Maurice Bucaille writes:
It is possible to suppose that some seventy million years ago there lived various species that were half-insectivorous and half-primatial, and which formed the origin of the lineage; there are very few fossilized remains, however. Specimens have been brought to light in terranes that are roughly thirty million years old, and these are said to represent the first forms of ape-like types. Many more examples from later periods have been discovered. We should note, however, that in referring to these various fossils, certain paleontologists mention- forms that ‘might have similarities to…’, ‘are likely to be linked to’ or ‘seem to have given birth to…’ a particular form that exists today.
This is indeed an indication of the uncertainty that pervades ideas concerning the origins of the apes. If we turn back to the preceding chapter, we shall see from E. Genet-Varcin’s diagram of the lineages of the pongids and hominids that a few dots indicate the discovery of ancients forms, such as the Ramapithecus of the tertiary era, which was thought by some to be an ancestor of man. While we find that between four (or six) and one million years, the development of the first hominid considered at present to be such (the Australopithecus) is marked in righhand column of the diagram (at a more recent period, Neanderthal Man), we find on the side devoted to the pongids a series of interrupted dots indicating uncertainties due to lack of fossilized forms discovered. Not until we reach the top of the Pongid column do we find any development of forms similar to those known today. The latter may indeed have possessed distant precursors with forms indicated by the fossilized remains we have discovered from the tertiary era, it is however very difficult to reach any positive conclusions based on such meagre vestiges. Nevertheless, there are those who maintain that the great apes reached anatomical stability nine million years ago. If that were the case, however, the great apes would have been too ‘mature’ to give birth to the first human form—known today as the Australopithecus—which did not in fact appear until much later.
At this point, some people will immediately say that the pongids and hominids possessed a common ancestor. There is however, not one single discovery to prove this. Nobody has succeeded in finding the form that provides the link between the two lineages indicating on the diagram. That is why they remain quite separate.
“It is not possible therefore to accept as the one and only feasible hypothesis the theory that there is a common lineage between the present-day great apes and man. There is nothing to suggest that evolution occurred in exactly the same way for man as for the rest of the animal kingdom. Nevertheless, although the famous ‘missing link’ has yet to be found, transformations have undeniably taken place in the hominids through additions to the genetic code. These transformations are in harmony with the theory of creative evolution outlined at the end of Part One (Creative Evolution: The Only History of Life – Islamic Web Library). Thus humanity may have begun at a very distant period not yet located by science, a period that is at least as old as the most ancient authentic human vestiges so far brought to light.” (What is the Origin of Man, pg. 98)
“It has been claimed that the human branch is an offshoot of archaic form bearing ape-like features. This is by no means sure, however, for the oldest known primates already possess features indicating an adaptation specific to life in the trees. These features are not present either in the anatomy of man or that of the Australopithecus” (P.-P. Grasse).
If this common branch had existed, a divergence would have occurred at a much earlier period than that of the appearance of the first apes. Thus we are left with nothing but conjectures. One thing is certain, however Man could-not have been formed at the cost of the evolved forms such as the pongids (chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-outangs, for example). (What is the Origin of Man pg. 103-104)
For details see the following excerpt:
The following excerpt is taken from “What is the Origin of Man?” by Maurice Bucaille pg. 122-123:
Today, we know that the first wave of humans appeared on earth some five million years ago (six million years ago for certain researchers, and less for others). The waves that were to follow have also been more or less precisely located in time. What gaps still remain, however, in our knowledge due to the rarity of fossils! What large quantities of statements have appeared concerning the supposed relationship between human groups and the lineage that produced the apes (which is placed next to tge human lineage on the genealogical table), none of which is supported by any valid argument! What else are they but simple hypotheses designed to square with certain researchers’ preconceived ideas?
The very small quantity of paleontological specimens documenting the origins of mankind should make us proceed with extreme caution. There can be no doubt that many fossils exist which have not yet been discovered; some of them never will be. Chronological data bearing on apes and humans alike may one day be modified by future discoveries. Whatever happens, however, there are solid arguments to reject the theory that man is descended from the apes.
Even if it becomes possible to trace the human lineage much further back in time than the oldest human forms at present thought to be known, we shall never arrive at the idea that man was born of simian forms, whose descendants are today’s great apes.
While discoveries made over the last few decades have gradually pushed back the appearance of the first human forms to more and more distant periods (from hundreds of thousands to millions of years), the basic problem remains the same. Whatever the answer, the discoveries do not indicate that man is descended from a fully developed lineage of apes.
Maurice Bucaille ultimately concludes:
“There is absolutely no scientific proof to suggest that man was born of the evolved forms of present-day apes. On the contrary, everything suggests against this outmoded theory. What science has shown is that, at a certain point in time, human species appeared which gradually transformed itself into today’s man. From a scientific point of view, the crux of the problem is that we do not know what man evolved from: Was it from an autonomous lineage or from one that could be connected with another animal lineage? Whatever the answer, recent studies in genetics indicate that the process could not have taken place by any other method than the addition of new information governing the appearance of structures and functions specific to man. These phenomena fit perfectly into the pattern of an expanding genetic code, as suggested by the theory of creative evolution”
(What is the Origin of Man, pg. 212)
P.P. Grasse writes,
“Toward the end of the Cretaceous or the beginning of the Paleocene, Insectivores, Chiroptera, and primates were evolved from the same stock as primitive mammals. Later, tarsiers, lemurs, simians, and probably hominids came to be separated from a common stock. Direct phyletic links are unlikely between the first three suborders. Further, I believe—but this is a personal opinion—that the direct derivation of hominids from the common stock of all primates is more probable than derivation from the simian line.”
Bucaille, Maurice (1983). What is the Origin of Man? The Answers of Science and the Holy Scriptures. p. 94, 98, 175, p. 179, 200, 205). http://www.islamicweblibrary.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/WhatIsTheOriginOfManMauriceBucailleDr.pdf
Grassé, Pierre-P.. Evolution of Living Organisms (p. 75, ). Elsevier Science. Kindle Edition.