His book, Bones of Contention , is the leading creationist work on human fossils. In a sense I built upon the foundation of Professor Bill Rusch at Concordia College. Dr Colin Groves, took you to task on this by saying that if the alleged ancestors and descendants are found all living at the same time, that proves nothing because a proportion of a population type A' might evolve into type B', while type A' persists to live alongside its evolutionary offspring. I was rather surprised by his comment, because it seemed to me that he was saying something different to virtually all the other evolutionists I have read. The theory goes that population A' receives some mutations that give it a degree of superiority.
Evolution allegedly proceeds by the death of the unfit as much as by the survival of the fit.
I don't mean to imply that all evolutionists are of Hitler's mentality, but I find it interesting that when evolutionists, correctly, maintain the equality of all of the races, they are actually denying the basic concepts of their own theory, because if all of the sub-species of a given group were absolutely equal, evolution would not have taken place. I am a young-earth creationist. I think that an outside age for the earth is perhaps 15,000 years, which is as far as we could really stretch the chronologies of Genesis, and even that is stretching them quite a bit. In the evolutionary framework there is a rather high degree of conformity because they make it so. If a date for a given fossil does not conform to the theory, at least roughly, it is changed.