What are the fossils put forward as a transitional form about the past of man?
Submitted by on Sat, 04/07/2020 - 11:41
Dear Brother / Sister,
10.3.10-THE PAST OF MAN
Some of the fossils proposed as intermediate forms about the past of man are as follows:
10.3.10.1-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.1
10.3.10.2-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, Telanthropusand 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.
10.3.10.2.1-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)
Figure 6. African Man(Australopithecus africanus) (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
10.3.10.2.2- 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. robustus that Australopithecus was an upright walking being.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 assumption that 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.4
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.5
Mantagu states that all Australopithecus resemble monkeys with high structure (apes) in their head structure.6
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 they were assembled incorrectly.7
10.3.10.3- 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 walked upright and that their brain volumes were 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 “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.8
10.3.10.3.1- 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.9
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 formUpright Walking Ape-ManPithecanthropus 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 is assumed 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.
Critique of Java Man (Homo erectus)
Koenigswald is of the opinion that the big molar tooth 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.10
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).11
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 state for 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.12
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.13
The remarkable point here is as follows:
Dubois, who brought forward the Java Man and found the fossils, admitted that those fossil fragments belonged to an ape, not to the ancestor of man, but this being is still presented as the first ancestor of man in both universities and high schools.
There can be only one explanation of it: Such behavior is not scientific but ideological behavior based on atheism, making a fool of everybody.
Oddly enough, some scientists interpret verses of the Quran and hadiths by accepting this Java Man (Homo erectus group), which is claimed to be the ancestor of human beings, as a fact.
How can some scholars and scientists be fooled by these frauds?
Badiuzzaman Said Nursi points out that the reason for such deceptionsis the fact that Satanshows what is wrong as right and what is impossible as possible:
“Firstly: When seen from a great distance, the greatest thing appears the same as the smallest. A star may even appear as a candle.
Secondly: Also, when seen both as secondary and superficially, something which is completely impossible may appear to be possible.
One time an old man was watching the sky in order to spot the new moon of Ramadan when a white hair fell on his eye. Imagining it to be the moon, he announced: ‘I have seen the new moon.’ Now, it is impossible that the white hair should have been the moon, but because his intention was to look for just the moon and the hair was by the way and secondary, he paid it no attention and thought that impossibility was possible.
Thirdly: Also, non-acceptance is one thing and denial is something quite different. Non-acceptance is indifference, a closing of the eyes to something, an ignorant absence of judgement. Many completely impossible things may be concealed within it, and the mind does not concern itself with them.
As for denial, it is not non-acceptance, but an acceptance of non-existence; it is a judgement. The mind is compelled to work.
So a devil like you takes hold of the mind of a person, then leads it to denial. And, showing the false as truth and the impossible as possible through satanic wiles like heedlessness, misguidance, fallacious reasoning, obstinacy, false arguments, pride, deception, and habit, you make those unfortunate creatures in human form swallow unbelief and denial, although they comprise innumerable impossibilities.”14
Thus, the main reason for being deceived is the fact that what is wrong is shown as right and what is impossible is shown as possible. That is to say, what is baseless, unreal, superstitious, wrong and false is presented as true and real. In addition, something impossible, and unthinkable is shown as possible. The reasons for this mistake and deception are listed as follows:
The first one is heedlessness. That is, thoughtlessness and being unaware of the facts.
The second one is aberration. That is, to go astray, to leave and move away from the right knowledge.
The third one is sophistry. That is to be deceived by lies, fabrication and unreal words.
The fourth one is stubbornness. In other words, being misled by one’s interlocutor.
The fifth one is conceit. That is, to insist on refusing to accept what is right or truth knowingly. In other words, to insist on what is wrong and to act arrogantly despite knowing that one is wrong and one’s interlocutor is right.
The sixth one is seduction. That is, deception.
The seventh one is the deception of some people who think they are clever by devilish tricks and traps and by denialism, which causes many impossible things to be regarded as possible.
10.3.10.3.2- Piltdown Man (Eanthropusdawsoni)
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” (Eanthropusdawsoni). The age was determined to be 500 thousand years.
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 ‘the brain was first 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.15
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 rasped so that they would have 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.
Clark Howell attracts 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”.16
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.17
Figure 8. Piltdown Man (Eanthropusdawsoni). 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.18
10.3.10.3.3- Peking Man (Sinanthropuspekinensis)
Figure 9- Peking Man (Sinanthropuspekinensis). 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 “Sinanthropuspekinensis”. W. C. Pei found the third molar tooth in 1927, and skull fragments and two lower jaws in 1928. Black said those fossils belonged to Peking Man.19
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.20
10.3.10.3.4- Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecusheroldcookii)
In 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn found a large molar tooth in the Western Nebraska and this tooth was named Hespeperopitpitheircusharoldcookii (Nebraska Man).
Figure 10. Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecusheroldcookii). 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.21
10.3.10.3.5- 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.22
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..23
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.24
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 overalls25 (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..26
It is claimed that Neanderthal Man was absorbed by dominant races over time.27
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.28
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 do not like it, wait a little while and it will change!.29
10.3.11- 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”.30
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.!”,31,32
No fossil form has been found to show transition through evolution among fish, frogs, reptiles, birds, insects and mammals. Similarly, there is no fossil that connects human beings with the living beings that lived before them.
All this shows that each species is created directly with its genetic potential, abilities and characters.
Geoffrey Clark, Arizona State University anthropologist, 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 have they not been successful? It is because paleoanthropologists proceed from such different biases, preconceptions and assumptions. Thus, explanatory models of human evolution are little more than a house of cards — remove one card... and the whole structure of inference is threatened with collapse”.33
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”.34
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.
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”.35
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”.36
The genetic structure of living beings shows that there is no evolution in the sense of evolvement; and the fossils show that living beings did not emerge from one another in the form of a chain.
From plants like algae and unicellular animals, which appeared first on earth, to higher organisms, the great majority of living beings exist almost in the same shape and form as they first appeared.
All this proves that the creator of those creatures in the past and the creator of these creatures today is the same Being. As a matter of fact, this issue is expressed as follows in a verse:
“See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.” (al-Ankabut, 19)
A more striking aspect of the issue is the differences among the individuals of the same species. In other words, although individuals of the same species are similar to one another in terms of organs such as eyes and ears, one individual does not resemble other individuals with their unique characteristics
The similarities in the main organs are evidence for the existence and oneness of the Creator; on the other hand, the fact that each living being has its own genetic characteristics clearly shows that the Creator’s will, preference and that He can create in any way He wishes, along with showing His uniqueness.
These characteristics peculiar to each individual showing the uniqueness of the creator are much more obvious in man in particular; this is also extremely important as a necessity of wisdom for the realization of justice, rights and law among people. Otherwise, if everyone had the same facial features and characteristics, there would be chaos and confusion in society; and many rights would be lost and it would be impossible to maintain the order and safety.
We see this manifestation of the uniqueness of the creator in the whole world. If all animals were of the same shape and structure, it would not be possible to distinguish and recognize them.
This difference also takes place in the realm of non-living beings; every being, including snowflakes, is created with a different form and shape.
It has no aspect that can be explained by science, by the structure of the existing beings, or by reason and logic to say, “all living beings emerged in the form of a chain from one another by chance” by ignoring all those structures mentioned above. It is nothing but an ideological attitude based entirely on atheism and positivist philosophy.
All those wonderful creations cannot happen by chance, nor can they come into being by themselves. On the other hand; it cannot be the work of ignorant, will-less and unconscious nature and causes. Those extremely wise, artistic, orderly, purposeful and planned creations are the work of Allah, who has attributes such as infinite knowledge, will and power.
1.Shipman, S. 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. 81; Eckhard, R.B. Population Genetics and Human Origins. Scientific
2.American. 1972, Vol.226.
3.Gould, J. L. and Keeton, W. T. Biological Science. 6th impression, New York: W. W. Norton, p. 347, 1996.
4.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.S.300-333.
5.Oxnard, C. University of Chicago Magazine, 1974, p.8-12.
6.Zuckerman, S. Beyond the Ivory Tower. Toplinger Publ. Co.New York. 1970, pp. 11-12,64,75-94.
7.Montagu, A. Man: His First Million Years. Word Publishers. Yonkers. 1957, p.51-52.
8.Gould, J. L. and Keeton, W. T. Biological Science. 6th impression, New York: W. W. Norton, p. 347, 1996.
9.Richard, M. Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. Translated by İ. Kapaklıkaya. Son Tartışmalar Işığında Darwinizm’in Mitleri. Gelenek Yayıncılık, Istanbul, 2003.
10.Richard, M. Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. Translated by İ. Kapaklıkaya. Son Tartışmalar Işığında Darwinizm’in Mitleri. GelenekYayıncılık, Istanbul, 2003.
11.Boule, M. and Valois, H.M. Fossil Man. The Dreyden Press. New York. 1957, p.118-123.
12.Gish, D.T. Evolution: The Fossils Say No! 1981. Translated by Â. Tatlı, Fosillerve Evrim. CihanYayınları, Istanbul. 1984.
12.Howells, W. Mankind in the Making. Doubleday and CO. Garden City N.Y.S. 1967, 155-156.
13.Cottrell, L. The Concise Encyclopedia Archeology. Hawthorn. New York. 1960, S. 394.
14.Nursi, Sözler. 224-225.
15.Smith, G. S. Wood word’s tony. New Scientist. 1979, 5 April, p.44.
16.Howell, C. Early Man.New York: Time Life Books, 1973, p.24-25.
17.186. Zuckerman, S. Beyond the Ivory Tower. Toplinger Publ. Co.New York. 1970, pp. 11-12,64,75-94.
19.Boule, M. And Valois, H.M. Fossil Man. The Dreyden Press. New York. 1957, p.118-123.
20.O’Connell, S. Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis. Hawthorne, CA. 1969.
21.Gish, D.T. Evolution: The Fossils Say No! 1981. Terc. Â. Tatlı, Fosiller ve Evrim. CihanYayınları, Istanbul. 1984.
22.Dobzhansky, T. Changing Man. Science. 1967, Vol.155, p. 410.
23.Anhoe, F. Neanderthals Had Rickets. 1970, Nature. 8.Aug.
24.Use of Symbols Antedates Neanderthal Man. Science Digest.Vol.1.73.1973.p.22
25.Gish, D.T. Evolution: The Fossils Say No! 1981. Terc. Â. Tatlı, Fosiller ve Evrim. CihanYayınları, Istanbul. 1984.
26.Trinkaus, E. Hard Times Among the Neanderthals. Natural History, Vol. 87, December 1978, p.10.
27.Şengün, A. Evrim. SermetMatbaası. Kırklareli. 1984, p.142.
28.Wells, J. Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth? Translated byOrhanDüz. Evrimin İkonları, Bilim Mi Mit Mi? GelenekYayıncılık. Kurtiş Matbaası, Istanbul, p. 206, 2003.
29.Shreeve, J. The Neanderthal Enigma. New York: William Morrow, p.252, 1995.
30.T. Dobzhansky. Science. Vol.127, p. 1958, S.1091.
31.Pilbeam, D. American Scientist, issue, 66,1978, p. 379.
32.Pilbeam, D. Rearranging Our Family Tree. Nature, June, 1978.
33.Clark, A.G. Though a Glass Darkly: Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research, s.60-76, 1997.
34.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.
35.Schiller, R. New Findings On The Origin of Man. Reader’s Digest, 1973, August, p.89-90.
36.Eckhardt, R. Population Genetics and Human Origins. Scientific American, number 226,1972, p.94.
Questions on Islam
- INTERMEDIATE (TRANSITIONAL) FORMS PUT FORWARD AS EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION
- Question 1: How long is it since the creation of the first man?
- Evolutionists say that the advocates of creationism distort the data and state that Java Man and Peking Man belong to apes.
- Question 8: It is claimed through DNA analyses that humans are relatives with Neanderthals, Denisovans and Homo Heidelbergensis. How should we view those developments? Has evolution been proved?
- Was the first man created out of dust or did he come from a monkey?
- SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION THAT ARE IMPOSED ON THE COMMUNITY AS IDEOLOGY
- What are living beings in terms of the transitional fossil form put forward as evidence for evolution?
- ARE INSECTS, WHICH ARE PERFECT CREATURES ON EARTH, A PRODUCT OF EVOLUTION?
- Example to the evolution of higher organisms: Evolution of the Horse
- Knowing the Creator and understanding Creation through Questions