What is the situation with the fossil record of the order Primates, which includes humans? It is assumed that the earliest representatives of primates were the prosimians, and evolutionists believe that all other primates evolved from one of them. Living prosimians include lemurs, lorises, and tarsiers.
Although it is assumed that primates evolved from an insectivorous ancestor, there are no series of transitional forms linking primates and insectivores. Elwin Simons, one of the leading world experts in the field of primates, must admit that “Despite recent findings, the time and place of origin of the order Primates remains shrouded in mystery.”1 Romer notes that early lemurs appeared “suddenly as emigrants from some unknown area.”2 He must have said this considering that paleontologists have not been able to determine how lemurs appeared based on the fossil record. Kelso observed that:
“A transitional form from insectivores to primates is not documented by fossils. The basis of knowledge about the transition relies on conclusions drawn from living forms.”3
So, we can see that from the very beginning, the origin of the entire order of primates cannot be determined from the fossil record. If primates evolved, there should be series of transitional forms leading back to their insectivorous ancestors, but such transitional forms have not been found. Of course, this is precisely what creationists expected the records would show.
A particular insectivore that evolutionists consider to be the ancestor of primates is the treeshrew. This conclusion was based on the work of Wilfred Le Gros Clark from 1920 on the Asian treeshrew, Tupaia. Le Gros Clark thought he could see many similarities between treeshrews and primates. Studies from the last two decades, however, have shown that Le Gros Clark was wrong. As early as 1966, C.B.G. Campbell, in his critique of this relationship, said:
“I must try to point out the large number of recent studies that have resulted in the fact that a close relationship between treeshrews and primates is not possible.”4
Campbell argues that there was an inherent attraction in the series: treeshrew – lemur – tarsier – monkey – human, which was largely responsible for its acceptance. There is no doubt that another factor was the authoritative position that Le Gros Clark held in anthropology.
Much earlier, R.D. Martin, based on his studies of maternal behavior in treeshrews and primates, concluded that “the treeshrew is not on the list of human ancestors.”5 Unlike primates, which consistently show maternal care, Martin observed that the female treeshrew visits the nest only about ten minutes every forty-eight hours, during which time she cares for the young. That is the only care she provides them. Furthermore, the fat percentage in the milk of the treeshrew is 25%, while in primates it is usually only 1-3%, and never exceeds 5%. Martin also points out the fact that the widely spread estimate about treeshrews, published in a book by W.P. Luckett, completely severs all links between treeshrews and primates.
Kelso asserts that there is no fossil evidence linking primates with insectivores (treeshrews). Campbell, Martin, and many others have documented the fact that there is no evidence in studies of living treeshrews that would connect them with primates. Therefore, there is no evidence either in the past or present that would link primates with any other creatures. From the very beginning, the evolutionary origin of humans has been declared null and void—by current empirical scientific evidence. Primates, as a group, stand completely isolated from all other creatures.
It was believed that prosimians were the beginning of platyrrhines (New World monkeys from South and Central America) and catarrhines, which include Old World monkeys and humans. There are no transitional forms between New World monkeys and their supposed ancestors, prosimians. Romer states, “Unfortunately, very little is known about the fossil history of South American monkeys.”6 Kelso observes:
“Details of the evolutionary background of New World monkeys, Platyrrhinae, would undoubtedly be informative and interesting, but unfortunately, we know very little about them.”7
Indeed, very little! In fact, nothing is known. When monkeys first appeared in South America, they were just that—monkeys. There are no transitional forms. Nor has anyone succeeded in finding an ancestor of the New World monkeys. So, Kelso says:
“Undoubtedly, fossil evidence of the appearance of New World monkeys could provide the key to entering the main evolutionary picture of primates, but the fact is that this record simply does not exist.”8
However, there are no transitional forms between prosimians and catarrhines either. Simons candidly says: “Although it has been claimed, there is in fact no such phenomenon as ‘protocatarhina’ known in the fossil record.”9 In a later publication, he stated:
“Not a single fossil primate from the Eocene epoch from any continent (those early prosimians have only been found in North America and Europe) has emerged as the appropriate ancestor of the great suborder Catarrhini, encompassing all living higher primates of the New World, including humans.”10
Thus, the fossil record has twice failed to prove the supposed ancestor of humans: the ancestors of the entire order of primates are missing, and transitional forms between prosimians, allegedly “more primitive” than primates, and catarrhines or “more advanced” primates have never been found.
Humans and monkeys are classified in the superfamily Hominoidea, and all such creatures are attributed to hominids. A scheme for the evolution of hominids has been proposed. The consensus among evolutionists is that chimpanzees and gorillas are our closest relatives among the monkeys.
Evolutionists believe that at some point in the past, there existed a population of ape-like creatures that split into subpopulations, one gave rise to gorillas, and the other split again into chimpanzees and humans. The time of that last common ancestor of monkeys and humans is controversial. Estimates vary from four million years to thirty-five million years, depending on who is speaking. This only confirms how little is known about it. While paleontologists search for the supposed common ancestor of humans and monkeys, that creature is still hypothetical.
As mentioned earlier, most evolutionists assume that chimpanzees (Pan) and gorillas (Gorilla) are much closer to humans than orangutans (Pongo). This assumption is based on molecular, biochemical, and chromosomal data. For example, when the DNA of humans and African monkeys (gorillas and chimpanzees) was hybridized, a 1.1% base mismatch occurred, while the mismatch between humans and orangutans was 2.4%.11 Phylogeny based on this type of data has been a challenge for Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh.
Schwartz points out that of the twenty-six unique traits that humans share with living hominids, all twenty-six are shared with orangutans, only six with chimpanzees and gorillas, and five with gibbons (Hylobates).12 Some of the traits humans share with orangutans but not with African monkeys, according to Schwartz, include longer hair, more separated mammary glands, longer pregnancy times (the same for humans and orangutans), firmer enamel on molars, deeply rooted cheek teeth, mating not tied to a specific part of the menstrual cycle, and the highest estriol level during the menstrual cycle. Schwartz believes that these data show that humans are much closer to orangutans than to African monkeys. Schwartz denies the significance of many molecular and biochemical data showing a close connection between humans and African monkeys, rather than between humans and orangutans, and interprets some of the remains as evidence that humans and orangutans are more closely related than humans and African monkeys.
Creationists remind us that similarities do not necessarily mean evidence of genetic ancestry. Interestingly, evolutionists are able to provide contradictory statements depending on which similarities they want to strengthen the connection. This is particularly the case with Schwartz, who is drawn to using molecular and biochemical data to reinforce phylogenetic relationships between humans and monkeys.
Evolutionists face great frustration in their attempt to construct a phylogenetic evolutionary tree based on the fossil record because the systematic absence of transitional forms has recently been outweighed by loud calls to use molecular data to reinforce the relationship. Creationists do not accept that conclusion based on such data and accept help from evolutionary circles, such as the one provided by Schwartz.
The significance of such relationships based on assumptions of evolutionary connections is somewhat confusing in the work of Benveniste and Todaro published in 1976.11 As previously mentioned, the DNA hybridization tests by Benveniste and Todaro show that African monkeys, gorillas, and chimpanzees are much closer to humans than Asian monkeys, orangutans, and gibbons. Hybridization of the DNA of gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, gibbons, and humans with the DNA copy of baboon type C virus showed that human DNA hybridized with the baboon virus DNA copy to the same degree as gibbon and orangutan DNA, and that the degree of hybridization of human, gibbon, and orangutan DNA with baboon type C virus DNA copy was lower than that of gorilla and chimpanzee DNA. This suggests that humans are closer to orangutans than to gorillas and chimpanzees, since the DNA of humans and orangutans hybridized similarly with the baboon type C virus, while the reaction of human, gorilla, and chimpanzee DNA with baboon type C virus was of unequal value.
Such a conclusion, although in agreement with the data considered by Schwartz, is nevertheless in contradiction with the conclusions based on other DNA through hybridization research and the consensus of many evolutionary scientists that humans are more closely related to gorillas and chimpanzees than to orangutans, Benveniste and Todaro draw attention to the fact that results based on baboon-type C virus DNA copies do not show that humans are closer to gibbons and orangutans than to gorillas and chimpanzees, but the similarities and differences are conditioned by the fact that the human ancestor was of Asian origin, while the ancestor of the gorilla and chimpanzee was of African origin. They believe that after the human ancestor separated from the ancestor of the gorilla and chimpanzee, it migrated to Asia and remained there for several million years. Thus, they assume that many human evolutionary sites in regions far from Africa, which is the home of baboons, gorillas, and chimpanzees, and those of humans or their ancestors, were formed by the recent migration of their relatives. Since it was not exposed to the baboon-type C virus, which was widespread throughout Africa but not in Asia, the possibility of the virogenesis of humans, orangutans, and gibbons is smaller than the possibility of gorillas and chimpanzees. This imaginative story once again reminds us that the theory of evolution is interpreted so plastically that it doesn’t matter which data is used, the theory can be sufficiently biased to make everything seem perfect. We believe that the differences or similarities in these data tell us nothing about genetic relationships.
Romer considers chimpanzees and gorillas to be “the most highly developed living members of the anthropoid group.” What can be said about their origin? He says: “Our knowledge of the fossil history of these higher monkeys and the supposed human ancestors is at a very sad level.” Some believe that the ancestors of chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans can be found in the species Dryopithecus, fossil monkeys found in Africa, Europe, and Asia.
What do anthropologists say about the human origin from its ape-like ancestor? Pilbeam says the following:
“It seems that general assumptions are rather accepted, in a vague way, that the root of the pre-Pleistocene hominid ancestor was placed somewhere in Dryopithecinae.”
When a scientist is forced to “assume” something in a “rather vague way,” it is certain that they are using an unscientific method to prove something that cannot be proven scientifically. What strange qualities found in an animal could lead a paleontologist to argue, on one hand, that it is the ancestor of chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, and yet on the other hand, that it is the ancestor of the human race?
Pilbeam disagrees with the general claim that Dryopithecus was the ancestor of humans. He explained his belief that Dryopithecus was too specialized, completely dedicated to its way of life, to produce hominids.
Some evolutionists today insist that we should not claim that humans came from monkeys, but it can be said that humans and monkeys had a common ancestor. This is very absurd, and it has been done for better public acceptance of the ape-like ancestor. While evolutionists claim that humans did not evolve from any modern monkey but from their common ancestor, each of us who could have seen that supposed ancestor could certainly call it a monkey.
Today, the only species in the Hominidae family, the human family, is Homo sapiens or modern humans. From the creationist perspective, humans have always been special and separate from all other creatures, a uniquely created being. According to evolutionary views, humans had a long evolutionary history, their supposed line of ancestors separated from monkeys several million years ago. All creatures that are intermediaries between humans and monkeys have been placed as members of Hominidae and then called hominids. Evolutionists believe that there were many transitional species between humans and their last common ancestor with monkeys, and since Darwin, the search for those supposed transitional forms has continued and strengthened.
Nothing excites our interest more than hints about the origin of our species. More than one unknown paleontropologist became famous overnight due to sensational claims supported by the discovery of some fragmentary remains of creatures believed to represent human ancestors, especially if the site was somewhere in Africa or Asia. As we will see, many such claims have fallen away as insufficiently confirmed, and in several cases, sensational “finds” were even declared to be frauds.
Evolutionists have proposed creatures they consider intermediaries between monkeys and humans. Accordingly, this supposed evolutionary history is based on the assumption that it lasted many millions of years, however, the list of proposed intermediaries is quite small, especially since some of them have been removed from the family tree.
In the following, we will critically consider the supposed evolutionary intermediaries between monkeys and humans:
- Ramapithecus
- Australopithecus
- Lucy
- Lake Turkana specimens
- Age of fossil findings
- Homo erectus (Javan Man, Peking Man, etc.)
- Literature
- E. L. Simons, Ann. N. Y. Acad. of Sci. 167:319 (1969).
- A. S. Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd ed., The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1966, p. 218.
- A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 2nd ed., J. B. Lippincott, New York 1974, p. 142.
- C. B. G. Campbell, Science 153:436 (1966).
- R. D. Martin, Nat. Hist 91:26 (1982).
- Romer Ref. 3, p. 221.
- Kelso Ref. 3, p. 150.
- Kelso Ref. 3, p. 151.
- E. L. Simons, Ann. N. Y. Acad. of Sci. 102:293 (1962).
- E. L. Simons, Sci. Amer. 211(1):50 (1964).
- R. E. Benveniste and G. J. Todaro, Nature 261:161 (1976).
- J. H. Schwartz, Nature 308:501 (1984).
- Romer Ref. 2, p. 224.
- D. R. Pilbeam, Nature 219:1335 (1968).
- D. R. Pilbeam, Adv. of Sci. 24:368 (1968).
- E. L. Simons and D. R. Pilbeam, Science 173:23 (1971).