Adam is not an ape and neither were his ancestors. Nothing you have spoken to is any better than the ramblings of evolutionists. You are not a creationist. You are an evolutionist with a twist.
I cannot take you seriously.
Perhaps you can find some common ground in the following: (I can't find the source, though.)
"Gerald Schroeder, an MIT trained physicist, believes that modern science contains nothing inimical to a literal reading of Genesis. Indeed, modern science allows one to understand the "true literal meaning of the Creation narrative." To Schroeder, it is Einstein's relativity, the "distortion of time facing backwards in a forward rushing cosmos," that accounts for the compression of time in a 15-billion year-old universe into six days of creation.
To Schroeder, the emergence of modern man can be dated to the beginning of writing. Archeologists date the first writing, he notes, "at five or six thousand years ago, the exact period that the Bible tells us the soul of Adam, the neshama, was created." To Schroeder, who cites the Targum of Onkelos, Adam was the first man who could write, and the creation of Adam from more primitive man was a divine ensoulment."
I have thought for years that the relativity of time itself accounts for why 7 days appear as billions of years, and it does make sense that the significance of the creation of man is about our spiritual likeness, not our physical likeness. God is not physical, so how can the physical likeness be what is meant?
Evolution has its flaws, but staunch creationism that denies scientific evidence has its flaws as well. The only Christian approach, I think, is to meet where the two intersect according upon scripture. Whatever science observes and discovers, after compensating for bias, can only be what God has created. This will line up with scripture, even if biased scientific analysis does not.
Faith necessitates that we object to the origin of life from purely natural causes, and theology that we object to a history that contradicts Genesis, but evolution pertains to much more than these two things. The simplest concept of evolution is one of growth and adaptation within the different types of life, and part of fruitfully multiplying appears to be diversifying as well. But, butterflies are always butterflies. So, not only do I believe speciation as the means of diverse life from one common ancestor is preposterous on account of faith, it is also unsupported by scientific evidence.
All this to say: physically, we are dust. We are from dust, and will return to dust. For this reason, there is no need to object to a physical relationship to the rest of creation. It's inherent. However, from within we are different creations. It is not the human mind that makes us so unique, all mammals have minds and some even quite intelligent ones. It is not by our physical nature that we have a relationship with God, so why is it necessary to reject a physical relationship to other primates (though it may only be a similarity, i.e. no biological common ancestry either)? Instead, why not focus on our unique spiritual creation? It would make for a much more poignant argument anyway.