What do you think?
Rate this book
Ape-men: Fact or Fallacy?: A Critical Examination of the Evidence
260p firm clean paperback, many illustrations
196 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1977
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
February 20, 2025
A CREATIONIST CRITIQUE OF PURPORTED ‘HUMAN’ FOSSILS
Author Malcolm Bowden wrote in the Introduction to this 1977 book, “In this book I have examined the ‘credentials’ of those fossil discoveries which are said to be the main links between man and that animal ancestor which he had in common with the apes… Whether there is room for doubt regarding the far-reaching claims made for many of these fossils will be left for the reader to judge as the evidence is laid before him… I have only the highest regard for eminent scientists of undoubted integrity, who study fossils… However, in the particular field of fossil man, I do question the very speculative assumptions made, and the far-reaching conclusions based upon based upon very meager evidence.”
He points out about the so-called ‘Nebraska Man’: “This is a classic case of excessive imagination. In 1922… H.F. Osborn, head of the American Museum of Natural history, received a tooth from a Mr. Cook who had found it in Pliocene deposits in Nebraska. Osborn considered that it had characteristics that were a mixture of human, chimpanzee and Pithecanthropus, and ... declared it was a further missing link… Later investigation, however, proved that the tooth was not of a man but of an extinct form of pig! Little publicity was given to the discovered error.” (Pg. 46)
He suggests, “It is possible that the C14 activity has not been constant … as is asserted, but is still rising slowly… This would mean that the C14 decay rate was much lower than the present level… giving a much reduced age for [a] specimen.” (Pg. 56)
He notes, “Certain characteristics possessed by some fossils (including the … Australopithecines) such as large cheek teeth, small incisors and crowding of heavily worn molars … are said to indicate their development towards man, who also possesses these features. Yet the Gelada baboons… which are living today, also have these features.” (Pg. 60)
He says of the Castenedolo skull/bones, “In 1860 Professor Ragazzoni… uncovered … parts of a human skull… he carefully inspected the strata above the fossils and could find no disturbance of the junction between them, which indicate an intrusive burial… The bones are generally rejected in view of their lack of fossilization… The degree of fossilization, however, is no guide to the antiquity of a bone… the first-hand eyewitness accounts of reputable scientists [indicate] that: (a) The strata above the fossils were completely intact. (b) They were found embedded in a matrix of the same material as the stratum in which they were found. In the face of this evidence, and the fact that the bones were scattered over a wide area, how it can seriously be maintained that they were intrusive burials defies simple logic.” (Pg. 66-67)
Of the Galley Hill skeleton, he argues, “The ‘problem’ of the existence of a human skeleton in such a very early stratum, resulted in it being placed in the ‘suspense account’ to which non-conforming fossils are dispatched… The fluorine content of the Galley Hill bone fragments was measured… it was therefore compared with the bones from the Swanscombe pit… The Galley Hill bones were promptly declared to be an intrusive burial. But the pit at Swanscombe was over half a mile away from the Galley Hill pit[!].” (Pg. 68-69) He adds, “it would be extremely unlikely that all trace of an 8 ft. deep hole had been obliterated when the skeleton itself could be seen protruding out of the rear vertical quarry face.” (Pg. 72)
He says of the [now-lost] Peking Man fossils, “[Pierre Teilhard de Chardin] confirmed the large number of ape-like features that the skull possessed … Surely, with such statements, it is clear that all that had been found was the skull of a large monkey..” (Pg. 83) Later, he adds, “It is indeed a strange coincidence that these [Choukoutien] bones… should suffer the same fate as later the whole fossil collection did at the time of Pearl Harbor. One would expect the loss of this valuable evidence to have been recorded by at least one of two publications, yet this note of [W.C.] Pei’s is the only mention I have ever seen recording their disappearance. Furthermore, in all my readings of Teilhard’s correspondence of this period, I have not seen any reference to this loss.” (Pg. 99) Later, he adds, “Why was Teilhard never questioned about the fate of the fossils? Even when he lived in America, he never appears to have mentioned the circumstances of their disappearance.” (Pg. 109)
He says of Eugene Dubois, “While still in Java, Dubois published a paper in 1894… and on his return the following year, bringing with him … only the skull cap, femur and teeth and gave lectures… Controversy raged over the fossils which he exhibited, but he said nothing whatsoever about his discoveries of the Wadjak skulls, the Kedung jaw, the premolar and four more human femurs, keeping those quite secret!” (Pg. 127)
He says of a hominid fossil, “This fossil… consists of the occipital part of a Homo sapiens skull… [also found at this level were] simple stone tools, fire, burnt bone and human teeth… From this, Homo sapiens existed… at the same time as Peking and Java man, who could not therefore be his ancestors.” (Pg. 154)
Of Neanderthals, he quotes a paper by F. Ivanhoe that states, “Nearly a hundred years ago Virchow diagnosed rickets in the Neanderthal bones, accounting for their peculiar simian past.’ … Examination of a number of Neanderthal skulls and skeletons showed ample evidence of rickets… [A] second paper … by G.J.M. Wright … points out that many of the symptoms of rickets are similar to those of congenital syphilis… Neanderthal man was a degenerate form of existing Homo Sapiens, suffering from malnutrition and rickets, possibly living promiscuously, which allowed the widespread infection of syphilis.” (Pg. 157-159)
He summarizes, “I would contend that all the fossils discovered on the African continent (…the Autralopithecines)… are simply… different types of apes. It is only by a close examination of, say, the teeth, shape of a jaw, or minor bones of the skull that any ‘human’ characteristics can be imputed, for they are all very ape-like. Do these small features prove that these animals were the precursors of man? I would suggest not… there is a very wide range of possible forms which any particular feature of the skeleton may take, and some of these are bound to be more like humans than others… A similar line of reasoning is used for other features, whilst the fact that the animal is only one of a wide range of apes is ignored.” (Pg. 161)
He continues, “The view that the Australopithecines are nothing more than apes is supported by Sir Solly Zuckerman, an expert on these animals… he concludes that they were ‘predominantly ape-like and not man-like creatures.’… More recently, [Charles] Oxnard … shows the very wide gap between these two lines and admits that: ‘it is rather unlikely that any of the Australopithecines… can have any direct phylogenetic link with the genus Homo…’” (Pg. 162)
He concludes, “the fossil links between man and the animals consist only of fragments of jaws, some broken skull pieces, part of a foot, etc.; no complete skeleton or even a reasonable proportion of one ever having been discovered…. On the basis of the evidence provided, I suggest that it is VERY unconvincing, and that the case for such links is ‘not proven,’ despite extensive searching of the earth’s surface for over one hundred years.” (Pg. 186)
At the time this book was published, it was the most detailed creationist analysis of hominid fossil evidence. (Of course, in the nearly fifty years since this book came out, many more hominid fossils have been discovered…)
Author Malcolm Bowden wrote in the Introduction to this 1977 book, “In this book I have examined the ‘credentials’ of those fossil discoveries which are said to be the main links between man and that animal ancestor which he had in common with the apes… Whether there is room for doubt regarding the far-reaching claims made for many of these fossils will be left for the reader to judge as the evidence is laid before him… I have only the highest regard for eminent scientists of undoubted integrity, who study fossils… However, in the particular field of fossil man, I do question the very speculative assumptions made, and the far-reaching conclusions based upon based upon very meager evidence.”
He points out about the so-called ‘Nebraska Man’: “This is a classic case of excessive imagination. In 1922… H.F. Osborn, head of the American Museum of Natural history, received a tooth from a Mr. Cook who had found it in Pliocene deposits in Nebraska. Osborn considered that it had characteristics that were a mixture of human, chimpanzee and Pithecanthropus, and ... declared it was a further missing link… Later investigation, however, proved that the tooth was not of a man but of an extinct form of pig! Little publicity was given to the discovered error.” (Pg. 46)
He suggests, “It is possible that the C14 activity has not been constant … as is asserted, but is still rising slowly… This would mean that the C14 decay rate was much lower than the present level… giving a much reduced age for [a] specimen.” (Pg. 56)
He notes, “Certain characteristics possessed by some fossils (including the … Australopithecines) such as large cheek teeth, small incisors and crowding of heavily worn molars … are said to indicate their development towards man, who also possesses these features. Yet the Gelada baboons… which are living today, also have these features.” (Pg. 60)
He says of the Castenedolo skull/bones, “In 1860 Professor Ragazzoni… uncovered … parts of a human skull… he carefully inspected the strata above the fossils and could find no disturbance of the junction between them, which indicate an intrusive burial… The bones are generally rejected in view of their lack of fossilization… The degree of fossilization, however, is no guide to the antiquity of a bone… the first-hand eyewitness accounts of reputable scientists [indicate] that: (a) The strata above the fossils were completely intact. (b) They were found embedded in a matrix of the same material as the stratum in which they were found. In the face of this evidence, and the fact that the bones were scattered over a wide area, how it can seriously be maintained that they were intrusive burials defies simple logic.” (Pg. 66-67)
Of the Galley Hill skeleton, he argues, “The ‘problem’ of the existence of a human skeleton in such a very early stratum, resulted in it being placed in the ‘suspense account’ to which non-conforming fossils are dispatched… The fluorine content of the Galley Hill bone fragments was measured… it was therefore compared with the bones from the Swanscombe pit… The Galley Hill bones were promptly declared to be an intrusive burial. But the pit at Swanscombe was over half a mile away from the Galley Hill pit[!].” (Pg. 68-69) He adds, “it would be extremely unlikely that all trace of an 8 ft. deep hole had been obliterated when the skeleton itself could be seen protruding out of the rear vertical quarry face.” (Pg. 72)
He says of the [now-lost] Peking Man fossils, “[Pierre Teilhard de Chardin] confirmed the large number of ape-like features that the skull possessed … Surely, with such statements, it is clear that all that had been found was the skull of a large monkey..” (Pg. 83) Later, he adds, “It is indeed a strange coincidence that these [Choukoutien] bones… should suffer the same fate as later the whole fossil collection did at the time of Pearl Harbor. One would expect the loss of this valuable evidence to have been recorded by at least one of two publications, yet this note of [W.C.] Pei’s is the only mention I have ever seen recording their disappearance. Furthermore, in all my readings of Teilhard’s correspondence of this period, I have not seen any reference to this loss.” (Pg. 99) Later, he adds, “Why was Teilhard never questioned about the fate of the fossils? Even when he lived in America, he never appears to have mentioned the circumstances of their disappearance.” (Pg. 109)
He says of Eugene Dubois, “While still in Java, Dubois published a paper in 1894… and on his return the following year, bringing with him … only the skull cap, femur and teeth and gave lectures… Controversy raged over the fossils which he exhibited, but he said nothing whatsoever about his discoveries of the Wadjak skulls, the Kedung jaw, the premolar and four more human femurs, keeping those quite secret!” (Pg. 127)
He says of a hominid fossil, “This fossil… consists of the occipital part of a Homo sapiens skull… [also found at this level were] simple stone tools, fire, burnt bone and human teeth… From this, Homo sapiens existed… at the same time as Peking and Java man, who could not therefore be his ancestors.” (Pg. 154)
Of Neanderthals, he quotes a paper by F. Ivanhoe that states, “Nearly a hundred years ago Virchow diagnosed rickets in the Neanderthal bones, accounting for their peculiar simian past.’ … Examination of a number of Neanderthal skulls and skeletons showed ample evidence of rickets… [A] second paper … by G.J.M. Wright … points out that many of the symptoms of rickets are similar to those of congenital syphilis… Neanderthal man was a degenerate form of existing Homo Sapiens, suffering from malnutrition and rickets, possibly living promiscuously, which allowed the widespread infection of syphilis.” (Pg. 157-159)
He summarizes, “I would contend that all the fossils discovered on the African continent (…the Autralopithecines)… are simply… different types of apes. It is only by a close examination of, say, the teeth, shape of a jaw, or minor bones of the skull that any ‘human’ characteristics can be imputed, for they are all very ape-like. Do these small features prove that these animals were the precursors of man? I would suggest not… there is a very wide range of possible forms which any particular feature of the skeleton may take, and some of these are bound to be more like humans than others… A similar line of reasoning is used for other features, whilst the fact that the animal is only one of a wide range of apes is ignored.” (Pg. 161)
He continues, “The view that the Australopithecines are nothing more than apes is supported by Sir Solly Zuckerman, an expert on these animals… he concludes that they were ‘predominantly ape-like and not man-like creatures.’… More recently, [Charles] Oxnard … shows the very wide gap between these two lines and admits that: ‘it is rather unlikely that any of the Australopithecines… can have any direct phylogenetic link with the genus Homo…’” (Pg. 162)
He concludes, “the fossil links between man and the animals consist only of fragments of jaws, some broken skull pieces, part of a foot, etc.; no complete skeleton or even a reasonable proportion of one ever having been discovered…. On the basis of the evidence provided, I suggest that it is VERY unconvincing, and that the case for such links is ‘not proven,’ despite extensive searching of the earth’s surface for over one hundred years.” (Pg. 186)
At the time this book was published, it was the most detailed creationist analysis of hominid fossil evidence. (Of course, in the nearly fifty years since this book came out, many more hominid fossils have been discovered…)
October 27, 2019
Most books are rated related to their usefulness and contributions to my research.
Overall, a good book for the researcher and enthusiast.
Read for personal research
- found this book's contents helpful and inspiring - number rating relates to the book's contribution to my needs.
Overall, a good book for the researcher and enthusiast.
Read for personal research
- found this book's contents helpful and inspiring - number rating relates to the book's contribution to my needs.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews