Earliest Human Ancestor X Still Not Found

Chuck Darwin released the wolves over 150 years ago in search of evidence for evolution, especially ancestors of modern humans. While uninformed disciples claim that evolution is "settled science," evolutionary scientists know that it is anything but settled.

Sure, they keep finding evidence of early humans, but nothing that can be considered a candidate for Ancestor X, the beginning of all people groups. (Sounds like a "patient zero," the first infected with a contagion.) They have many disputes and no firm evidence — and even some possible racism.

It must be admitted that a great deal of evolution is ethno-centric. After all, Darwin's Victorian myth placed his white Englishmen be the pinnacle of evolution, but darker people were less evolved. (I reckon it must have grated on "scientific racists" to propose the idea that humans evolved and spread out of Africa. That is disputed, and some believe the Middle East is the source of humanity. That's pretty close there, Sport, because evidence supports the biblical narrative!

White folks don't trust the anthropology of Asian folks, and it seems to work the other way as well. Indeed, there are some inverted versions of Darwinism in Asia where they are the most evolved! Ethnic and nationalist attitudes may not be overt, but it seems that each group wants to be the best and the center of attention. Hasn't that happened throughout history?

Just drop the infighting and superiority stuff, Seymour. We are all created in the image of God. More than that, Christians are unified in Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:28). The search for Ancestor X will continue for these owlhoots who deny the truth of creation, but some of us know that God created the first humans far more recently than secularists want to admit.

I have posted many articles on this website about claims that a new human ancestor has been discovered. Often, the discoverer proclaims that the new find will require rewriting the textbooks about human evolution. The field of paleoanthropology, I keep pointing out, has consisted of many problematic attempts to link humans with apes in some progressive evolutionary scenario. These attempts, furthermore, have been highly speculative, leading other paleoanthropologists to propose counterexamples they feel are better candidates. It’s a cyclical process that sounds familiar whenever a new set of bone fragments turn up. In the end, they always fail to substantiate “Ancestor X”—the supposed common ancestor of all humans.

The rest of this very informative and well-documented article is found at "Not Found: Human Ancestor X." For some related material, consider "Dragon Man and other Human Evolution Follies."