Transitional Fossil Species, Part III
What About Ape Men?

Some Background Information

This is a valid question, so this page is a brief compilation of the data dealing with “cave men.” Before getting started, we should bring everyone “up to speed” on dates and characteristics that scientists use when discussing these “missing links.”

The Dates

According to evolutionary geologic theory, the most recent geologic periods are:

• Holocene - the present period, going back about 10,000 years.
  
  
• Pleistocene - the period from about 10,000 years ago to 2 million years ago.
  
  This period is split into several sections, generally named after the “Glacial Periods” that took place within the Pleistocene. (These names change in different parts of the world, but we present these as a “standard” for this page.) These periods are, from the “newest” to “oldest” are:
  
  
  • Wurm glaciation
  • Riss glaciation
  • Mindel Glaciation
  • Gunz Glaciation
  • Villafranchian
    

  That is, a fossil that a scientist dates between the Riss and Mindel Glaciation (termed the Riss-Mindel Interglacial) would be “younger” than a fossil dated between the Mindel and Gunz glaciation. (Note: we are not trying to confuse anyone. Geologists and Paleontologists are the ones that use these terms!)

• Pliocene - the period that from about 2-5 million years ago.

If you are wondering how scientists estimate these dates, you can find some information by clicking on this sentence. All of the well-known fossils believed to be missing links for humans come from Pleistocene layers. These include Australopithecus (dated perhaps 500,000 years ago in the Gunz-Mindel Interglacial), Peking man and Java man (in between), and Neanderthal man (dated less than 100,000 years ago—the time of the Wurm glaciation).

Characteristics of these Missing Links between Humans and “Early Ancestors”

Investigating the scientific literature reveals that all these proposed ”missing links” are either very humanlike with a trace of some apelike characteristic, or very apelike with a trace of some human characteristic. There is nothing really in between (where you would expect a “real” transitional species). One example of a change seen by scientists would be in the shape of a jaw. The jaws in some apes are almost rectangular and others are more curved. Since the human jaw is roughly parabolic (a rounded “V”), those apes possessing a more curved jaw are claimed to be “more human.” Similarly, a human skull that had a slightly squared jaw would be considered “more apelike.” Therefore, please keep in mind that the tiny variations seen by scientists may actually be variations in normal ape and human populations that are incorrectly labeled as missing links. This will become clearer as you read on.

What the Data Reveals

One of the biggest stumbling blocks to this theory is the discovery by scientists of modern human (Homo Sapiens) fossils in Pliocene layers—geologic layers so “early” that none of the proposed “missing links” could have possibly been ancestors. However, since these discoveries fly so strongly in the face of the currently popular evolutionary theory, these discoveries are ignored. For more information, click on this sentence.

Those fossils known as Australopithecines are very apelike. That is, they look exactly like ape fossils except that a close examination of the teeth, or the jaw shape, or minor bones of the skull leads some scientists to think they see faint “human” characteristics. Early attempts to introduce these fossils as “progressive pre hominids” were ridiculed by scientists. One example is the Australopithecus africanus finding at Taungs in 1924 by Dr. R. A. Dart. He considered the apelike skull pieces (consisting of the front of a face and lower jaw) to have slightly human features. The scientists of the day (who were also evolutionists) treated his proposal with great scorn and considered the skull to be a variety of chimpanzee. They called it “Dart’s baby.” Even the evolutionary advocate and “expert on human origins” Teilhard de Chardin (also loosely associated with Peking Man, Java Man, etc.) considered the Australopithecines to be a branch of development that did not continue to progress up to man. That is, even within the “evolutionary community” many scientists believed that these fossils were only apes.

Scientists discovered a modern human fossil at Vertesszollos, with an age corresponding to the Mindel Glaciation. This is actually the same “age” as the “Peking man” and “Java man” fossils. Therefore, if modern humans existed at the same time, Peking man and Java man could not possibly be missing links to modern men.

The earliest examples of “mainstream” Neanderthal findings were discovered at Saccopastore, Ehringsdorf, and Krapina and dated in the Riss-Wurm Interglacial period. Interestingly, scientists found fully “modern” human fossil (Homo Sapiens) remains of the same geologic age at Fontechevade. One of the earliest (if not the earliest) “Neanderthal” fossils was discovered at Steinheim, and dated in the Riss-Mindel Interglacial period. However, again they discovered a fully modern human fossil of the same age at Swanscombe. Again, we have evidence that modern humans existed at the same time, and Neanderthal man could not possibly be a missing link to modern men. Although beyond the scope of this message, many scientists now believe that the “Neanderthal” fossils were modern men that suffered from rickets, arthritis, and other diseases that alter bone structure.

There are additional problems with Neanderthal man as a possible “ancestor” of modern humans. The Neanderthal fossil skulls are typically as large as a modern man’s skull. Some are slightly larger—an indication of “greater brain capacity.” Since the brain capacity of Neanderthal is the same as or larger than modern man, it is unreasonable to assume that this is an ancestor of modern man. After all, if the theory of evolution is correct, why should brain capacities (which presumably get larger as humans “evolve”), suddenly become smaller after Neanderthal? The reality is that the scientific community is trying to force the actual evidence to agree with an incorrect theory and has to contradict itself occasionally to make the theory of evolution seem rational.

Conclusion

Although this page is not intended to be a rigorous scientific treatment of the subject, we believe we provided reasonable proof that the fossils of “human missing links” are examples of regular humans and regular apes that had some tiny irregularity. No fossil has ever been discovered that is more than slightly different from either an ape or a modern human. If you wish to learn more about the topic, we recommend the book APE-MEN - Fact or Fallacy? by Malcolm Bowden. Although this book is out of print, copies are still available through The Berean Call. You can locate this book by going down the left hand frame to the Creation Science category and clicking on Books.

Please take the time to investigate the facts thoroughly. For more information at our site, check out the following links:

Click here to see Transitional Fossil Species, Part I.

Click here to see Transitional Fossil Species, Part II. Did Some Dinosaurs Evolve Into Birds?

Click here to return to the Creation versus Evolution page.