Probably the most interesting evolutionary transitional form would have to be the one between apes and humans. (Note: evolutionists define apes as including humans, but in this section we will refer to apes as non-human.) Did we, as humans, evolve from apes? If so, do we have any transitional fossils of these ape men to document this change? We will consider these questions below. Evolutionists claim to have found some ape men fossils, transitions between apes and humans. But the position presented in this section can be summed up as follows: It’s either ape, human, or fraud. We will organize our information into these 3 categories.
Apes
Let’s begin with the apes. These supposed ape men are in no way transitional to humans, and so they should be classified as ordinary apes with no evolutionary significance.
Australopithecines
The Australopithecines are the older specimens claimed to be the ancestors of humans. The Australopithecus genus includes several species such as Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, and Australopithecus afarensis (Fix, 1984:30). Lucy and the Taung child will be considered individually a bit later. The deal is that the Australopithecines are just apes.
For starters, Australopithecus has a cranial capacity of around 380cc to 550cc, whereas humans have 1,000cc to 2,000cc (Fix, 1984:28). This means that the size of the Australopithecine skull was about 31% the size of a human skull, and so their brain could not be larger than about 31% of a human brain. Also, in relation to the skull, Australopithecus robustus and Australopithecus boisei had a sagittal crest (Fix, 1984:32). A sagittal crest is a ridge on top of the skull which anchors the large jaw muscles of gorillas and some male chimpanzees; this is not found in humans (Fix, 1984:32). These features of the skull point to the fact that Australopithecus was just an ape. “There is, indeed, no question which the Australopithecine skull resembles when placed side by side with specimens of human and living ape skulls. It is the ape – so much so that only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any differences between them” (Zuckerman, 1954:307).
Solly Zuckerman also explains that the dental features of Australopithecus more closely resemble the apes, “For whatever qualitative differences there may be between certain of their dental features and the corresponding ones of existing apes, it is a fact that with the exception of their incisors and canines, the size and general shape of the jaws and teeth of these animals were very much more like those of the living apes than like acknowledged members of the Hominidae, either living or extinct (Ashton and Zuckerman, 1952a; Zuckerman, 1952)” (Zuckerman, 1954:306-307).
From the study of the innominate (hip) bones some may conjecture that Australopithecus walked upright, but according to Zuckerman, this is “anything but certain” (Zuckerman, 1954:346). We must realize that in the area of fossil ape men many conclusions that are drawn are highly contentious. The reasons for this include the limited amount of information we can gather from bones and that we know very little about the extinct species.
After explaining some of the points we touched on above, Zuckerman concludes, “If we combine these various conclusions, the safest overall inference that can be drawn from the facts which have been discussed here is that the Australopithecinae were predominantly ape-like, and not man-like creatures” (Zuckerman, 1954:347).
Lucy
Lucy is a specimen from the species Australopithecus afarensis found in Ethiopia. Lucy is a 40% complete skeleton of an adult about 3.5 to 4 feet tall (Johanson, 1976:793). Her cranial capacity was 450cc, whereas ours is about 1,400cc (Krogh, 2007:325). These features indicate that Lucy was just some form of a chimpanzee. But evolutionists claim that Lucy was bipedal and had an arm to leg ratio which would make her a transition to humans. Let’s examine these claims.
Donald Johanson says, “Lucy and her kind walked upright, foraging along an Ethiopian lakeshore…. The angle of the thigh bone and the flattened surface at its knee-joint end – different from quadrupedal apes – prove she walked on two legs” (Johanson, 1976:802). The knee joint which was claimed to show bipedalism was not actually from Lucy. This knee joint was found 80m below Lucy and some distance away (Bowden, 1981:221). Here’s the problem. This knee joint is claimed to be related to Lucy because the bottom end of the joint is similar to the bottom end of Lucy’s real knee joint (Bowden, 1981:220). The part of the joint that determines bipedalism is the top part of the joint, and this top part is “badly crushed” in Lucy’s real joint (Bowden, 1981:220). So the knee joint that was found at some distance away was in good shape and seemed to indicate bipedalism, but this joint was claimed to be related to Lucy by the bottom part of the joint. The main part in determining bipedalism, the top part, is “badly crushed” in Lucy’s real joint. Therefore, we cannot be certain that Lucy walked upright based on her real knee joint, nor can we be certain that the knee joint found some distance away was actually related to Lucy.
Lucy’s arm to leg ratio of 83.9% is claimed to be evidence of her transitional stage between apes and humans (Bowden, 1981:222). In apes this ratio is 100%, in humans it is 73%, and so Lucy is said to be half-way in between (Bowden, 1981:222). But this ratio is based on a humerus that is fractured in 2 places, a partly crushed proximal end, and a femur distal end that is “badly crushed” (Bowden, 1981:222). How anyone can claim to have a 0.1% accuracy with all of those defects is a serious question (Bowden, 1981:222). Perhaps someone was nudging the numbers to suit their theory? Lucy seems to be just some form of chimpanzee; any characteristics resembling humans are questionable.
Taung child
Taung child is a young specimen of Australopithecus africanus found in South Africa (Pitman, 1984:248). Raymond Dart, the one who discovered Taung child, says this specimen has human-like characteristics like the teeth, the position of the foramen magnum (hole in the skull for the spinal cord), the cranial capacity, and some other traits. The problem is that Taung child was just a child when it died, and so some of the characteristics of apes were not fully developed. Dean Falk explains this problem, “In his analysis of Taung, Dart did not fully appreciate that infant apes have not had time to develop features of the skull, such as thickened eyebrow ridges or attachment areas for heavy neck muscles, which set adult apes apart from humans. Apparently he did not consider the possibility that Taung’s rounded forehead or the inferred position of the spinal cord might be due to the immaturity of the apelike specimen rather than to its resemblance to humans” (Falk, 2004:13). Taung child was just a form of chimpanzee.
Let’s begin with the position of the foramen magnum. Dart claims that this hole in the skull was more forwardly placed than in apes, which makes it similar to humans (Zuckerman, 1954:310). But Sir Arthur Keith says, “The foramen magnum is more forwardly placed in a child of six than in the Taungs skull; the Taungs condition is that seen in a chimpanzee at the end of the milk dentition” (Keith, 1931:111). So when Taung child is compared to a chimpanzee of a comparable juvenile age, the position of the foramen magnum points to chimpanzee, not human.
In relation to the cranial capacity, the Taung skull was estimated at 450cc, 500cc, and 520cc (Keith, 1931:61). This is relatively large for a chimpanzee, but falls completely below any human at a young age. A European boy, by the beginning of 7th year, has a brain capacity of 1,225 c.c. and a girl has 1,115 c.c. (Keith, 1931:60). An Australian aborigine 6 years old has 1,100 c.c. and a girl has 1,000 c.c. (Keith, 1931:60-61). Keith concludes from this observation that the Taung child was superior to the chimpanzee and maybe even the gorilla, but could not be considered human or prehuman (Keith, 1931:67).
Humans
Now we’ll move on to the real humans. These supposed ape men are just forms of humans, some degenerate, but still human nonetheless.
Neanderthal man
Neanderthal man is the popular name for Homo neanderthalensis. It used to be thought that Neanderthal man was our ancestor, but the more recent opinion is that Neanderthal man coexisted with humans for some period of time, and was actually just a side branch from the evolution of man (Krogh, 2007:326). Nevertheless, it will still be beneficial to examine Neanderthal man, because it is claimed that he is an advanced ape man and not completely human. The gist of the argument here is that Neanderthal man was really human and not an ape man.
Reconstructions of Neanderthal man have his spine looking flat instead of curved as in humans, thus giving him a stooping posture (Straus and Cave, 1957:354). But William Straus and A. J. E. Cave explain that since Neanderthal man had spondylitis (inflammation of the spine), the reconstruction was faulty, and Neanderthal man was not outside of the limits of variation in real humans (Straus and Cave, 1957:352-356). They conclude, “There is thus no valid reason for the assumption that the posture of Neanderthal man of the fourth glacial period differed significantly from that of present-day men” (Straus and Cave, 1957:358).
Neanderthal man’s disease not only affected his spine, it also affected the rest of his skeleton. Neanderthal man showed evidence of rickets or syphilis. Neanderthal man’s illness could be due to the lack of vitamin D because of his diet and limited exposure to the sun (Ivanhoe, 1970:578). Francis Ivanhoe studied the following Neanderthal remains: La Chapelle-aux-Saints adult, Engis child, La Ferrassie I to VI adults and children, Gibraltar adult and child, Neandertal, Pech-de-l’Aze, La Quina adult and child, Skhul IX adult, and Tabun I adult. Ivanhoe said in relation to his studies, “But the crucial point which has not been emphasized is that every Neandertal child skull studied so far shows signs compatible with severe rickets” (Ivanhoe, 1970:578). Based on these observations we can see that Neanderthal apparently had rickets or syphilis, and that is what gave him a more brutish appearance.
If we examine the rest of the evidence, it seems that Neanderthal was very human. Neanderthal seems to have even buried his dead in ceremonies surrounding the dead with animal horns and flowers (Falk, 2004:177). “It is the Neanderthals who provided us with the image of dumb, prehuman brutes, grunting their way through the Stone Age. But does this image fit with the reality? Well, consider that the Neanderthals had a cranial capacity slightly larger than ours; that some put up shelters in their campsites; and that one reason we have so many artifacts from them is that they took the trouble to bury their dead” (Krogh, 2007:326). So Neanderthal man was a population of humans with some disease, not ape men.
Homo Sapiens
In this section we will look at some “unexpected” finds, unexpected for evolutionists of course. These are finds of human or very human-like remains found in earlier layers than evolutionists would allow for human existence. These finds undermine the validity of supposed ape men who are found above or in the same layers as these Homo sapiens, since humans could not have evolved before their ancestors. Evolution allows a later evolved organism, such as humans, to coexist with an ancestor, but if the descendant existed at the same time as the earliest ancestor, we have to question the relationship.
For instance, Vertesszöllos was a skull part dated to be from the middle Pleistocene. This is the same time as Pekin and Java man, so it invalidates them as human ancestors. Found at the same level were stone tools, fire, burnt bone and human teeth (Bowden, 1981:168).
Hans Reck’s human skeleton found in the Mindel-Glacial period puts it at about the same time as Java and Pekin Man. The upper layers show no signs of an intrusive burial (Bowden, 1981:187-189).
The Castenedolo skull was found in the Pliocene layer with undisturbed upper layers, so it couldn’t have been an intrusive burial (Bowden, 1981:78-79).
The Foxhall jaw was also found in the Pliocene layer (Bowden, 1981:80).
The Olmo skull was found with Pleistocene fossils (Bowden, 1981:80).
Galley Hill is the skeleton of man found in the Middle Pleistocene with undisturbed upper layers (Bowden, 1981:80-83).
The Clichy Skeleton was found in the middle Pleistocene. Why was it rejected? Because it was a full skeleton (Bowden, 1981:86)! If that doesn’t make any sense, that’s good, because it’s not supposed to make sense. Evolutionists think that any skeleton so well preserved can’t possible be that old, and so they reject it. This is an example of how presuppositions hinder proper science.
The Abbeville jaw was found in the early Pleistocene and was accepted as human until the Neanderthal theory came around (Bowden, 1981:86-87)!
The Swanscombe skull was found with fossils of the middle Pleistocene, which puts it before Neanderthal. This skull’s 3 pieces fit together perfectly, so it is not a fake (Bowden, 1981:165-167).
The Kanam Jaw of a human was found in the lower Pleistocene layer (Bowden, 1981:194).
The Calaveras human skull was found in the Pliocene (Bowden, 1981:76-77). Evolutionists may claim that this skull is a joke, but many human spearheads, mortars and pestles, and stone bowls have been found in the area (Brown, 1996:47).
Homo erectus
“The first man of our own genus, Homo erectus is modern of limb but more primitive of hand and brain, with a cranial capacity extending only into the lower range of Homo sapiens. The sites he frequented show that he led a communal life and knew the use of fire” (Howell, 1970:44). Most specimens of Homo erectus are real humans. A case in point is Narmada Man, who was once labeled Homo erectus but now Homo sapiens (Homo erectus, 1992:11). Java man will be considered individually in the next section.
“Among the fossil hominids investigated, the earliest species to demonstrate the modern human semicircular canal morphology is Homo erectus” (Spoor, 1994:647).
The problem with Leakey’s Homo erectus skull (KNM-ER 3733) is that tilting the face bones at different angles can make the specimen look more like an ape or more like a human (Bowden, 1981:208-209). So KNM-ER 3733 is probably just a degenerate species of Homo sapiens (Bowden, 1981:210).
The Kow Swamp Homo erectus skeletons are just humans similar to Neanderthal man. The graves of these specimens included stone artifacts, ochre shells and marsupial teeth. C-14 dating gave them 8-10,000 years, and Homo sapiens existed before then, so these specimens are of no significance to human evolution (Bowden, 1981:209-210).
Java man
Now it is time to examine Pithecanthropus erectus, otherwise known as Java man. Java man’s skull is that of an ape, while the femur is that of a human. These parts are not from one individual. “Early commentators on the Java discoveries could see no reason for associating the broken skull cap and the two molar teeth with the leg-bone fourteen meters away” (Hitching, 1982:208).
The deep suture in the skull showed that this skull was from some type of ape (Hitching, 1982:208). Concerning the femur, Boule said, “In its whole structure, this femur is so human that, had it been found alone, there would have been no hesitation in attributing it to a very old representative of our species” (Boule, 1957:122).
“One could prattle on merrily for considerable additional length as to what’s wrong with the Pithecanthropines as ancestors – such as Java man’s enormous canine teeth and large tooth-gaps, features never encountered in any kind of true man, living or extinct; or the fact that his forehead was more receding than that of a chimpanzee; etc., etc., etc” (Fix, 1984:138).
Fraud
Piltdown man
Piltdown man is an indisputable hoax recognized by evolutionists themselves. The skull was human but the jaw was from an orangutan and its teeth were filed down. This hoax fooled most scientists for about forty years (Zihlman, 1979:86, 88). The point in mentioning this fraud is that in paleoanthropology, the study of human fossils, there is much room for ambiguity and mistake. We cannot be dogmatic about the finds, because fossils do not do a good job of telling us who they came from and when, all of that has to be inferred. More frauds may come up in the future, we don’t know. But we should be careful with any interpretations of fossils, because sometimes a simple tilt can give a whole new impression, depending on what the finder wants. For many of the fossils, only fragments are found, the rest has to be guessed. The subjectivity is quite evident.
Miscellaneous
Subjectivity of fossil-finding
Here is an interesting quote concerning fossil-finding, “Did Lucy or the genus Homo “family” use tools? None have been found at the site, but as the author points out, “We haven’t looked for tools yet, and we tend to find only what we look for”” (Johanson, 1976:802). Well, if archeologists tend to find only that which they look for, how are we to trust that they are searching for the “right” fossils? What they find then depends on their viewpoint and beliefs, which introduces the possibility of a bias.
The famous evolution of man parade
The following is a critique of the chart of the man evolution parade from Early Man by Clark Howell. All of the creatures are shown in an upright posture, but some could not physically stand upright. And they are actually walking, not just standing, which makes them look more human than is appropriate (Bergman, 2008:1). Further, the creatures on the chart look less hairy as they progress, but this is purely speculative since fossils cannot tell us how much hair a creature had (Bergman, 2008:2). The book itself contains this quote concerning Oreopithecus, “A likely side branch of man’s family tree, Oreopithecus….is now better known, and was clearly an aberrant ape” (Howell, 1970:42). If Oreopithecus is a side branch of man’s family tree, why is he included in the parade? May I suggest an answer to this and the other issues mentioned above? Evolutionists need to convince the public of their teaching, but the evidence is slim, so they must rely on “fudged” charts to brainwash unsuspecting people.
Where are all of the ape men?
I would like to quote from one science textbook, “What are some of the notable features of the hominin family tree? Well, for one thing, every species in it is extinct except for our own” (Krogh, 2007:322). Isn’t that convenient! So the speculative ape men just happened to all go extinct! We are left to rely on the speculations of archeologists concerning fragments of skeletons, and let them tell us the story of our supposed evolution. Let us reason, if transitional forms ever existed, they had to have remained due to natural selection because of some hypothetical advantage. Why do we then find only the perfected end-products living, while all the transitions were left to the fate of extinction? Maybe this is just an excuse and the truth lies outside of the evolutionary interpretation?
Works Cited
Bergman, Jerry. “The Human Evolution Parade: The Most Famous Icon of Evolution Is Fraudulent.” Creation Matters 13.4 (2008).
Boule, Marcellin and Henri V. Vallois. Fossil Men. New York: The Dryden Press, 1957.
Bowden, Malcolm. Ape-Men- Fact or Fallacy? Bromley, Kent: Sovereign Publications (2 edition), 1981.
Brown, Walter T., Jr. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. (Special Edition) Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, 1996.
Falk, Dean. Braindance. (Revised and Expanded Edition.) Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2004.
Fix, William R. The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution. NY: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984.
Hitching, Francis. The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong. New Haven, CT: Ticknor & Fields, 1982.
“Homo erectus never existed?” Geotimes 37.10 (1992).
Howell, Clark F. Early Man. New York: Time-Life Books, 1970.
Ivanhoe, Francis. “Was Virchow Right about Neandertal?” Nature 227 (August 8, 1970).
Johanson, Donald C. “Ethiopia Yields First “Family” of Early Man.” National Geographic 150.6 (1976).
Keith, Sir Arthur. New Discoveries Relating to the Antiquity of Man. London: Williams & Norgate, Ltd, 1931.
Krogh, David. Brief Guide to Biology with Physiology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007.
Pitman, Michael. Adam and Evolution. London: Rider & Company, 1984.
Spoor, Fred and Bernard Wood and Frans Zonneveld. “Implications of early hominid labyrinthine morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion.” Nature 369.6482 (23 June, 1994).
Straus, William L. and A. J. E. Cave. “Pathology and the Posture of Neanderthal Man.” The Quarterly Review of Biology 32.4 (December 1957). JSTOR. 11 April 2008 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2816957>.
Zihlman, Adrienne L. and Jerold M. Lowenstein. “False Start of the Human Parade.” Natural History 88.7 (Aug-Sept, 1979).
Zuckerman, Solly. “Correlation of Change in the Evolution of Higher Primates” Evolution as a Process. Eds. Julian Huxley, A. C. Hardy, and E. B. Ford. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1954.