Creative energy is a temperamental thing, and I find that mine is sleep-dependent. This blog will continue to be rather neglected until my own schedule becomes a little more civilized. It's not so much time-management as it is desire. Just not motivated -- like a starving man, who only sits.
But here's a very cool idea. I was watching a NOVA program on neanderthals. Didn't see much of it, but a child's skull yielded info on its diet, which was almost entirely meat. All across Europe, for all those tens of thousands of years, a very consistent diet.
I of course do not adhere to the religion of Evolutionism. I have a very primitive, backwards way of looking at the world. In point of fact, I am a biblical literalist (sadly, it needs to be pointed out to bigots and ignoramuses that there is such a thing as poetic language), and I find convincing evidence for a young Earth, a world Flood and an Ark of Noah. Whence then, neanderthals?
The evidence for multiple hundreds and thousands and millions of centuries is the same evidence for a young Earth. Evidence is evidence. It's the interpretation that has power to convince or dissuade. I shan't go into it here. But if neanderthals were so very different from our current human gene pool, it is a confounding and perhaps invalidating problem, for me. Some explanation then?
It was said in the NOVA program that apes have a far greater genetic diversity within species, than do humans. Let's accept this as true. They had lots of time to mutate, Evolve, from a parent strain? Or they are segregated populations from which environmental stresses have selected traits -- so that modern apes, in their clans, are less diverse, rather than more, than their founding pair of ark-borne ancestors. See? We choose our interpretation depending on our bias.
The ape info was used to highlight the very narrow gene pool of humanity -- one authority said there was a genetic bottleneck in humanity's distant past, to explain this. Well, yes? Um ... the Ark? Alone, this would be a simplistic explanation. Understand though that it was not one family, but four, on the Ark. At least four: there is no need to suppose that Noah's three sons were also the offspring of Noah's (current) wife. So, Noah's line, and the genetic contributions of four unrelated women -- and unique contributions from the three sons as well, if each had a different mother. In any case, among the wives do we find neanderthals, a now-extinct fully human race?
Wow, these neanderthal skulls are REALLY primative looking ... primatish:
Great big bony ridge across forehead -- really hideous ... like mine ... although my forehead itself is quite high ... still, those bones.
I'm somewhere between the guy on the left and the guy on the right:
Be that as it may, I kept thinking how racist they are, these Evolutionists: because a race has a bony forehead, they're practically apes? And I was thinking I'd like to see, say, the skulls of Australian aborigines, as a comparison. Because they have skulls that are morphologically indistinguishable from bones identified as Homo erectus.
So Homo erectus, and please note that he's blond, like me (and therefore superior) ...
...and this guy:
... who is/was an Australian aborigine who lived no more than 150 years ago.
Well, I seem to have taken a tangent. My point was something else. I said there was a cool idea. All this has been cool, but other than my intention. Here it is. Call to mind the biblical Nephilim, the race of giants bred from human females and (fallen) angels. Nimrod and his ilk. All sorts of extrabiblical stories about them. Well. What if these angels mated not only with humans? I mean, they don't have actual DNA, being as they are spirit beings. They just get DNA, while they're slumming down here on God's footstool. Could they not just as easily manifest as animals, and mate with them? Satan after all came as a serpent.
And what would the offspring be, of animals and angels? This is where it gets cool. A transmogrified ape, then, raised higher than apes, intelligent now, with language, with tools, morphological enhanced, as the nephalim were giants -- but still, somehow, primitive.
It is Satan's attempt to supplant humanity, create his own intelligent race, which seems, somehow, to be his intent. How would God react? What genocide was ordered, to slay on sight these marked outcasts? When Joshua conquered Canaan, he was ordered to kill even the children of some cities. Wherefore? It was the land of the Anak -- who were Nephilim -- human-angel hybrids. See? God doesn't like this playing around with DNA.
Oh, it gets cooler, but this is enough.
As for neanderthals, it's always suspicious to me, these incredibly long, static periods -- multiple tens of thousands of years, where nothing changes in the paleontological record. Same with the various "dark ages" -- fictions, by my reconstruction of ancient chronology -- where in Egyptian or Mesopotamian archaeology there is no evidence save the lack of evidence, or, in some cases, an actual resurgence of styles obsolete for many centuries. Ad hoc inventions to save a bad theory. So with apemen. Must it be stasis for a hundred thousand years? Perhaps, rather, it's centuries only, stretched out to fill the millennia of Evolutionist expectation? Oh, there's evidence for such an idea, lots of evidence. You should have read my book on the subject, when you had the chance.
Last time I did research into Homo erectus skulls, there was no internet. You kids have no idea how easy it is for you. You know that today is my 52nd birthday?
Hmm. I must have gotten some sleep last night. Lots of creative energy. But that's just me -- get all caught up in something. When I can find someone to get up early in the morning for me, I'll have all kinds of energy. Work out more. Write a few more books. Until then, you will wait patiently for my next blog post. Sucka!