My creationist, young-earth zealot side got all excited when I saw Fossils challenge old evoluton theory while browsing the headlines at Yahoo.? The heady exhilaration of vindication of my beliefs had already begun by the time I?even started reading the article.? Pity though: it didn't last long.
It appears that two great-grannies way back there before the big thaw?were sisters or cousins?rather than mother-daughter?like evolutionists have taught for decades.? Seems the homo-family tree is actually more like an oak than a palm.? Seems to make sense considering that's what modern family trees look like.?
I mean, let's think about this for a minute.? I did a paper on cheetahs as a young student.? I learned from my research that the cheetah is an endangered species because of bottle-necking genealogy.?
Laws prevent first cousins from marriage because of the effects of such reproduction.? Yet for decades, evolutionists would have us believe that our family tree followed the "iconic" (per article author Seth?Borenstein) straight-line ancestry from Ape-GrandPapa to I-Need-a-Chiropractor-Pops to Straight-and-Tall-Dad over the course of history.?
Why does Borenstein call our palm-family-portrait iconic?? According to The Free Dictionary, an icon is "An important and enduring symbol."? It is precisely because it is the most important and enduring symbol of the evolutionary agenda (propaganda?) that it is so iconic.? In the early days of the push, sensible, God-fearing people just couldn't connect what Darwin and others were purporting with what they saw all around them in their fellow homo sapiens.? So, what do you do when people just don't get it?? Draw it out for them.? It's like a flip-animation strip all lined out in sequential order for us.
The problem is this: the bottle-necking reproduction leads to anomalies, mutations, and defects that leave the cheetahs endangered, and evolution propagandizes that we are all descended from great-great-great-GrandmaProtazoa - even the cheetahs.? Common, basic logic and deductive reasoning impose the conclusion that the same linear propagation can only lead to the same results in the descendant human population.? Yet somehow, the current population of our species is at a staggering 6.6 billion.? Doesn't sound very endangered to me.
So does logic insist that I buy the new "wayward bush" family tree theory?? Study this diagram of "evolutionary proof specimens" and figure it out for yourself.