INTERMEDIATE (TRANSITIONAL) FORMS PUT FORWARD AS EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION
Prof. Dr. Âdem TATLI
Dumlupınar University, Faculty of Science and Letters, Kütahya (E).
All scientific studies show that every living being species was created directly with their own genetic potentials, abilities and characteristics.
It is claimed by the view of evolution that all living beings evolved over time with the differentiation of a single cell. As evidence for this claim, it was suggested that transitional forms between species would be found. However, for almost 150 years, no example has been put forward to confirm that claim.
Organisms that are assumed to have completed the missing links of the evolutionary chain and that resemble the organism preceding it in terms of some characteristics and the organism succeeding it in terms some characteristics are called “intermediate form” or “transitional form”.
If all living beings had originated from a single cell as it is claimed, they would have found a lot oforganisms with intermediate forms in the form of fossils.
Let us review living beings in terms of transitional fossil form.
Transition from Protozoa to Invertebrate Metazoa
The first living beings on earth were seen in the Precambrian era about 1.5 billion years ago. They were unicellular algae from Protozoa. This group of living beings is still present in the form and structure in which it first appeared on earth. In the Cambrian era, which came after thePrecambrian era, living beings did not display a gradual transition from unicellular to multicellular, as evolutionists claim. The multicellular organisms seen in this period had no similarity to one another and did not show any similarity to their predecessors.
The sudden emergence of multicellular organisms is called “the Cambrian explosion”. Among those living beings are invertebrate with highly complex structure likesponges, corals, Trilobites, Brachiopods, Mollusks, Echinoids and Arthropods.
Guttman states in his biology book he published in 1999 that there was no relation or connection between unicellular microorganisms in the Precambrian era and these highly complex invertebrates in the Cambrian era.
On the other hand, researchers such as Axelrod, George and Kay indicate that Cambrian invertebrates suddenly appeared on Earth at the end of the Precambrian period without a transition form,.,
Richard Monestarsky states that complex life suddenly appeared on earth as follows:
“The remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. These arrivals coincided with the beginning of the Cambrian era. The seas and the earth filled with the first complex creatures began in this period”.
Richard Dawkins, an evolutionist British zoologist, points out that complex creatures suddenly appeared:
“The invertebrate groups in the Cambrian strata seem to have occurred there without any history of evolution. This sudden appearance definitely pleases creationists”.
Transition from Invertebrates to Vertebrates
Generally, invertebrates have soft parts inside and hard shells outside. It is different in vertebrates. They have a skeleton inside.
There were vertebrates such as jawless vertebrates (Cyclostomata), cartilaginous fish (Elasmobranchii) and bony fishes (Teleostomi) at the end of the Ordovician period, which was observed 430 million years ago and after the Cambrian period and at the beginning of the Devonian age 330 million years ago.
Ommaney states in his book called“The Fishes”and Romer in his book called “Vertebrata Paleontology”thatthere is no fossil to provide a connection between those fish and the invertebrates that are regarded as their ancestors.
Evolutionist paleontologist Gerald Todd points out that there is no transition form between fish groups and states the following:
“All three classes of bony fish appear in fossil strata simultaneously and all of a sudden; they do not show any connection with any groups that can be their ancestors”.
Gordon Taylor states that there is no transition form between finned and limbed creatures:
“There are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collection of the world”.
Transition from Fish to Frogs
On the earth, unicellular algae were first seen about 1.5 billion years ago in the Precambrian Era. After that, multicellular Brachiopods, Mollusks, Echinoids and Arthropods came into being suddenly in the Cambrian Era. There is no fossil form that shows transition between those groups of living beings.
The lobe-finned fish (Rhipidistian crossopterygian) and the tailed frog (Ichthyostega) are introduced as a transitional form between fish and frogs (Figures 1a and 1b).
It was assumed that the Rhipidistian crossopterygian, called the Lobe-finned Fish or Coelacanth, lived for a certain period and produced frogs as the environmental conditions changed, and that it had disappeared at the end of the Cretaceous period, approximately 70 million years ago. In his book “The Hamlyn Encyclopedia of Prehistoric Animals”, Hublin states that the fishLatemaria chalumnea, which is in the same group as this fossil form, was caught in several places included in Mozambique in 1935, in Madagascar in 1939, in the Comoros in 1953, and in Africa in 1955, which eliminates its feature of being a transitional form (Figure 2).
Figure1.a) The picture of the lobe-finned fish (Rhipidistian crossopterygian) regarded as the ancestor of the tailed toad b) The picture the tailed toad (Ichthyostega) drawn based on the data.
Robert Carroll, points out in his book called "Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution" that there is no transitional form between fish and frogs as follows:
“We do not have fossils that have the property of transitional form between the first frogs and fish”.1. a), b) The.
Edwin Colbert and Morales point out that the frogs of the past and the present are of the same structure:
“There is not a single piece of evidence to show that the Paleozoic (First Time) frogs have a common ancestor. The oldest known frogs are similar to those of today”.
Figure 2. Latimaria from the lobe-finned fish (Coelacanth) group.
Transition from Frogs to Reptiles
Seymouria and Didactes, which lived at the beginning of the Permian Period, are suggested as the transitional forms between frogs and reptiles. However, in the light of today’s knowledge, we see that frogs and reptiles lived together in the Carboniferous Period. Therefore, it is not possible to explain both the emergence of reptiles from frogs and the existence of frogs with the deterioration of environmental conditions during the same period,. As a matter of fact, Seymouria is considered by some as a “very developed real frog”, not the “ancestor of reptiles”.
Robert Carroll, points out that there is no fossil showing the transition from frogs to reptiles in his book called“Problems of the Origins of Reptiles”:
“We do not have a single fossil specimen that could be the true ancestor of the first reptile. Therefore, the absence of such an intermediate form invalidates the claim that there is a transition from frogs to reptiles”.
Transition from Reptiles to Birds
It is suggested that reptile scales turned into feathers during the transition from the reptile to the bird. However, some evolutionists point out that this view is wrong. Barbara, one of them, evaluates the issue as follows:
“Feathers have a very complex structure … There is no form with the feature of transition between scales and feathers”.
Brush is of the view that feathers appeared suddenly; he states the following:
“Feathers emerge suddenly in the fossil record as a characteristic of birds only”.
Feduccia states that the transition from the reptile to the bird is impossible:
“Transition from the reptile to the bird is not possible in terms of biophysics”.
Archaeopteryx is suggested as the transitional form between reptiles and birds.
A fossil was found among the Upper Jurassic limestones (Figure 7.4).
Figure 3. a- Archaeopteryx fossil, b- Estimated form of archaeopteryx.
Archaeopterislived approximately 140 million years ago (Figure 3).
The reptile-like features of archaeopteryx, which is usually in bird form, can be listed as follows:
a) The presence of claws on the edge of the wings.
b) The presence of teeth in the mouth.
c) The presence of the spine in the tail.
It is stated in the work titled “Jurassic Bird Challenges Origin Theories” that Archaeopteryxis not the passage form between reptiles and birds and the following points are put forward about the issue:
- The Hoatzin bird (Opisthocomus hoatzin), now living in South America, and the Tourako bird of Africa (Touraco coryhaix of the Musophogidae family) also have claws at the edge of their wings in their youth,and the spine structure of the Hoatzin bird is similar to that of the archaeopteryx. (Figure 4). There are also three claws on the wings of the Ostrich living in South America..
- The Archaeopteryx has an asymmetrical feather structure like that of modern birds. This is regarded as evidence for its flying.
- It was claimed that the Archaeopteryx did not have the necessary breastbone to fly. The last seventh Archaeopteryx that was found fossil revealed the presence of breastbone.
Paleontologists Lianhai Hou and Zhonghe Zhou of the Vertebrate Paleontology Institute in China found a bird fossil, which they called “Confuciusor” in 1995. Confuciusor, which was the same age as the archaeopteryx, about 140 million years old, had no teeth, and its beak and feathers had the same features as those of modern birds. The skeletal structure of this bird, which is the same as the birds of today, had claws on its wings just like the archaeopteryx.
Figure 4 .Hoatzin bird, which has claws on its wings.
Shipman states that the discovery of Confuciusor refuted the thesis that archaeopteryx was the ancestor of birds.
A bird named Liaoningornis, which is 130 million years old, was found by Hou, Martin and Alan Feduccia in China in 1996. Liaoningornis, which is 10 million years younger than the archaeopteryx, is reported to have a breastbone that holds the flight muscles, which are also found in the birds of today; the only difference is that the birds of today have teeth in their mouths. Feduccia also states that Liaoningornis invalidates the claim that “the origin of birds is dinosaurs”.
Another fossil related to birds was found in the West Texas Desert. This two-piece fossil, which was evaluated by Sankar Chatterjee in 1984, is called “the first bird” (Protoavis) and is said to have lived 225 million years ago.
If it is considered that archaeopteryx lived 140 million years ago, it will be understood that the fossil discovered by Sankar Chatterjee lived 85 million years before archaeopteryx.
According to the claim of evolutionists archaeopteryx must have evolved from dinosaurs. However, in light of the recent fossils, some evolutionists do not accept archaeopteryx’s being the intermediate form. Alan Feduccia, who specializes in birds, states the following:
“I have studied birds skulls for twenty-five years. I do not see any similarities whatsoever between them and dinosaurs. The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century”.
There was a different claim regarding the archaeopteryx in the Punch magazine dated September 2, 1987. It is claimedin the article published by “William Hewison”that the feather marks belonging to the fossil of the archaeopteryx found in 1861 were put later by Richard Owen with a printing block. The common opinion about the archaeopteryx is that it is a toothed bird, that it lived for a certain period of life and that it disappeared later,,.,,
Indeed, some reptiles and frogs today have teeth, while others do not.
Transition from Reptiles to Mammals
Seymouria and didactes are regarded as the ancestors of reptiles. Synopsidae suborder, which is regarded as the pioneer of mammals, was seen on earth before those orders, which are regarded as the ancestors of reptiles. Therefore, it is impossible for reptiles to be the ancestors of mammals.
In his book titled “The Reptiles That Became Mammals”, Kemp insists that there are no transitional forms showing the transition from reptiles to mammals.
In his book called “Vertebrata Paleontology”, Romer points out that there is no fossil showing that bats (of flying mammals) come from reptiles.
Ommaney states that the bat fossils found between the aged strata are no different from those of today.
The evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson, one of the founders of the Neo-Darwinist Theory, states in his work called“Life Before Man”that there is no intermediate form related to mammals:
“The most puzzling event in the history of life on earth is the change from the Mesozoic, the Age of Reptiles, to the Age of Mammals. It is as if the curtain were rung down suddenly on the stage where all the leading roles were taken by reptiles, especially dinosaurs, in great numbers and bewildering variety, and rose again immediately to reveal the same setting but an entirely new cast, a cast in which the dinosaurs do not appear at all, other reptiles are supernumeraries, and all the leading parts are played by mammals of sorts barely hinted at in the preceding acts”.
The Horse is put forward as an Example to the Evolution of Higher Organisms
The changes that the horse underwent during its phylogeny are given as an example to the evolution of higher organisms. According to the claim of Weller, Eohippus, known as the “primitive horse”, which lived in the Eocene Epoch, had four toes on each forefoot and three on each hind foot; all of the toes pressed on the ground when it walked.
According to Johnson, the third toe of the horse developed while the others were gradually reduced and disappeared. It is claimed that it was because the horses ate the young branches and leaves of the trees but later began to eat grass since the pastures became dominant beginning from the Miocene Epoch.
It is assumed that only by running fast can it be possible to be protected from the enemies in plains where the horses graze on the grassland; thus, the third toe developed and enlarged, causing the others to disappear. The toes other than the third toe atrophied and became useless and vestigial organs.
The Evaluation of the Horse
The decrease in the number of toes is attributed to the feeding style hence running and fleeing from the enemies.
The assumption, “If an organ is used, it will develop, and if it is not used, it will atrophy” is known as “Lamarck’s Principle”. It has been understood for the last 20 years that Lamarck’s principle was based on modification, that is, the transfer of the change in somatic cells to the youngs is impossible; however, it is transferred through a change in the gametes. Besides, through the same reasoning, it will be necessary to explain why many animals primarily rabbits that escape from their enemies did not undergo similar changes.
Wells states the following regarding the issue:
“Three years before Charles Darwin’s death in 1882, Yale University paleontologist Othniel Marsh published a drawing of horse fossils to show how modern one-toed horses had evolved from a small four-toed ancestor. His drawings, which included only foot bones and teeth, were supported by the addition of the skull and the drawings of horse fossils, and quickly found their way into museum exhibits and biology textbooks as evidence for evolution.
It is disputable whether the splint bones in the horse leg are vestigial organs because they have some functions. According to Cousins, the functions are as follows:
1. They provide strengthening for the horse’s leg.
2. They are attachment areas for several leg muscles.
3. They make a protective groove for the suspensory ligament that supports a horse’s weight.
Dunouy and Goldschmidt state that the single-toed horse existed on the earth in the Mesozoic Era, 130 million years ago, that is, long before the multi-toed horse. According to them, the first multi-toed horse appeared in the Eocene, 55 million years ago and the last generation of the multi-toed horse became extinct in the Miocene, about 25 million years ago,.,
Boyce Rensberger, one of the evolutionist biologists, states that the scenario of the evolution of the horse has no foundation in the fossil record, and that no evolutionary process has been observed that would account for the gradual evolution of horses:
“The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 150 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Therefore, they are not transitional forms but different forms with separate structures”.
Evolutionist Colin Patterson, one of the administrators of the British Museum of Natural History, expresses a similar view:
“The exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago, which is still on exhibit downstairs, is nothing but a bad imaginary story. The evolution of the horse has been presented as ‘the great truth’ in hundreds of scientific books. However, what those people do is nothing but speculation”.
It is stated that the fossils that the equine evolution are based on the invented sequences of fossils, set out in order of size, belonging to different life forms that lived at different times in India, North America, South America and Europe. There is no consensus regarding the issue among the evolutionists. Various researchers have proposed more than 20 different equine evolution sequences. The only thing these sequences have in common is the belief that the first ancestor of the horse was a dog-like animal known as Eohippus (Hyracotherium) that lived in the Eocene Period some 55 million years ago. However, Hitching says, “Eohippus, which is presented as the “ancestor of the horse”, is in fact identical to the animal known as the “Hyrax”, which is still to be found in Africa today, which has nothing to do with the horse and bears no resemblance to it.
Gordon R. Taylor, an evolutionist, writes the following in his book, “The Great Evolution Mystery” about the sequences of horses:
“Paleontologists failed to find the fossils related to the equine sequences put forward by evolutionists. The sequence of horses is presented as the only fully worked-out example regarding evolution, but it is not so. The line from Eohippus to today’s Equus is very erratic. Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time“.
It is understood that each species of the multi-toed horses is a separate kind and that they lived in a certain period and then became extinct... The ancestors of the single-toed horses are also single-toed.
The Past of Insects
Fossils of insects were found in materials like amber, volcanic ashes and coal. Since even the internal organs, tissues and cell structures were kept in very good condition in amber, they could be compared with the existing insects. In his book called , “Insects in Amber”, Brues states that there are no differences in shape between insects that were created 350 million years ago and the insects living today.
However, some of the insects in the past were larger and bigger than their relatives today like big cockroaches and giant ants. One feature of insects is that they have very different forms. Therefore, it is difficult to identify from which source they may have formed. In his book called “The Evolution of Life”, Olsen draws attention to the fact that there is no information about how insects started flying.
General Evaluation about Transitional Forms
Throughout the geological periods on Earth, different organisms and different living species emerged; some of them did not change at all and some of them survived until today with minor changes. Some lived for a certain period and disappeared.
The theory of evolution explains the arrival of living beings on earth with “gradual emergence”. Living organisms must have slowly formed over time from simple to higher structures,. Evidence of it will be fossils. When this view was put forward in the 1850s, the general idea was like that. However, since fossil materials to support this view could not be found in the course of time, evolutionists criticizedthis view. The famous British paleontologist Derek states the following:
High organisms appeared on Earth gradually, depending on time. There can be only one explanation for it: The living beings that were suitable for the earth conditions that improved gradually were sent to the earth. In other words, sheep were created after grass and plants were created. The fossils proposed as intermediate or transitional forms do not have the feature of being intermediate forms.
“When we examine the fossil record in detail, we see groups that developed on earth suddenly, not through gradual evolution”.
The evolutionist Carlton expresses a similar view:
“Did life on earth evolve slowly and gradually over time? The answer of the fossil record to this question is ‘no’.
Tom from Oxford University says that there are no fossils showing the transition of species:
No fossil form showing that there was a transition through evolution among fish, frogs, reptiles, birds, insects and mammals has been found. Similarly, there is no fossil that establishes a connection between man and the living beings before him.
They all show that every living being species was created directly with their own genetic potentials, abilities and characteristics.
“According to the fossil record, many species emerged suddenly, remained unchanged for several million years and disappeared suddenly. There is no single fossil specimen showing the transition of species from one generation to another”.
Steven points out that there is no fossil evidence to confirm gradual evolution and states the following:
“The known fossil recordhave not been able to provide any fossil evidence that gradual evolution could be valid”.
Adler points out that intermediate form researchers are disappointed with what they have achieved and states the following:
“The more scientists look for inter-species forms, the more disappointment occurs”.
Mark, who is an evolutionist, states that species appear suddenly and disappear suddenly:
“Species form suddenly and disappear suddenly. This supports creationists who claim that species are created by Allah”.
The evolutionist Gould of Harvard University states that the evolutionary family tree was drawn based on the imagination of evolutionists, not on the fossil record:
“The evolutionary family trees in our books are based on our design, not on the fossil record”.
Throughout the geological periods on Earth, different organisms and different living species emerged; some of them did not change at all and some of them survived until today with minor changes. Some livedfor a certain period and disappeared. One thing that draws attention here is the gradual appearance of high organisms on Earth depending on time. There can be only one explanation for it:The living beings that were suitable for the earth conditions that improved graduallywere sent to the earth. In other words, sheep were created after grass and plants were created. The fossils proposed as intermediate or transitional forms do not have the feature of being intermediate forms. It has now been a general opinion that the fossils proposed so far are not sufficient and reliable material.
The Past of Man
Some of the fossils proposed as intermediate forms about the past of man are as follows:
1- Long-armed Ape (Ramapithecus)
The being put forward by the evolutionists as the ancestor of man is Ramapithecus. It is claimed to have lived in the Pliocene period, that is, about 14 million years ago.
Figure 5. Parabolic jaw in Ramapithecus.
This being, which is known only from its jawbone and which is claimed to be the ancestor of human beings based on dental structures, has been shown to be a homonid and not a long-armed monkey.
2-Southern Ape (Australopithecus)
Another group that is put forward as the ancestor of man is the group of Australopithecus. Various forms of it are proposed. This name was given to various fossils found by Louis Leakey and many others in East Africa. The fossils found by Dart were named as “Australopithecus africanus” ”(African man). Then, the following were included in the same group:Zinantropus, Paranthropus, Pleisanthropus, Telanthropus and Homo habilis. Australopithecus is proposed as a hominid being that lived two to three million years ago, walked upright and used coarse tools. The brain volume is about 500 cc, the same as in some monkeys with high structure. Its teeth are claimed to be similar to those of Ramapithecus.
Zinjanthropus boisei, which was found by Louis Leakey in the Olduvai Gorge region of Tanzania, is said to be a variant of Australopithecus robustus. Australopithecus was grouped under two species after that. One is A. africanus and the other is A. Robustus.
2.1-African Man (Australopithecus africanus)
It was found in Africa by Dart in 1924. It has small teeth, small jaws and a thin structure. The volume of the skull is estimated to be about 1/3 of today’s human being, i.e. 500 cc; its age is estimated to be 1.8-2.6 million years.
Figure 6. Australopithecus africanus(African Man) (Lucy Man). Each of the fossils in this skeleton belongs to different living beings. The lower left image was drawn based on this skeleton.
Evolutionist Gould states that the African ape Austrolopithecus afarensis cannot be the ancestor of man. He points out that the fossil fragments that are considered to belong to African apes are fossils of various organisms and that they have been assembled incorrectly.
2.2-Australopithecus boisei (zinjanthropus)
It is suggested that this form is a variant of Australopithecusrobustus. It was discovered in 1959 by Leakey in Tanzania. It has very thick teeth and thick jaws; its upper temple bones protrude as in gorilla and orangutan. The teeth arch and the jaw curve are very parabolic. It is similar to orangutans and chimpanzees of higher organisms. The skull volume is stated to be 500 cc and the age 2 million years.
It is claimed that based on some pieces of the pelvis, arm and foot bones of both A. africanus and A. robustusthatAustralopithecus was an upright walking being.
2.3-Critique of Australopithecus
Almost none of the fossil materials of the past show integrity. In other words, the fossil material that is available represents only a small part of the organism that is claimed. The fact that the fragments belonging to different organisms were brought together on the assumptionthat they belonged to a single species has an important role in it. In addition, sometimes big mistakes are made in fossil age determinations.
Oxnard and Zuckerman, who investigated the Australopithecus fossil for years, state that Australopithecus is not an upright walking being. Oxnard and Zuckerman’s multi-faceted statistical research on A. africanus’ hand, wrist, foot, shoulder and pelvic bones shows that they do not resemble man but orangutan and chimpanzee.
Zuckerman, who worked with a team on A. africanus for 15 years states the following:
"It is impossible for A. africanus to be the ancestor of man”.
Mantagu states that all Australopithecusresemble monkeys with high structure (apes) in their head structure.
Evolutionist Gould is of the view that the African ape,Austrolopthecus afarensis and A. Africanus, cannot be the ancestor of man; he states that fossil fragments that are considered to belong to African apes are fossils of various organisms and that theywere assembled incorrectly.
3-Homo erectus Group
Java Man, Peking Man, Heidelberg Man and Meganthropus were grouped as“Homo erectus”. They are considered to have lived about 500 thousand years ago. It is stated that they walk upright and that their brain volumes are approximately 1000 cc.
A little time after Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1858, Ernst Haeckel published The History of Creation by being inspired by it. In this work, Haeckel put forward the Mute Ape Man as at the ancestor of man ”. He also gave it a Latin name: Pithecanthropus alalus ...
When this imaginary being was found as a fossil, it would resemble a human in terms of some of its characteristics and a monkey in terms of some of its characteristics. They also indicated where the remains of this being would be found: the ancient hypothetical Lemura continent extending from Madagascar to India and from the Indian Ocean to Indonesia.
3.1-Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus)
In 1887, the Dutch anatomist Eugene Dubois set out with his wife and children to Java, a Dutch colony in East India, as “a health care worker for the Dutch army”. Dubois was on his way to find the Mute Ape Man, which Haeckel had suggested, in the place where he suggested. Two years after his arrival in Sumatra, Dubois convinced the government to carry out paleontological excavations in Java. Some prisoners were sent to the excavation near the Solo River near the village of Trinil, and soldiers were assigned the duty of controlling of the excavation. It is stated that Dubois did not participate in the field work in these excavations and that he examined the findings of the workers brought to him periodically at home.
In 1891, Dubois encountered two important findings among the bones that were brought to him. They were a tooth and a skull found one month after the other in the same fossil bed. However, their exact location could not be determined because they were not recorded during the excavation. At first, Dubois was convinced that they belonged to a chimpanzee. A few months later, however, the prisoners found a femur at the same site. This was the thigh bone of a person walking upright. Dubois combined these pieces to form Pithecanthropus erectus (Homo erectus). The brain volume of this being was about 900 cc. A small molar tooth was found in 1898. It was stated that those teeth also belonged to Pithecanthropus (Homo erectus) said. The age of this being was estimated to be 500 thousand years (Figure 7).
Figure 7. The picture of Homo erectus (Java Man), which isassumed to be the “ancestor of man”, drawn based on the fossils.
When Dubois introduced those fossils at the International Congress of Zoology held in Leyden in 1895, the British zoologists claimed that those fossils belonged to man, the Germans claimed that they belonged to human-like apes, and the French stated that they belonged to a transition form between a higher form of ape and man.
The Critique of Java Man (Homo erectus)
Koenigswald is of the opinion that the big molar teeth of Java Man belongs to an orangutan and the small one to a human. He states that the skull is similar to that of chimpanzees and gibbons.
In 1906, a large excavation was carried out in the place where Dubois found the fossils, but nothing except a small piece of bone was found. It is stated that the being called “Java Man” (Homo erectus) is in fact a chimpanzee or gorilla type of ape, that the skull of the ape was combined with the human thigh bone and that it was given the name “Pithecanthropus erectus” (Java Man-Homo erectus)
What is noteworthy here is the fact that the confession of Dubois, who discovered the fossil Pithecanthropus (Homo erectus), in 1922 has been ignored. In his book “Mankind in the Making”, Howells states that he found two skulls with a brain volume close to that of modern man in the place where Dubois found the first fossil. However, Dubois did not statefor 30 years that he had found those skulls. Dubois admitted thirty years later that the being he presented as Java Man (Pithecanthropus-Homo erectus) was actually a big gibbon monkey.
The explanation of Dubois was included in the Encyclopedia of Archeology. The following statement exists in the encyclopedia:
“At first, there was much opposition to the status implied by the name the ape-man, ‘who walked erect’, but it became generally accepted though Dubois himself finally changed his mind and said that the fossils he found belonged to a giant ape, but this skull gained general acceptance.
3.2- Piltdown Man (Eanthropus dawsoni)
Arthur Smith Woodward, the director of the London Museum of Natural History, and medical doctor Charles Dawson, dug out a jaw and skull fossil with a ceremony from a gravel pit near Piltdown, England in 1912. The jaw bone was very similar to that of the monkey, and the teeth and skull were very similar to that of human beings. Those materials were called “Piltdown Man” (Eanthropus dawsoni). The age was determined to be 500 thousand years.
In 1950, the amount of fluoride absorbed by the bones from the soil was tested in order to determine the age of Piltdown Man. If the fossil had allegedly remained in the soil for 500,000 years, it would have contained a lot of fluoride. However, there was no fluoride in that fossil... Thus, it was discovered that the material of Piltdown Man was not a fossil, and that it had not remained in the soil for more than a year when it was discovered.
Later, it was found that the bones, which were subjected to a serious examination, were stained with potassium dichromate to give the appearance that they belonged to the past. Teeth on the jaw bone had been raspedso that they wouldhave a worn and torn appearance193.
Thus, they had combined the jaw of a 10-year-old orangutan with human skull and placed human teeth on the jawbone to make it resemble a being between an ape and a human (Figure 8).
When the people who were responsible for this hoax were searched, no one took the blame. Arthur Smith Woodward and the medical doctor Charles Dawson, who planned this hoax and dug the bones out of the gravel pit with a great ceremony, had died. The journals and other publishing organizations that presented the issue did not accept responsibility.
In the 1930s, the discussions about “did man’s brain or body develop first?” were answered by bringing evidence from Piltdown Man. As a matter of fact, Smith indicates this issue and says:
“The most interesting aspect of “Piltdown Man” is that it justified the idea that bey the brain took the first place in the evolution of man. The idea that human beings got rid of being apes thanks to the development of the head structure is the most realistic view. Man is an orangutan whose brain is highly developed. Here, the importance of the Piltdown skull lies in its strict validation of those judgements.
Clark Howellattracts attention to the fact that the scientific circles were deceived by Piltdown Man for 50 years:
“Piltdown man was nothing more than a being that consisted of a human skull and an ape’s jaw. It was a hoax placed on purpose. They declared it as the common ancestor of man and ape that lived 500,000 years ago. Some 500 books were written on it. on it. The paleontologists were fooled for 50 years with that discovery”.
The fact that the Piltdown hoax could not be understood for about 50 years despite the research of the greatest authorities of the world increased the doubts about the other fossils. S. Zuckerman holds the view that when the Dubois fossils of Java Man is examined seriously, the result will be no different than the Piltdown Man.
Figure 8. Piltdown Man (Eanthropus dawsoni). Orangutan jaw was fixed on human head. It is understood that the jaw of this fossil, which is accepted as “the ancestor of man”, belonged to an orangutan, the skull and the teeth belonged to a human and that it was rasped in order to make it fit the jaw.
3.3-Peking Man (Sinanthropus pekinensis)
Figure 9- PekingMan (Sinanthropus pekinensis). Peking Man model made of plaster.
Dr. Davidson Black found two molar teeth in 1921 in a pit 40 km away from Beijing, China, and called them “Sinanthropus pekinensis”. W. C. Pei found the third molar toothin 1927, and skull fragments and two lower jaws in 1928. Black said those fossils belonged to Peking Man.
The materials claimed to be Peking Man were claimed to have been lost during the invasion of Beijing by the Japanese during World War II except for two teeth. O’Connel states that the Japanese did not enter this city and that he was there at that time. O’Connel states that evolutionists themselves destroyed those materials; thus, he states that they shaped the plaster models based on their own evolutionist thoughts.
3.4- Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus heroldcookii)
In 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn found a large molar tooth in the Western Nebraska and this toothwas named Hespeperopitpitheircus haroldcookii (Nebraska Man).
Figure 10. Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus heroldcookii). A picture drawn based on a pig’s molar tooth.
It was claimed that this being, which is estimated to have lived about 500 thousand years ago, belonged to the prehistoric ancestor of man and had the characteristics of half ape and half man; and the picture above was drawn with this idea.
It was later found out that the tooth belonged to a pig.
3.5-Neanderthal Man (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis)
It was discovered by Dr. Fuhtrott in the Feldhofor cave of the Neanderthal valley in Düsseldorf, Germany in 1856. The skull size of the Neanderthal Man, a race of Homo sapiens, is about as big as that of modern man. It is estimated to have lived 35 thousand to 100 thousand years ago. The Neanderthal Man has been described and presented for more than a hundred years as “a thick-eyed being with a coarse nature, wild-character that walked in a curved state”. In fact, the difference between Neanderthal Man and today’s man is less than the difference between the current people of different tribes..
The protrusion of the mouth and eyebrows, which are the characteristics of the Neanderthal race, is typical of the black race. Neanderthal man has a curved skeletal structure. In his article called “Neanderthals Had Rickets”, Ivanhoe states that this structure is not due to kinship with apes without tails, but due to the joint and bone disease caused by lack of vitamin D..
It is known that Neanderthal Man grew plants, painted pictures with elegant tools, had some religious beliefs, buried the dead and used a kind of scripture.
Today Neanderthal Man is classified as “Homo sapiens” (today’s man). It is stated that Neanderthal Man could not be distinguished from other people if he walked in our streets wearing overalls(Figure 11).
Paleontologist Erik Trinkaus draws attention to the fact that there is no difference between modern man and Neanderthal Man and states the following:
“Neanderthal ruins and detailed comparisons made between Neanderthal bones and modern human bones show that there is no difference in Neanderthal’s anatomy or in terms of his movement, instrument use, intelligence or speech.”.
It is claimed that Neanderthal Man was absorbed by dominant races over time.
Figure 11- Neanderthal Man.
There are many different opinions and thoughts about Neanderthal Man. Noting that almost everyone has a comment on this issue, Wells states the following:
“Currently in the news is the never-ending controversy over Neanderthals. Were they our ancestors? Were they a separate species, now extinct? Or were they a race of humans, eventually absorbed into our modern global family? Almost every month, a proponent of one view or another takes to the print media or the airwaves, declaring the matter settled. Wait a few months, however, and someone will probably say the opposite with equal confidence.
Mentioning the same issue, James Shreeve says:
“I talked to one hundred and fifty scientists—archaeologists, anatomists, geneticists, geologists, dating experts—and sometimes it seemed I had come away with one hundred and fifty different points of view” about the place of Neanderthals in human evolution Any theory about Neanderthals is like the weather in many parts of the country: If you donot like it, wait a little while and it will change!.
Evaluation Related to the Past of Man
The evolutionist T. Dobzhansky, who is considered the father of genetics, made the following statement about races:
“We have not been able to solve the problem of the origin of different races of human species though over one and a half centuries passed since Darwin. The issue is still as complicated as it was a century ago”.
The famous paleontologist David Pilbeam states the following about the past of man:
“Introductory books - or book reviews - are hardly the place to argue that perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark: that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past.”, .,
Geoffrey Clark, Arizona State Universityanthropologist, states the following in the book he wrote in 1997:
“Scientists have been trying to arrive at a consensus about modern human origins for more than a century. Why havethey not been successful? It is because paleoanthropologists proceed from such different biases, preconceptions and assumptions. Thus, explanatory models of human evolutionare little more than a house of cards — remove one card... and the whole structure of inference is threatened with collapse”.
Henry Gee states the following in his book about the past of man:
“All evidences about the evolution of man can fit in a small box. To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific”.
Schiller points out that human beings emerged differently from other living beings:
“The fossils about the past of man could not show the transitional forms that were expected... It can easily be said that we did not evolve from a being lower than man and that we come from our own lineage”.
Robert Eckhardt, Professor of Anthropology at Pennsylvania State University, states the following:
“In the Hominoids series, there is no fossil with a morphology showing that man has a hominid ancestor”.
Thousands of fossils have been found in the last 150 years. However, none of them shows the characteristics of an intermediate form indicating that one living being came from another living being.
Anaximander claimed in the 400s BC that man came from fish. For nearly 2,500 years, evolutionists have insisted that living beings come from one another in a chain through evolution beginning from one cell. To illustrate their claims, they drew the imaginary evolutionary family tree in the 1800s. They divided this tree into two large branches, one sequence for the plants kingdom and the other for the animal kingdom. They claimed that fossils belonging to transitional forms linking those sequences would be found in the course of time.
Thousands of fossils have been found in the last 150 years. However, none of them shows the characteristics of an intermediate form indicating that one living being came from another living being.
In the years when the idea of evolution was put forward, it was thought that unicellular organisms would be transformed into another creature as a result of exposure to ultraviolet rays for a long time. In the 1960s, unicellular organisms that were sent to space were exposed to ultraviolet rays for years but no new species emerged from any of them.
They all show that each species was created directly with their own genetic characteristics.
 Cloud, P. Pseudofossils, A Plea For Caution. Geology. November. 1973, p. 123.
 Guttman, B. S. Biology. Boston: WCB/ McGraw-Hill, p.718, 1999.
Axelrod, D. Early Cambrian Marine Fauna. Science. 1959, Vol. 128. p.7.
George, T.N. Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective. Science Progress. 1960, Vol. 48, January, p.5.; Kay, M. and Colbert, H.E. Stratigraphy and Life History. New York. John Wiley and Sons. 1965, p.102.
Monestarsky, R. Mysteries of the Orient. Discover, April, 1993, p. 40.
Dawkins, R.The Blind Watchmaker. London,W.W. Norton, 1986, p. 229.
For more information, see: Âdem Tatlı. Evrim ve Yaratılış. Hilal Ofset Isparta, 4th Impression, 2014. 316 p
Ommaney,F.D. "The Fishes. Life Nature Library." New York. 1964, p. 60.; Romer,AS. Vertebrata Paleontology. Chicago Press. 1966, p. 15-33.
Todd, G.T. Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes: A Casual Relationship. American Zoologist, Vol. 26, no: 4, 1980, p.757.
Taylor, G. R. The Great Evolution Mystery. Harper &Row, 1983, p. 60.
Hublin, J. The Hamlyn Encyclopedia of Prehistoric Animals. New York. 1984, p.120.
Carroll, L. R. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. New York W.H.Freeman and Co., 1988, p. 4, 138.
Colbert, E. H., & Morales, M. Evolution of the Vertebrates. New York, John Wiley and sons, 1991, p. 99.
Curtis, H. and Barnes, S. Invitation to Biology. 5th impression, New York: Worth Publishers, p.405, 1994.
Denton, M. Evolution. A Theory in Crisis. Burnett Books, London, 1985.
Barbar, J. Stahl. Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution. New York: Dover Publications, 1985, p. 349-350.
Brush, A.H. On the Origin of Feathers. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. Vol.9, 1996, p. 131-33.
Anonymous. Jurassic Bird Challenges Origin Theories. Geotimes. Vol. 41, 1996, p. 7.
Grimmer, J.L. Natural Geographic. 1962, August. p.391.
Shipman, P. Birds do it...Did Dinosaurs? New Scientist, 1 February 1997, p. 31.
Feduccia, A. Old Bird. Discover. 21 March,1997.
Time, 25 August.1986.p.36.
Shipman, P. Birds do it...Did Dinosaurs? New Scientist, 1 February 1997, p. 28.
Beddart, F.E. The Structure and Classification of Birds. Longmans, Green and Ca., London.1989, p.160.
Gregory, W.K. New American Academy of Science. Annals, 1916, Vol. 27.p.31.
Nouy, L. Human Destiny. The New American Library. New York. 1947, p.58.; Swinton,W.E. In Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds. Ed.By. A.J. Marshall Academic Press, New York, 1960, Vol. p.1
Kemp,T. The Reptiles That Became Mammals. New Scientist. 1982, Vol. 92.
Romer, AS. Vertebrata Paleontology. Chicago Press. 1966, p.303.
Romer, AS. Vertebrata Paleontology. Chicago Press. 1966, p.15-33.
Simpson, G. Life Before Man. New York, Time-Life Books, 1972, p. 42.
Weller, M. J. The Course of Evolution. New York. 1969, p. 689.
Johnson,W.H., Laubenga, R. A. and De Lanney, L. E. General Biology. Third Edition. New York. 1965, 788 p.
Wells, J. ibid, p. 181.
Cousins, F.W. Creation Research Society Quaterly. 1971, Vol. 8. p. 99.
Dunouy, L.Human Destiny.The New American Library. New York.1947, p.74.
Goldschmidt, R.B. American Scientist. 1952, Vol. 40.p.97.
Rensberger, B. Houston Chronicle, 5 November, 1980, Part 4, p.15.
Patterson, C. Harper’s. February, 1984, p. 60.
Hitching, F. The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong? New York. Ticknor and Fields, 1982, p.30-31.
Gordon, R.T. The Great Evolution Mystery. London, Sphere Books, 1984, p. 230.
Brues, C.T. Insects in Amber. Scientific American. 1951,Vo1.185. p. 60.
Olsen, E.C. The Evolution of Life. The New American Library. New York. 1965, p.180.
Derek, A. The Nature of the Fossil Record. Proceedings of British Geological Association. Vol. 87, 1976, p.133.
Carlton, B. Statis: The Life in the Balance. Geotimes, Vol. 40, March 1995, p.18.
Tom, S.K. Mammal-Like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals. New York Academic Press, 1982, p. 363.
Steven, M. S. Macroevolution: Pattern and Processs. San Francisco. W. H. Freeman and C., 1979, p. 39.
Adler, J. Who Doubts Evolution? New Scientist, Issue 90,1981, p. 831.
Mark C. The Revival of the Creationist Crusade. Maclean’s, 19 January, 1981, p. 56.
Gould, S., J. Evrimin Düzensiz Adımları. Natural History. May,1977, p.13.
Shipman, P. Baffling Limb on the Family Tree. Discover, 1986, September; Pilbeam, D. R. Nature. 1968, Vo1.219 p.1335; Simons, E. L. and Pilbeam, D.R. Folia Primital. 1965, Vo1. 3. p. 8; Eckhard, R.B. Population Genetics and Human Origins. Scientific American. 1972, Vol. 226.
Gould, J. L. and Keeton, W. T. Biological Science. 6. baskı, New York: W. W. Norton, p. 347, 1996.
Broom, R and Schepers, G.W.H.Transv. Mus.Mem. 1946, Vol.2. p.1-272;Clarck, G. Journal of Anatomy. London. 1947, Vol. 19.P.300-333.
Oxnard, C. University of Chicago Magazine, 1974, p.8-12.,
Zuckerman, S. Beyond the Ivory Tower. Toplinger Publ. Co. New York. 1970, pp. 11-12, 64, 75-94.
Montagu, A. Man: His First Million Years. Word Publishers. Yonkers. 1957, p.51-52.
Gould, J. L. and Keeton, W. T. Biological Science. 6th impression, New York: W. W. Norton, p. 347, 1996.
Richard, M. Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. Translated by İ. Kapaklıkaya. Son Tartışmalar Işığında Darwinizm’in Mitleri. Gelenek Yayıncılık, Istanbul, 2003.
Richard, M. Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. Translated by İ. Kapaklıkaya. Son Tartışmalar Işığında Darwinizm’in Mitleri. Gelenek Yayıncılık, Istanbul, 2003.
Boule, M. and Valoıs, H.M. Fossil Man. The Dreyden Press. New York. 1957, p.118-123.
Gish, D.T. Evolution: The Fossils Say No! 1981. Translated by Â. Tatlı, Fosiller ve Evrim. Cihan Yayınları, Istanbul. 1984.
Howells, W. Mankind in the Making. Doubleday and CO. Garden City N.Y.P. 1967, 155-156.
Cottrell, L. The Concise Encylopedia Archeology. Hawthorn. New York. 1960, P. 394.
Smith, G. S. Woodward’s Folly. New Scientist. 1979, 5 April, p.44.
Howell, C. Early Man. New York: Time Life Books, 1973, p. 24-25.
186. Zuckerman, S. Beyond the Ivory Tower. Toplinger Publ. Co. New York. 1970, pp. 11-12,64,75-94.
Boule, M. And Valois, H.M. Fossil Man. The Dreyden Press. New York. 1957, P.118-123.
O’Connel, P. Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis. Hawthorne, CA. 1969.
Gish, D.T. Evolution: The Fossils Say No! 1981. Translated by. Â. Tatlı, Fosiller ve Evrim. Cihan Yayınları, Istanbul. 1984.
Dobzhansky, T. Changing Man. Science. 1967, Vol.155, p. 410.
Anhoe, F. Neanderthals Had Rickets. 1970, Nature. 8.Aug.
Use of Symbols Anteclates Neanderthal Man. Science Digest.Vol.1.73.1973.p.22
Gish, D.T. Evolution: The Fossils Say No! 1981. Translated by Â. Tatlı, Fosiller ve Evrim. Cihan Yayınları, Istanbul. 1984.
Trinkaus, E. Hard Times Among the Neanderthals. Natural History, Vol. 87, December 1978, p.10.
Şengün, A. Evrim. Sermet Matbaası. Kırklareli. 1984, p.142.
Wells, J. Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth? Translated by Orhan Düz. Evrimin İkonları, Bilim Mi Mit Mi? Gelenek Yayıncılık. Kurtiş Matbaası, Istanbul, p. 206, 2003.
Shreeve, J. The Neanderthal Enigma. New York: William Morrow, p. 252, 1995.
T. Dobzhansky. Science. Vol.127, Issue 1958, p. 1091.
Pilbeam, D. American Scientist, Issue, 66,1978, p. 379.
Pilbeam, D. Rearranging Our Family Tree. Nature, June, 1978.
Clark, A.G. Through a Glass Darkly: Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research, pp. 60-76, 1997.
Gee, H. In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of life. New York: The Free Press,, p. 23, 32, 116-117, 202, 1999.
Schiller, R. New Findings On The Origin of Man. Reader’s Digest, 1973, August, p.89-90.
Eckhardt, R. Population Genetics and Human Origins. Scientific American, number 226,1972, p.94.
- Example to the evolution of higher organisms: Evolution of the Horse
- Evolutionists say that the advocates of creationism distort the data and state that Java Man and Peking Man belong to apes.
- DILEMMAS OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
- ARE INSECTS, WHICH ARE PERFECT CREATURES ON EARTH, A PRODUCT OF EVOLUTION?
- SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION THAT ARE IMPOSED ON THE COMMUNITY AS IDEOLOGY
- Similarities In Embryonic Structures
- Are the transitional forms among living things which is claimed by evolutionists true? Can the decomposition of nylon parts by some bacteria through some enzymes be proof for evolution?
- BASIC FALLACIES IN THE VIEW OF EVOLUTION: 1 CONFUSION OF SCIENTIFICITY, BELIEF AND IMPARTIALITY
- What is the Essence of Kenneth Miller’s Court about Evolution?