Why Aristotle Rejected the Theory of Forms?

They say Aristotle made it using so-called the third man argument (the link is down below), but it's not completely true. Even at the beginning of his central work Metaphysics Aristotle viewed different predecessors to him analyzing their philosophies's foundations. And about what he was complaining the most? - He said that most of philosophers lacked many important points in their systems of reduction everything to few principles. For instance, if they said that everyting is a numer, then didn't care about the principle how that number could transform itself into something non-numerical. Or if some philosophers claimed that everything is changing, why those philosophers - Aristotle asked - hadn't explained how those changing appeared to be non-changing or from where the other things came? 

So, the theory of forms lacks one important thing: if you reduce something to the forms then how do you explain the appearance of the other features (qualities, properties, whatever)? From where all the other different things come? And trying to explain the appearence of the new additional features philosophers usually do two things: a) introduce the recursive functions, or b) bring new forms. The last isn't a good way in any respects, so the recursive functions seem to be better candidates for such an explanation. And the most difficult part for anyone to explain the origins or the roots of those recursions - is to explain their inner mechanism or their behaviour. And you know what? - Many of them have failed trying to explain it. Of course it doesn't mean there can't be no such recursions, it only means that any of such recursions should be even more complex, than the world itself. That's why the best way is to left those forms aside starting to watch the objects itself without those unnecessary additions.