Leakey and his wife Mary Leakey, and later their son Richard and daughter in-law Meave being among the most successful fossil hunters and palaeoanthropologists. From the fossil beds of Olduvai and Lake Turkana they amassed fossils of australopithecines, early Homo and even Homo erectus. These finds cemented Africa as the cradle of humankind. In the 1980s, Ethiopia emerged as the new hot spot of palaeoanthropology as "Lucy", the most complete fossil member of the species Australopithecus afarensis, was found by Donald Johanson in Hadar in the desertic Middle Awash region of northern Ethiopia. This area would be the location of many new hominin fossils, particularly those uncovered by the teams of Tim White in the 1990s, such as Ardipithecus ramidus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#First_fossils
Let's be clear about what a theory is and what it isn't. The Big Bang as a idea to support all of creation is a theory. Evolution is not. There is a tremendous amount of scientific evidence to support evolution as a fact. You don't have to like the fact that you came out of the sea slime, but we did. Whether or not that spark of life was through a series of random events, or was somehow manipulated can be debated, but we as a species did evolve from other, more primitive creatures. A true master of creation would use evolution as a tool for natural selection to determine that survival of the fittest is maintained so that it's creation may endure. A rank amateur of creation would design life with flaws, then get pissed off when his creation exercised those flaws, and punish them for all eternity for being what the creator created them to be. That sounds more like something some whack job who wanted to rule the world would come up with. In other words, a fabrication by man to control man. Utter non-sense.
You do not see the paradox in your statement do you? If the ape developed into another species, why are there still apes? If they didn't develop, then why are there humans?
Because the species split, as I said. Look, I'm certainly not going to debate this with you. People who believe in literal creationism (as the Bible tells it) are beyond logic. So there's not a whole lot I can do to help you. You can believe in God and still believe in evolution.
But you can't believe in God's Word and hold that man evolved from ape. The debate over a literal 7 day vs. 7 age, or as I hold, an historical a gap in Genesis 1:1-2 where God created the Heavens and the Earth........ gap who knows how long?.... and then the Earth became (not was) void ........ followed by the Biblical re-transformation suitable for life ---- putting all that aside. Man was a separate creation, God breathed into him the "breath of life" and man became a living soul. Life had already been created, God didn't just create man giving him life.... the breath of life is indicative of something different..... man was given an eternal essence..... "in the likeness". Does evolution exist? Imho, yes, Earth is millions of years old. Did Man evolve from apes? No way.
I haven't read the thread but it will go like this: First, the evolution believers will say creationists are basing their arguments on faith, then the faith people will point out all the evidence supporting their belief. The evolutionists will stick with the idea that they are the scientific shit even after you show them the circular reasoning, lack of evidence, etc. They have the public funding behind their belief system and are teaching it to children so it will prevail no matter what. The evolutionists are poster boys for all the bad philosophical arguments without fail but with the public funding they own the hearts and minds of a majority and that's all they really need...