A Fresh Look at Genealogy

[Rainmakers_Title.htm]

[navi.htm]

"Well I’ll be a monkey’s uncle!"

A trite cliché, typically announcing astonished surprise without genealogical inference---unless, perhaps, you happen to be a devout evolutionist?

Genealogy fascinates.

Most proletariat wouldn't mind discovering a king or two in their ancestry. But even serious minded neo-Darwinists don’t claim bragging rights at prospect of King Simian or King Salmon parenting the roots of his or her family tree.

Charles Darwin lacked any such reticence. Without the first clue as to the meaning of "genome" or the DNA helix, he undertook the role of master genealogist for the human race---without a scintilla of evidence.

Since he lacked the most basic tools of 21^st century science, his fantasies should be brushed aside as wishful thinking. Still, some contemporary believers surrender to his senseless meandering and buy into corrupted genealogy concepts hook, line and sinker!

The pieced together fabric of his thinking has yet to find a place of honor in any family genealogy authenticated by respected genealogists. This didn’t stop the 19^th century guru of unverified origins from propounding what he must have implicitly assumed to be the roots of the Darwin family tree.

After linking humans and monkeys to common ancestry, Darwin his faithful followers to hold their heads high, suggesting, "…we may, with our present knowledge, approximately recognize our heritage; nor need we feel ashamed of it…"

This unambiguous declaration of "heritage", immediately followed his bold, uncorroborated revelation that "The Simiadae… branched off into two great stems; the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe proceeded…" (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Vol. I, p. 213).

Without a hint of tongue-in-cheek equivocation, he pinned the tale on the monkey for his family to behold. "…Man appears to have diverged from the ...Old World division of the Simiadae, after these had diverged from the New World division." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Vol. I, p. 201).

Maybe he wasn’t "ashamed" of the monkey in the Darwin family’s lineage, but his pointed portrayal of an alleged predecessor posing as some ancient great-grand-parent might have raised an eyebrow or two if pictured in a Victorian era family album.

"…Early progenitors of man were no doubt once covered with hair, both sexes having beards; their ears were pointed and capable of movement; and their bodies were provided with a tail…" (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Vol. I, p. 206).

Then he offered evolutionism’s infamous fantasy "fish story!"

After blazing a non-existent transitional trail "through a long line of diversified forms" beginning with "higher mammals," back to "an ancient marsupial," then linking to “some reptile-like or some amphibian-like creature,” Darwin eventually identified his ancient parentage as "some fish-like animal." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Vol. II, p. 389).

Remarkable linkage---and without a scintilla of proof!

But Charles D was on a genealogical roll, allowing as how he saddled his family tree with a vague creature he identified as neither male nor female. (Perhaps he visualized no problem with a Darwin ancestor marrying a Darwin cousin)?

"…Some extremely remote progenitor of the whole vertebrate kingdom appears to have been hermaphrodite or androgynous." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Vol. I, p. 207). "…the early progenitor of all the Vertebrata must have been an aquatic animal, provided with branchiae, with the two sexes united in the same individual, and with the most important organs of the body (such as the brain and heart) imperfectly developed." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Vol. II, pp. 389, 390).

Looking at a photo from the early 1970's, I see faces that no longer walk this earth. A clergyman father and uncle and a cardiologist brother. Of the five, a media producer younger cousin and I alone remain, albeit aged, more than a bit by, the ravages of Pappy Time in cahoots with Mother Nature.

Nothing in these two pictured generations of the Johns family genome suggest a shared ancestry with a monkey-like critter; nor some creature with pointed ears and a tail; nor a non-descript single-sex hermaphrodite; nor a King salmon.

I’ve yet to hear any human---including committed evolutionists---boast of a hairy ape ancestor noted for tree-swinging talents or an ancestral King salmon fish that ends up as a coveted, Cajun style gourmet entrée.

Most families share family tree curiosity.

But no one claims seriously to be a "monkey’s uncle." Fact is, neither monkeys nor fish have anything to do with any human family tree---including Charles Darwin’s. It was Darwin’s imagination that ran wild suggesting absurd, less than human lineages.

Perhaps he should be forgiven since he scribbled his fantasies in an era replete with fairy tale authors. But to embrace unscientific nonsense in the 21^st century? And to label it "science?"

Time for a reality check!

Accurate identification of family ancestry demands supporting documentation. Evidence as old as four or five thousand years reveals a race of human beings, just like us---even carrying the identical four basic human blood types.

Darwin relies on imagination, conjecture and major chunks of deep time to postulate weird and impossible human genealogy that never was and never could be. Still, evolutionism craves authenticity for its philosophical abstraction by seeking cover under a manipulated definition of "science."

Academic scholarship demands objective standards comparable to guidelines imposed on students of history. Evolutionism winks at or waives those standards, thumbing its nose at academic freedom in the process.

Darwin’s disciples lack the first scintilla of evidence linking human ancestry to a fish via some monkey-like creature. Even using the wildest stretch of the definition of "science," this sorry fiction doesn't make the cut.

Thomas Alva Edison discovered an efficient incandescent light in 1879. Allegedly he made 1,000 trial-and-error attempts to find a time-worthy filament for the vacuum tube. No pre-determined boundaries limited his quest for understanding.

Today's world is a brighter place thanks to Edison's industrious pursuit of knowledge using the classic scientific method of discovery.

To take any explanation of science off the table because it could be above and beyond the materialistic, is as narrow minded as imposing limits on Edison's experiments in his quest for choice of a filament. Similarly, to attempt an explanation of life's origin by excluding consideration of intelligent design by a Designer, assures dark results.

The world is brighter because Edison discovered truth by exploring the unlimited range of possibilities available through the scientific method. The world---and science---would be further brightened by investigating the origin of life by recognizing pervasive evidence of intelligent design and seeking the identity of the Designer.

Paraphrasing the words of rocket scientist, Wernher von Braun, "you don’t need a candle to see the sun."

5-26-2003
WLJ

[rightcolumn.htm]