If we evolved from “lower” primates, why do those species still exist? If we evolved from a particular species, then it would now be extinct, right? So, what did that species evolve from? Do certain species have an evolve gene and others not? Why? Get my drift?
No. Why would you think that?
The species we evolved from IS extinct.
This is all pretty basic stuff.
Why don’t you read up on it, and get back with any questions.
We didn’t evolve from lower primates. Apes, chimps, gorillas, monkeys, and humans all share a common ancestor who is no longer extant.
There is no such thing as an evolve gene. Evolution is the name given by humans to the natural winnowing process that boosts traits that aid in reproduction and squashes traits that interfere.
Speciation occurs by branching in the vast majority cases (a process known as cladogenesis), not transformation (a process known as anagensis). In the case of primates, it’s been branching all the way.
As a very simplified explanation, if a sub population is separated form the main population through some means, then that sub-population will evolve largely independently of the main population. The parent population does not immediately disappear. The two populations eventually become evolutionarily distinct; both the parent and daughter populations can thus certainly exist contemporaneously.
Think of tree branches.
Or language evolution.
Your drift does not sound like a real question you want answered.
No, I think he’s onto something - people say that English evolved from German, but there are still people who speak German. That never-before-noticed fact proves that history is a lie, and the world was created in 1967.
My ancestors emigrated from Germany, England, and Switzerland to the U.S. That does not mean that there is nobody there anymore. If we look at the point several million years ago that the first humans evolved from their great ape ancestors, that does not mean that all of those ancestors simultaneously evolved in the same way. It means that one or more evolved into something closer to a modern human. Somewhere during those same millions of years other of the ape ancestors were evolving into something closer to other great ape species like chimpanzees, gorillas, etc. Evolution always consists of several small groups evolving into different species. Sometimes the non-evolved groups continue to exist and sometimes they die out.
Can someone suggest a good popular introduction to evolution that axolotyl can read to answer his questions?
Pointless.
From the OP’s profile.
What Evolution Is, by Ernst Mayr. Excellent intro to the subject.
I know you are being facetious, but the point still stands. The language that both German and English “evolved” from is no longer spoken.
runner pat writes:
> Pointless.
I think that saying that it’s pointless to try to teach someone who asks ill-conceived questions is giving up too easily. I think that’s the equivalent of telling someone that they are stupid and can’t possibly learn anything, so they shouldn’t ask questions. I think that it’s better to tell them to start by reading an introduction to the subject they are asking about so they understand better what questions make sense.
You’re right, of course. It’s worth noting that modern German is more similar to that original language than modern English is - this is analogous to the fact that when one species develops into two or more descendant species, some of the descendants will look more like the original species than others do, even though all the new species have been evolving the same amount of time. But all that is immaterial to answering axolotyl’s fallacy.
Another analogy that might help is that although I live in America and my ancestors came from Italy, there are still Italians.
However, when an axolotl turns into a salamander, there really is no axolotl there any more.
Perhaps this is why he’s confused. 
I realize that it’s probably pointless to argue with the OP given how the OP’s question was phrased, but just to add my two bits - there are very few situations where there is only one potentially advantageous change. An animal could have an advantage by being stronger, by having longer teeth, by having a better immune system, by having greater intelligence, by being able to soar further, by having better balance, etc. etc. etc. etc. Some changes will be more suitable for grassland, some for the edge of the forest, some for deep forest, etc. etc. etc. etc. So, no, one animal does not typically evolve into one other single animal; it evolves into multiple different animals. People and other primates evolved from a common ancestor; nobody (that is familiar with evolution) suggests that, for example, chimpanzees evolved into humans; they both ultimately evolved from a much older ancestor. Evolution takes the form of a tree, not a straight line.
If children turn into adults, why are there still children around?