...a gibbon that walked upright, had a large brain, and was ancestral to humans. Dubois is probably incorrect in linking homo erectus and gibbons, but let's assume he's correct in all his suppositions. How, then, does this quote support the creationist position and not the evolutionist position? It's one of the cornerstones of evolutionary theory that man evolved from ape-like creatures. Of course, if we look back far enough, there comes a point where we stop calling our ancestors men and begin calling them, for want of a better word, apes.
By the way, the only thing that makes it an ancestor, is the theory of evolution, There is no evidence it is an ancestor, only the theory of evolution makes it an ancestor, and a discredited one since it is not australopithecine!
All it is is a SKULL cap and 3 teeth found in 1891, with a femur that was dug up 46 feet down stream and a year later in 1892.
There is NO EVIDENCE the two are even related!! All you have is the skull of an ape!!
The only 'evidence' of this being an ancestor is a theory that does not even apply!!
There is ZERO EVIDENCE of this creature ever becoming man. There is ZERO EVIDENCE of the femur being related to the Skulcap!! In fact, many think the femur is from a dead human.
DuBois also found 2 fully human skulls in the same strata on this expedition but never exhibited them becaue his JAVA MAN link would have been discredited. He later released these two human skulls in 1920, 30 years later!!
Eugene Dubois, "The proto-Australian Fossil man of Wadjuk, Java", Koninklijke Akadamie van Wetenschappan, proceedings, Vol 13, Koninklijke Akadamie , 1920), p. 131