HUMAN ORIGINS: CAN WE HANDLE THE TRUTH?
In Part One of this essay, I explained the Interventionist
perspective regarding the origin of life on Earth. I showed how the
great preponderance of evidence indicates life came here and did not
develop here, as we have been brainwashed to believe by generations
of scientists struggling to keep the creation myths of religion out
of classrooms. Personally, I applaud and support all efforts to keep
the most specious aspects of Creationism safely bottled up in houses
of worship, where they belong. However, I have even more disdain for
scientists who allow themselves to be crushed to cowardly pulp by
nothing more debilitating than "peer pressure". Because both groups
are so driven by their collective fears and dogma, neither has a
working grip on reality. That becomes increasingly clear as research
continues, which I believe was made evident in Part One. Now letís
try to do the same in Part Two, on human origins.
If anything riles Creationists and Darwinists alike, itís the
suggestion they might be wrong about how we humans have come to
dominate our planet so thoroughly. Both sides can tolerate
substantial criticisms regarding the wide array of subjects under
their purviews, including the kind of critique I gave the origins of
life in Part One. However, they have no toleration for challenges to
their shared hegemony over the beginnings of us all. Dare that and
youíll find yourself in a serious fight. Thus, those of us who
support the Interventionist interpretation come under attack from
both sides, not to mention the other clique at the party, the
educated subgroup of Creationists known as Intelligent Designers (a
brilliant choice of name that enforces their bottom-line concept of
a "grand designer", while simultaneously implying they are smarter
than anyone who would oppose them).
All sides seem to agree that humans are "special".
Intelligent Designers consider it virtually self-evident that
originated by some kind of divine fiat. Creationists believe the
instigator is a universal "godhead" figure, which
IDers water down
to a more palatable "entity or system" capable of generating order
out of chaos, life out of the inanimate. Even Darwinists will
concede that many of our physical, emotional and intellectual traits
set us far apart from the primate ancestors they believe preceded us
in the biological process of evolution. However, despite our high
degree of "specialness", Darwinists fervently promote the dogma that
even the most fanciful distinctions separating us from our supposed
ancestors can be explained entirely by "natural means".
As with the early life-forms discussed in Part One, thereís nothing
natural about it.
THE EARLIEST PRIMATES
Darwinists believe the human saga begins with mouse-sized mammals
called insectivores (similar to modern tree shrews) that scurried
around under the feet of large dinosaurs, trying to avoid becoming
food for smaller species. Then comes the Cretaceous extinction event
of 65 million years ago that took out the dinosaurs and paved the
way for those tiny insectivores to evolve over the next few million
years into the earliest primates, the prosimians (literally
pre-simians, pre-monkeys) of the early Palaeocene epoch, which lasts
until 55 million years ago.
As with nearly all such aspects of Darwinist dogma, this is pure
speculation. There is, in fact, no clear indication of a
transitional insectivore-to-prosimian species at any point in the
process. If any such transitional species had ever been found, then
countless more would be known and I wouldnít be writing this essay.
Darwinian evolution would be proved beyond doubt, and that would be
the end of it.
To read the fossil record literally is to discover the legitimacy of
punctuated equilibrium (discussed in Part One) as a plausible
explanation. "Punk eek", as detractors call it, points out that in
the fossil record life-forms do seem simply to appear on Earth, most
often after extinction events but not always. Both the supposed
proto-primates and flowering plants appear during the period
preceding the Cretaceous extinction. They come when they come, so
the relatively sudden post-extinction appearance of the earliest
primates, the prosimians (lemurs, lorises, tarsiers), is one of many
In terms of human origins, it begs this question: did proto-primates
actually evolve into prosimians, into monkeys, into apes, into
humans? Or did prosimians appear, monkeys appear, apes appear, and
humans appear? Or, in our "special" case,
were we created?
However it happened, there is a pattern. The earliest prosimians are
found in the fossil record after the Mesozoic/Cenozoic boundary at
65 million years ago. It is assumed their ancestors will someday be
found as one of countless "missing links" needed to make an airtight
case for Darwinian evolution. Prosimians dominate through the
Palaeocene and the Eocene, lasting from 65 to 35 million years ago.
(There wonít be a test on terms or dates, so donít worry about
memorizing them; just try to keep the time-flow in mind.) At 35
million years ago, the Oligocene epoch begins and the first monkeys
come with it.
Again, Science assumes that monkeys evolved from prosimians, even
though evidence of that transition is nowhere in sight. In fact,
there is strong evidence pointing in the other direction, toward the
dreaded stasis of punctuated equilibrium. The lemurs, lorises and
tarsiers of today are essentially just as they were 50 million years
ago. Some species have gone extinct while others have modified into
new forms, but lemurs and lorises still have wet noses and tarsiers
still have dry, which seems always to have been the case. Thatís why
tarsiers are assumed to be responsible for spinning off monkeys and
all the rest.
Monkeys start appearing at 35 million years ago, looking vastly
different from prosimians. There are certain physiological links, to
be sure, such as grasping hands and feet to permit easy movement
through trees. However, prosimians cling and jump to move around,
while monkeys favor brachiating--swinging along by their arms.
Also, prosimians live far more by their sense of smell than do
monkeys. This list goes on.
The reason theyíre linked in an evolutionary flowchart is because
they seem close enough in enough ways to make the linkage stick.
Simple as that. Science focuses on the similarities and tries hard
to ignore their gaping discrepancies, assuming--as always--that
there is plenty of time for evolution to do its magic and generate
those inexplicable differences.
For the next 10 million years the larger, stronger, more "advanced"
monkeys compete with prosimians for arboreal resources, quickly
gaining the upper hand over their "ancestors" and driving several of
them to extinction.
Then, at around 25 million years ago, the Miocene epoch brings the
first apes into the fossil record, as suddenly and inexplicably as
all other primates appear. Again, Science insists they evolved from
monkeys, but the evidence to support that claim is as specious as
the prosimian-monkey link. The transitional bones needed to support
it are simply not in the fossil record.
If this isnít a distinct pattern of punctuated equilibrium, then
THE PUZZLING MIOCENE
In terms of primate evolution, the Miocene makes little sense. By 25
million years ago, when it begins, prosimians have been around for
about 30 million years and monkeys for 10 million years. Yet in the
Mioceneís ample fossil record, prosimians and monkeys are rare,
while the new arrivals, the apes, are all over the place.
The Miocene epoch stretches from 25 million to 5.0 million years
ago. (These are approximations quoted differently in various
sources; I round off to the easiest numbers to keep track of.)
During those 20 million years, the apes flourish. They produce
two-dozen different genera (types), and many have more than one
species within the genus. Those apes come in the same range of sizes
they exhibit today, from smallish gibbon-like creatures, to
mid-range chimp-sized ones, to large gorilla-sized ones, to
super-sized Gigantopithecus, known only by many teeth and a few
mandibles (jawbones) from India and China.
Thatís another interesting thing about Miocene apes: their fossils
are found literally everywhere in the Old World--Africa, Europe,
Asia. Most of them are known by the durable teeth and jaws that
define Gigantopithecus, while many others supply enough post-cranial
(below the head) bones to grant a reasonably clear image of them.
They present an interesting mix of anatomical features. Actually,
"confusing" is more like it. They are clearly different from monkeys
in that they have no tails, just like modern apes. However, their
arms tend to be more like monkey arms--the same length as their
legs. Modern ape arms are significantly longer than their legs so
they can "walk" comfortably on their front knuckles. More than any
other reason, this is why we hear so little from anthropologists
about Miocene apes. Their arms donít make sense as the forelimbs of
an ancestral quadruped. Miocene arms fit better with something else.
This is not to say, of course, that no ape arms in the Miocene
fossil record are longer than legs. Thatís nowhere near to being
determined because many species--like Gigantopithecus--have yet to
provide their arm bones. However, since we do have some tailless,
ape-like bodies with monkey-like arms and hands, we have to consider
how such a hybrid would move around. Swing through trees by its
arms, like a monkey? Not likely. Monkey arms are designed to carry a
monkeyís slight body. An apeís body needs to be brachiated and
leveraged by an apeís much longer, stouter, stronger arms. So how
From a physiological standpoint, an ape-like body with monkey-like
arms and hands does not move as easily or comfortably as a quadruped
(down on all fours). It simply canít happen. In fact, thereís really
only one posture that lends itself to the carriage of such a
monkey-ape hybrid, and thatís upright. Go to a zoo and watch how
much easier monkeys--tails and all--stand upright compared to apes.
Any monkey can move with grace on its hind legs. In comparison, apes
are blundering, top-heavy oafs. Thus, it seems likely that at least
some of the hybrid monkey-apes of the Miocene probably had to carry
themselves upright, in opposition to the other apes of the era
bearing the longer, thicker arms of gibbons, orang-utans,
chimpanzees and gorillas. Remember, weíre talking about two dozen
genera and around 50 species.
WALKING THE WALK
Walking is critical to an understanding of human origins because
Darwinists feel it is the factor that set our ancestors on the road
to becoming us. The theory is that around 5.0 to 10 million years
ago, when the heavy forests blanketing Africa began shrinking, some
forest-dwelling quadrupedal Miocene apes still living then (there
had been the inevitable extinctions and speciations during the
preceding 15 to 20 million years) began to forage on the newly
forming savannas. Though terribly ill-equipped to undertake such a
journey (more about that later), several ape species supposedly took
the risk by learning to stand upright to see out over the savanna
grasses to scout for predators. Then--after millennia of holding
that position for extended periods--they adopted constant upright
posture. In doing so, one of those daring, unknown species took the
real "giant step for mankind".
No one can yet say which of the early upright-walking "pre-humans"
went on to become us, because the physiological gaps between us and
them are simply enormous. In fact, physically, the only significant
thing we have in common with those early ancestors is upright
posture. But even that reveals noticeable divergence.
Incredibly, we have the walking trail of at least two early
pre-humans at 3.5 million years ago. Found in Laetoli,
these tracks were laid down on a volcanic ash fall that was then
covered by another ash fall and sealed until their discovery by Mary
Leakeyís team in 1978. Photos of that trail are common and can be
accessed in any basic anthropology textbook or on the Internet. What
is not commonly portrayed, however, is that detailed analysis of the
pressure points along the surface of those prints indicates
something that would be expected: they didnít walk like us. After
all, 3.5 million years is a long time, and from a Darwinist
standpoint itís logical to assume extensive evolution would occur.
But whether it was evolution or not, our methods of locomotion are
Humans have a distinctive carriage that starts with a heel strike
necessitated by our ankles placed well behind the midpoint of our
feet. After the heel strike, our forward momentum is swung to the
left or right, out to the edges of our feet to avoid our arches (in
normal feet, of course). Once past the arch, thereís a sharp swing
of the momentum through the ball of the foot from outside all the
way to the inside, where momentum is gathered and regenerated in the
powerful thrust of the big toe, with the four small toes drawing
themselves up to act as balancers. (Watch your own bare feet when
you take a step and youíll see those final "thrust-off" stages in
The pre-humans at Laetoli walked with marked differences. Instead of
having a heavy heel-strike leading the way, their ankle was
positioned at the centre balance point of the foot, allowing it to
come down virtually flat with an almost equal distribution of weight
and momentum between the heel and the ball area. Instead of a crazy
momentum swing out and around the arch, their arches were much
smaller and the line of momentum traveled nearly straight along the
midline of the entire foot. That made for a much more stable
platform for planting the foot and toeing off into the next step,
which was done by generating thrust with the entire ball area rather
than with just the big toe. When you get right down to it, the
Laetoli stride was a superior technique to the one we
Slow-motion studies of humans walking show that we do virtually
everything "wrong". Our "heel-strike, toe-off" causes a
discombobulation that courses up our entire body. We are forced to
lock our knees to handle the torque as our momentum swings out and
around our arches. Because of that suspended moment of torque
absorption, we basically have to fall forward with each step, which
is absorbed by our hip joints. Meanwhile, balance is assisted by
swinging our arms. Because of those factors, we donít walk with
anything approaching optimum efficiency, and the stresses created in
us work, over time, to deteriorate our joints and eventually cripple
us. In short, we could use a re-design.
What we actually need to do is to walk more like the pre-humans at
Laetoli. In order to secure that heel-and-toe plant with each step,
weíd have to modify our stride so our knees werenít locked and we
werenít throwing ourselves forward through our hip joints. Weíd have
to keep our knees in a state of continual flexion, however slight,
absorbing all the stress of walking in our thighs and buttocks,
which both are designed to accommodate. This would provide us with a
"gliding" kind of stride that might look unusual (it would resemble
the classic Groucho Marx bent-kneed comedic walk), but would
actually be much less stressful, much less tiring and incredibly
more efficient physiologically.
Based on the evidence of the Laetoli tracks, this is exactly how
WHATíS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
When Darwinists present reconstructions of so-called "pre-humans",
invariably they look nothing like humans.
Lucy and her Australopithecus relatives were little more than
upright-walking chimpanzees. The robust australopithecines were
bipedal gorillas. The genus Homo (habilis,
erectus, Neanderthals and other debatable species) was a distinct upgrade, but still nowhere
near the ballpark of humanity. Only when the Cro-Magnons appear, as
suddenly and inexplicably as everything else, at around 120,000
years ago in the fossil record, do we see beings that are
The Laetoli walkers lived 3.5 million years ago. Lucy lived around
3.2 million years ago. Recent discoveries show signs of pushing
bipedal locomotion back as far as 6.0 million years ago. So letís
assume for the sake of discussion that some primates were upright at
no less than 4.0 million years ago.
Thus, from approximately 4.0 million years ago all the way to the
appearance of Cro-Magnons some time before 120,000 years ago (95% of
the journey), all pre-human fossils reveal distinctly non-human
characteristics. They have thick, robust bones--much thicker and
more robust than ours. Such thick bones are necessary to support the
stress generated by extraordinarily powerful muscles, far more
powerful than ours. Their arms are longer than ours, especially from
shoulder to elbow. Their arms are also roughly the same length as
their legs, ŗ la Miocene apes. And in every aspect that can be
quantified--every one!--their skulls are much more ape-like than
human-like. Those differences hold from australopithecine bones to
the bones of Neanderthals--which means that something quite dramatic
happened to produce the Cro-Magnons, and it wasnít the result of an
extinction event. It was something else.
The chasm between Cro-Magnons (us) and everything else that comes
before them is so incredibly wide and deep that there is no way
legitimately to connect the two, apart from linking their bipedal
locomotion. All of the so-called "pre-humans" are much more like
upright-walking chimps or upright-walking gorillas than they are
incipient humans. Darwinists argue that this is why they are called
pre-humans, because they are so clearly not human.
But another interpretation can be put on the fossil record--one that
fairly and impartially judges the facts as they exist, without the
"spin" required by Darwinist dogma. That spin says that the gaping
physiological chasm between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons can be
plausibly explained with yet another "missing link".
LOOKING BACK TO SEE AHEAD
Darwinists use the missing link to negate the fact that
appear out of nowhere, looking nothing like anything that has come
before. What they fail to mention is that dozens of such links would
be needed to show any kind of plausible transition from any
pre-human to Cro-Magnons. It clearly didnít happen--and since
theyíre experts about such things, they know it didnít happen.
However, to acknowledge that would play right into the desperate
hands of Creationists and Intelligent Designers, not to mention give
strong support to Interventionists like me. They face a very big
rock or a very hard place.
Letís accept for the moment that in Darwinian terms there is no way
to account for the sudden appearance of Cro-Magnons (humans) on
planet Earth. If that is true, then what about the so-called
"pre-humans"? What are they the ancestors of? Their bones litter the
fossil record looking very unlike humans, yet they clearly walk
upright for at least 4.0 million years, and new finds threaten to
push that back to 6.0 million years. Even more likely is that among
the 50 or more species of Miocene apes, at least a few are walking
upright as far back as 10 to 15 million years ago. If we accept that
likelihood, we finally make sense of the deep past while beginning
for the first time to see ourselves clearly.
We can be sure that at least four of the 50 Miocene apes were on
their way to becoming modern quadrupeds, because their descendants
live among us today. Equally certain is that others of those 50
walked out of the Miocene on two legs. Technically these are called
hominoids, which are human-like beings that are clearly not human.
In fact, every bipedal fossil preceding Cro-Magnon is considered a
hominoid--a term that sounds distinctly outside the human lineage.
So Darwinists have replaced it in common usage with the much less
specific "pre-human", which not so subtly brainwashes us all into
believing there is no doubt about that connection. And that
We are further brainwashed to believe there are no bipedal apes
alive in the world today, despite hundreds of sightings and/or
encounters with such bipedal apes every year on every continent
except Antarctica. Darwinists brainwash us to ignore such reports by
showering them with ridicule. They call such creatures "impossible",
and hope the weight of their credentials can hold reality at bay
long enough for them to figure out what to do about the public
relations catastrophe they will face when the first hominoid is
brought onto the world stage--dead or alive. That will be the
darkest day in Darwinist history, because their long charade will be
officially over. The truth will finally be undeniable. Bigfoot, the
Abominable Snowman and several relatives are absolutely real.
IF THE SHOE FITS
Iím not going to waste time and space here going over the mountain
of evidence that is available in support of hominoid reality. I
cover it extensively in the third part of my book, Everything You
Know Is Wrong, and there are many other books that cover one or more
aspects of the subject. If you care to inform yourself about the
reality of hominoids, you wonít have any trouble doing so. And the
evidence is solid enough to hold up in any court in the world,
except the court of public opinion manipulated by terrified
Darwinists. However, I will go over a few points that bear directly
on the question of human origins.
Letís grant a fairly obvious assumption: that the thousands of
ordinary people who have described hominoid sightings and encounters
over the past few hundred years (yes, they go back that far in the
literature) were in fact seeing living creatures rather than Miocene
ghosts. And no matter where on Earth witnesses come from, no matter
how far from the beaten path of education and/or modern
communications, they describe what they see with amazing
consistency. To hear witnesses tell it, the same kinds of creatures
exist in every heavily forested or canopied environment on the
planet--which is precisely what we would expect if they did indeed
stride out of the Miocene epoch on two legs.
Furthermore, what witnesses describe is exactly what we would expect
of upright-walking apes. They are invariably described as having a
robust, muscular body covered with hair, atop which sits a head with
astonishingly ape-like features. In short, the living hominoids are
described as having bodies we would expect to find wrapped around
the bones found in the so-called "pre-human" fossil record. In
addition, witnesses describe what they see as having longer arms
than human arms, hanging down near their knees, which means those
arms are approximately the length of their legs. Witnesses also
contend that the creatures walk with a "gliding" kind of bent-kneed
stride that leaves tracks eerily reminiscent of the tracks left at
Laetoli 3.5 million years ago.
Now we come to the crux for Darwinists, Creationists and Intelligent
Designers. Evidence supporting the reality of hominoids is
overwhelming. Truly. And if they are real, it means the "pre-human"
fossil record is actually a record of their ancestors, not ours. And
if thatís the case, then humans have no place on the flowchart of
life on Earth. And if thatís true, then itís equally clear that
humans did not evolve and could not have evolved here the way
Darwinists claim. And if we didnít evolve here, that opens the door
to the Interventionist position that nothing evolved here:
everything was brought or created by sentient off-world beings whom
I call terraformers, whose means and motivation will remain unknown
to us unless and until they see fit to explain themselves. I hope no
one is holding their breath.
The point is that the Miocene epoch had the means to produce living
hominoids--50 or more different species (which almost certainly will
be shaved down to perhaps a dozen as more complete bodies are found)
as far back as 20 million years ago. It produced some with
monkey-like arms better suited to an upright walker than a
brachiating tree-dweller or knuckle walker.
By the time it ended, 5.0 million years ago, a half-dozen or more
bipedal apes were on the Earth, which we know from the ape-like
australopithecine and early Homo fossils. And we know from Laetoli
that they had a walking pattern distinct from humans, which modern
witnesses describe as still being the way hominoids walk. In short,
theyíve followed the punctuated equilibrium pattern of long-term
SO WHAT ABOUT HUMANS?
Humans simply do not fit the pattern of primate development on
Earth. Notice the word development instead of evolution. Species
that appear here do undergo changes in morphology over time. Itís
called microevolution, because it describes changes in body parts.
Darwinists use the undeniable reality of microevolution to
extrapolate the reality of macroevolution, which is change at the
species-into-more-advanced-species level. That is blatantly not
evident in the fossil record, especially when it comes to human
We have shown, I hope, that humans have been shoehorned by
Darwinists into having a place in the fossil record that doesnít
belong to them but to living hominoids (Bigfoot, etc.). Furthermore,
humans have been shoehorned into being primates, when there is
little about them--certainly nothing of significance--that fits the
classic primate pattern. In fact, if it werenít for the desperate
need of Darwinists to keep humans closely linked to the primate
line, we would have had our own appellation long ago--and weíll
surely have it once the truth is out from the Pandoraís box of
Relatively speaking, primate bones are much thicker and heavier than
human bones. Primate muscles are five to 10 times stronger than
ours. (Anyone whoís dealt with monkeys knows how amazingly strong
they are for their size.) Primate skin is covered with long, thick,
visible hair. Ours is largely invisible. Primate hair is thick on
the back, thin on the front. Ours is switched the other way around.
Primates have large, round eyes capable of seeing at night. Compared
to theirs, we have greatly reduced night vision. Primates have
small, relatively "simple" brains compared to ours. They lack the
ability to modulate sound into speech. Primate sexuality is based on
an oestrus cycle in females (though some, like bonobo chimps, have
plenty of sex when not in oestrus). In human females, the effects of
oestrus are greatly diminished.
This list could go on to cite many more areas of difference, but all
of them are overshadowed by the Big Kahuna of primate/human
difference: all primates have 48 chromosomes, while humans have
"only" 46 chromosomes. Two entire chromosomes represent a heck of a
lot of DNA removed from the human genome, yet somehow that removal
made us "superior" in countless ways. It doesnít make sense. Nor
does the fact that even with two whole chromosomes missing from our
genome, we share what is now believed to be 95% of the chimp genome
and around 90% of the gorilla genome. How can those numbers be made
to reconcile? They canít.
Something is wrong here. Someone has been cooking the genetic books.
THE STUFF OF LIFE
In the wild, plants and animals tend to breed remarkably true to
their species. Thatís why stasis is the dominant characteristic of
life on Earth. Species appear and stay essentially the same (apart
from the superficial changes of microevolution) until they go
extinct for whatever reason (catastrophe, inability to compete for
resources effectively, etc.). When "faulty" examples appear, theyíre
nearly always unable to put the fault into their speciesí collective
gene pool. A negative mutation that doesnít kill the individual it
appears in is unlikely to be passed along to posterity, despite
Darwinist assertions that this is precisely how evolution occurs.
All genomes have hard-wired checks and balances against significant
changes of any kind, which is why stasis has been the hallmark of
all life since beginning here. Aberrant examples are efficiently
weeded out, either early in the reproductive process or soon after
reproduction (birth). Faulty copies are deleted.
This deletion of faults holds true in the vast majority of species.
Most genomes are--and stay--remarkably clear of gene-based defects.
All species are susceptible to mistakes in the reproductive process,
such as sperm/egg misconnections. In mammals, this produces
spontaneous abortions, stillbirths or live-birth defects. However,
there are precious few defects that swim in the gene pools of any
"wild" or "natural" species. The only places we find significant,
species-wide genetic defects are in domesticated plants and animals,
and in those they can be--and often are--numerous.
Domesticated plants and animals clearly seem to have been
genetically created by "outside intervention" at some point in the
distant past. (For those interested in learning more about this, I
discuss it in considerable detail in
NEXUS 9/04.) Domesticated
species have so many points of divergence from wild/natural species,
itís not realistic to consider them in any kind of relative context.
As weíve seen above, the same holds true for humans and the primates
we supposedly evolved from. Theyíre apples and oranges.
We humans have over 4,000 genetic defects spread throughout our
common gene pool. Think about that. No other species comes close.
And yet, our mitochondrial DNA proves we have
existed as a species
for "only" about 200,000 years. Remember the first
fossils showing up in strata 120,000 years old? That fits well with
the origin of a small proto-group at around 200,000 years ago.
(There will almost certainly be Cro-Magnon fossils found prior to
120,000 years ago, but it is unlikely they were dispersed widely
enough to have left fossils near the 200,000-year mark. Naturally,
the very first one could have been fossilized, but thatís not the
way to bet. Fossilization is quite rare.)
All that being the case, how did over 4,000 genetic defects work
their way into the human gene pool, when such genome-wide defects
are rare to nonexistent in wild or natural species? (Remember,
Darwin himself noticed that humans are very much like domesticated
animals in many of our physical and biological traits.) It can only
have occurred if the very first members (no more than a handful of
breeding pairs) had the entire package of faults within their
genome. Thatís the only way Eskimos and Watusis and all the rest of
humanity can express the exact same genetic disorders.
If we descended from apes, as Darwinists insist, then apes should
have a very large number of our genetic defects. They do not. If, on
the other hand, weíve been genetically unique for only 200,000
years, then the only way those defects could be with us is if they
were put into our gene pool by the genetic manipulation of the
founding generation of our species, and the mistakes made in that
process were left in place to be handed down to posterity. And, as
might be expected, this is also how domesticated plants and animals
came to have their own inordinate numbers of genetic defects. It
simply couldnít happen any other way.
THE FINAL NAIL
When Einstein was asked in reference to relativity, "How did you do
it?", he replied, "I ignored an axiom." This is what everyone must
do if we are to get anywhere near the truth about human origins.
Darwinists ask us to believe a theory based on this axiom:
are good grounds to believe our early ancestors lived in forests.
There are equally good grounds to believe our later ancestors lived
by hunting game on African savannas. Therefore, we can assume that
somehow, some way, we went from living in forests to living on the
The trick, for Darwinists, is in explaining it plausibly.
Savanna theorists ask us to believe that, 5.0 to 10 million years
ago, several groups of forest-dwelling Miocene apes were squeezed by
environmental pressures to venture out onto the encroaching savannas
to begin making their collective living. This means they had to rise
from the assumed quadrupedal posture attributed to all Miocene apes
to walk and run on two legs, thus giving up the ease and rapidity of
moving on all fours. Those early groups had to make their way with
unmodified pelvises, inappropriate single-arched spines, absurdly
under-muscled thighs and buttocks, and heads stuck on at the wrong
angle, and all the while doggedly shuffling along on the sides of
long-toed, ill-adapted feet, thereby becoming plodding skin-bags of
snack-treats for savanna predators. If any harebrained scheme ever
deserved a re-think by its originator(s), this would be the one.
Of course, the real re-think needs to be done by Darwinists, because
it is glaringly obvious that no forest-bound species of ape could
have ventured onto the savanna as a stumbling, bumbling walker and
learned to do it better out there among the big cats. If a
collective group had been unfit for erect movement on the savanna,
they wouldnít have gone. If they did go, they couldnít and wouldnít
stay. Even primates are smarter than that. And understand, there are
primates that did make the move onto the savanna, albeit always
remaining within range of a high-speed scurry into nearby trees.
Baboons are the most successful of this small group, all of which
have retained quadrupedal locomotion.
In addition to the forest-to-savanna transition, Darwinists face
numerous other improbable--if not impossible--differences between
humans and terrestrial primates. In addition to bipedalism and the
genetic discrepancies already addressed, there are major differences
in skin and the adipose tissue (fat) beneath it; in sweat glands, in
blood, in tears, in sex organs, in brain size and function, and on
and on and on. This is a very long list that can be examined in much
fuller detail in the work of a brilliant, determined researcher into
human origins, named Elaine Morgan.
Ms Morgan is the chief proponent of what challenged Darwinists
derisively call "the Aquatic Ape theory", as if the juxtaposition of
those disparate words were enough to dismiss it as an absurd notion.
Nothing could be further from the truth. In books like The Scars of
Evolution (Souvenir Press, London, 1990), she makes a devastating
case against the notion that humans evolved from forest-dwelling
apes that moved out onto the savannas. She believes humans must have
gone through an extended period of development in and around water
to generate the bizarre array of physiological oddities we exhibit
relative to the primates we supposedly evolved from.
However, despite all her wonderfully creative work, Ms Morgan
remains wedded to the Darwinist concept of evolution, which had to
play itself out in only the 200,000 years dictated by our
MAKING SENSE OF THE INSENSIBLE
The pieces of the puzzle are on the table. The answer is there for
anyone to see. But rearranging those pieces properly is no easy
task, and it is even more difficult to get dogmatists of any stripe
to look at the picture in a light different from their own. That has
been my purpose in writing these two essays on origins--of life and
of humans. They are two of the worldís most sensitive areas of
scholarship and debate, producing some of the most vitriolic
exchanges in all of academia. But vitriol, like might, doesnít make
I once knew a baseball player whoíd pitched a no-hitter against a
seriously inferior team. Upon being criticized for the obvious
imbalance between his abilities and those of his opponents, the
pitcher shrugged and said, "A no-hitter is a no-hitter, even against
Lighthouse for the Blind." And so it is with a mistaken belief. If
millions believe a thing, that doesnít make it correct.
I believe that the facts, if fairly evaluated, will over time prove
that humans--and indeed, life itself--did not originate on Earth,
and that nothing has macroevolved on Earth. It has all been brought
here and left to fend for itself, then replaced when events required
the introduction of new forms. No other theory suits the facts
nearly as well.
As for humans (the object of this essay), look back to the
epoch, where the earliest traces of our ancestors supposedly
originate. Apes dominate. Look at the fossils--the so-called
"pre-humans"--from the Pliocene epoch, starting 5.0 million years
ago. Other than bipedal walking, all of their physical aspects shout
out "ape roots". Look at todayís tracks, sightings and encounters
with living hominoids, Bigfoot and others. These all-too-real
creatures will one day be proved to have a direct link back to the
Miocene--which, at a stroke, will eliminate any possibility that
humans and apes share any kind of common ancestor.
We humans are not indigenous to planet Earth. We were either put
here intact or we developed here, but we did not evolve here. Our
genes make clear that weíve been cut-and-pasted from other,
non-primate, non-Earthly species.
Personally, I believe that the work of
Zecharia Sitchin (The Earth
Chronicles) comes closest to a plausible explanation. But even if
some aspects of what he says are wrong, or even if all of it someday
is proved to be wrong, that wonít change the basic facts that his
work--and my own work--address.
Humans are not primates. We do indeed stand apart as a "special"
creation, long espoused by theologians and now by certain
credentialed scientists. The only question left hanging is, of
course: who or what was the creator? I donít think Iíll be
privileged to learn that in my lifetime. But Iím confident Iím
within reach of the next best answer.
Iím confident that we were created by invasive genetic manipulation.