Then God said, "Let us make man in our
image, after our likeness; ... So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Genesis 1:26-27
Copyright 2004 by World-Mysteries.com
Recommend this website to your friends:
Subject Related Articles by Lloyd Pye:
THE LITERAL CREATION OF MANKIND AT THE HANDS OF
YOU-KNOW-WHAT
by Lloyd Pye
In 1905, a 25-year-old patent clerk named Albert Einstein demolished
the 200-year-old certainty that Isaac Newton knew all there was to know
about basic physics. In a technical paper only a few pages long, Einstein
sent a huge part of his current “reality” to history’s dustbin, where it
found good company with thousands of other discards large and small. In
1905, though, Newton’s discard was about as large as the bin would hold.
Now another grand old “certainty” hovers over history’s dustbin, and it
seems only a matter of time before some new Einstein writes the few pages
(or many pages) that will bring it down and relegate it to history. And,
as was the case in 1905, every “expert” in the world laughs heartily at
any suggestion that their certainty could be struck down. Yet if facts are
any yardstick—which should always be the case but frequently isn’t—Charles
Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is moving toward
extinction.
Please note this: not everyone who challenges evolution is
automatically a Creationist. Darwinists love to tar all opponents with
that brush because so much of Creationist dogma is absurd. Creationists
mulishly exclude themselves from serious consideration by refusing to give
up fatally flawed parts of their argument, such as the literal
interpretation of “six days of creation.” Of course, some have tried to
take a more reasonable stance, but those few can’t be heard over the
ranting of the many who refuse.
Recently a new group has entered the fray, much better educated than
typical Creationists. This group has devised a theory called “Intelligent
Design,” which has a wealth of scientifically established facts on its
side. The ID’ers, though, give away their Creationist roots by insisting
that because life at its most basic level is so incredibly and irreducibly
complex, it could never have simply “come into being,” as Darwinists
insist.
Actually, the “life somehow assembled itself out of organic molecules”
dogma is every bit as absurd as the “everything was created in six days”
dogma, which the ID’ers understand and exploit. But they also suggest that
everything came into existence at the hands of a God or “by means of
outside intervention,” which makes clear how they’re betting. “Outside
intervention” is a transparent euphemism for (with apologies to J.K.
Rowling) You-Know-What, which to Darwinists, Creationists, and ID’ers
alike is the most absurd suggestion of all. Yet it can be shown that
You-Know-What has the widest array of facts on its side and, in the end,
has the best chance of being proved correct.
Virtually every scientist worth their doctorate will insist that
somehow, someway, a form of evolution is at the heart of all life forms
and processes on Earth. By “evolution” they mean the entire panoply of
possible interpretations that might explain how, over vast stretches of
time, simple organisms can and do transform themselves into more complex
organisms. That broad definition gives science as a whole a great deal of
room to bob and weave its way toward the truth about evolution, which is
ostensibly its goal. However, among individual scientists that same
broadness of coverage means nobody has a “lock” on the truth, which opens
them up to a withering array of internecine squabbles.
In Darwin’s case, those squabbles were initially muted. Rightly or
wrongly, his theory served a much higher purpose than merely challenging
the way science thought about life’s processes. It provided something
every scientist desperately needed: a strong counter to the intellectual
nonsense pouring from pulpits in every church, synagogue, and mosque in
the world. Since well before Charles Darwin was born, men of science knew
full well that God did not create the Earth or anything else in the
universe in six literal days. But to assert that publicly invited the same
kind of censure that erupts today onto anyone who dares to openly
challenge evolution. Dogma is dogma in any generation.
Darwin’s honeymoon with his scientific peers was relatively brief. It
lasted only as long as they needed to understand that all he had really
provided was the outline of a forest of an idea, one that only in broad
terms seemed to account for life’s stunningly wide array. His forest
lacked enough verifiable trees. Even so, once the overarching concept was
crystallized as “natural selection,” the term “survival of the fittest”
was coined to explain it to laymen. When the majority of the public became
convinced that evolution was a legitimate alternative to Creationism, the
scientific gloves came off. Infighting became widespread regarding the
trees that made up Darwin’s forest.
Over time, scientists parsed Darwin’s original forest into more
different trees than he could ever have imagined. That parsing has been
wide and deep, and it has taken down countless trees at the hands of
scientists themselves. But despite such thinning, the forest remains
upright and intact. Somehow, someway, there is a completely natural force
at work governing all aspects of the flow and change of life on Earth.
That is the scientific mantra, which is chanted religiously to counter
every Creationist—and now Intelligent Design—challenge to one or more of
the rotten trees that frequently become obvious.
Even Darwin realized the data of his era did not provide clear-cut
evidence his theory was correct. Especially troubling was the absence of
“transitional species” in the fossil record. Those were needed to prove
that over vast amounts of time species did in fact gradually transform
into other, “higher” species. So right out of the chute the theory of
evolution was on the defensive regarding one of its cornerstones, and more
than 140 years later there are still no clear-cut transitional species
apparent in the fossil record.
Because this is the most vulnerable part of Darwin’s theory,
Creationists attack it relentlessly, which has forced scientists to
periodically put forth a series of candidates to try to take the heat off.
Unfortunately for them, in every case those “missing links” have been
shown to be outright fakes and frauds. An excellent account is found in
“Icons Of Evolution” by Jonathan Wells (Regnery, 2000). But scientists are
not deterred by such exposure of their shenanigans. They feel justified
because, they insist, not enough time has passed for them to find what
they need in a grossly incomplete fossil record.
The truth is that some lengthy fossil timelines are missing, but many
more are well accounted for. Those have been thoroughly examined in the
past 140-plus years, to no avail. In any other occupation, a 140-year-long
trek up a blind alley would indicate a wrong approach has been taken. But
not to scientists. They blithely continue forward, convinced of the
absolute rightness of their mission and confident their fabled missing
link could be found beneath the next overturned rock. Sooner or later,
they believe, one of their members will uncover it, so they all work in
harmonious concert toward that common goal. Individually, though, it’s
every man or woman for themselves.
* * * * *
Plants and animals evolve, eh? All right, how do they evolve?
By gradual but constant changes influenced by adaptive pressures in
their environment that cause physical modifications to persist if they are
advantageous.
Can you specify the kind of gradual change you’re referring to?
In any population of plants or animals, over time random genetic
mutations will occur. Most will be detrimental, some will have a neutral
effect, and some will confer a selective advantage, however small or
seemingly inconsequential it might appear.
Really? But wouldn’t the overall population have a gene pool deep
enough to absorb and dilute even a large change? Wouldn’t a small change
rapidly disappear?
Well, yes, it probably would. But not in an isolated segment of the
overall population. An isolated group would have a much shallower gene
pool, so positive mutations would stand a much better chance of
establishing a permanent place in it.
Really? What if that positive mutation gets established in the isolated
group, then somehow the isolated group gets back together with the main
population? Poof! The mutation will be absorbed and disappear.
Well, maybe. So let’s make sure the isolated population can’t get back
with the main group until crossbreeding is no longer possible.
How would you do that?
Put a mountain range between them, something impossible to cross.
If it’s impossible to cross, how did the isolated group get there in
the first place?
If you’re asking me just how isolated is isolated, let me ask you one:
What kind of mutations were you talking about being absorbed?
Small, absolutely random changes in base pairs at the gene level.
Really? Why not at the chromosome level? Wouldn’t change at the base
pair level be entirely too small to create any significant change?
Wouldn’t a mutation almost have to be at the chromosome level to be
noticeable?
Who says? Change at that level would probably be too much, something
the organism couldn’t tolerate.
Maybe we’re putting too much emphasis on mutations.
Right! What about environmental pressures? What if a species suddenly
found itself having to survive in a significantly changed environment?
One where its members must adapt to the new circumstances or die out?
Exactly! How would they adapt? Could they just will themselves to grow
thicker fur or stronger muscles or larger size?
That sounds like mutations have to play a part.
Mutations, eh? All right, how do they play a part?
* * * * *
This game of intellectual thrust and parry goes on constantly at levels
of minutia that boggle an average mind. Traditional Darwinists are
one-upped by neo-Darwinists at every turn. Quantum evolutionists refashion
the work of those who support the theory of peripheral isolates.
Mathematicians model mutation rates and selective forces, which biologists
do not trust. Geneticists have little use for paleontologists, who return
the favor in spades (pun intended). Cytogenetics labors to find a niche
alongside genetics proper. Population geneticists utilize mathematical
models that challenge paleontologists and systematists. Sociobiologists
and evolutionary psychologists struggle to make room for their ideas. All
perform a cerebral dance of elegant form and exquisite symmetry.
Their dance is, ironically, evolution writ large throughout science as
a process. New bits of data are put forth to a peer group. The new data
are discussed, written about, criticized, written about again, criticized
some more. This is gradualism at work, shaping, reshaping, and reshaping
again if necessary, until the new data can comfortably fit into the
current paradigm in any field, whatever it is. This is necessary to make
it conform as closely as possible to every concerned scientist’s current
way of thinking. To do it any other way is to invite prompt rejection
under a fusillade of withering criticism.
This system of excruciating “peer review” is how independent thinkers
among scientists have always been kept in line. Darwin was an outsider
until he barged into the club by sheer, overpowering brilliance. Patent
clerk Einstein did the same. On the other hand, Alfred Wegener was the
German meteorologist who figured out plate tectonics in 1915. Because he
dared to bruise the egos of “authorities” outside his own field, he saw
his brilliant discovery buried under spiteful criticism that held it down
for 50 years. Every scientist in the game knows how it is played…and very
few dare to challenge its rules.
The restrictions on scientists are severe, but for a very good reason.
They work at the leading edges of knowledge, from where the view can be
anything from confusing to downright terrifying. Among those who study the
processes of life on Earth, they must cope with the knowledge that a
surprising number of species have no business being here. In some cases
they can’t even be here. Yet they are, for better or worse, and those
worst-case examples must be hidden or at least obscured from the general
public. But no matter how often facts are twisted, data are concealed, or
reality is denied, the truth is out there.
There are two basic forms of plants and animals: wild and domesticated.
The wild ones far outnumber the domesticated ones, which may explain why
vastly more research is done on the wild forms. But it could just as
easily be that scientists shy away from the domesticated ones because the
things they find when examining them are so far outside the accepted
evolutionary paradigm.
Nearly all domesticated plants are believed to have appeared
between10,000 and 5,000 years ago, with different groups coming to
different parts of the world at different times. Initially, in the
so-called “Fertile Crescent” of modern Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon came
wheat, barley, and legumes, among others. Later on, in the Far East, came
wheat, millet, rice, and yams. Later still, in the New World, came maize
(corn), peppers, beans, squash, tomatoes and potatoes. Many have “wild”
predecessors that were apparently a starting point for the domesticated
variety, but others—like many common vegetables— have no obvious
precursors. But for those that do, such as wild grasses, grains, and
cereals, how they turned into wheat, barley, millet, rice, etc., is a
profound mystery.
No botanist can conclusively explain how wild plants gave rise to
domesticated ones. The emphasis there is on “conclusively.” Botanists have
no trouble hypothesizing elaborate scenarios in which Neolithic (New Stone
Age) farmers somehow figured out how to hybridize wild grasses and grains
and cereals, not unlike Gregor Mendel when he cross-bred pea plants to
figure out the mechanics of genetic inheritance. It all sounds so simple
and so logical, almost no one outside scientific circles ever examines it
closely.
Gregor Mendel never bred his pea plants to be anything other than pea
plants. He created short ones, tall ones, and different colored ones, but
they were always pea plants that produced peas. (Pea plants are a
domesticated species, too, but that is irrelevant to the point to be made
here.) On the other hand, those Stone Age farmers who were fresh out of
their caves and only just beginning to turn soil for the first time (as
the “official” scenario goes), somehow managed to transform the wild
grasses, grains, and cereals growing around them into their domesticated
“cousins.” Is that possible? Only through a course in miracles.
Actually, it requires countless miracles within two large categories of
miracles. The first was that the wild grasses and grains and cereals were
useless to humans. The seeds and grains were maddeningly small, like
pepper flakes or salt crystals, which put them beyond the grasping and
handling capacity of human fingers. They were also hard, like tiny
nutshells, making it impossible to convert them to anything edible.
Lastly, their chemistry was suited to nourishing animals, not humans. So
wild varieties were entirely too small, entirely too tough, and
nutritionally inappropriate for humans. They needed to be greatly expanded
in size, greatly softened in texture, and overhauled at the molecular
level, which would be an imposing challenge for modern botanists, much
less Neolithic farmers.
Despite the seeming impossibility of meeting those daunting objectives,
modern botanists are confident the first sodbusters had all they needed to
do it: time and patience. Over hundreds of generations of selective
crossbreeding, they consciously directed the genetic transformation of the
few dozen that would turn out to be most useful to humans. And how did
they do it? By the astounding feat of doubling, tripling, and quadrupling
the number of chromosomes in the wild varieties! In a few cases they did
better than that. Domestic wheat and oats were elevated from an ancestor
with 7 chromosomes to their current 42, expansion by a factor of six.
Sugar cane expanded from a 10-chromosome ancestor to the 80-chromosome
monster it is today, a factor of eight. The chromosomes of others, like
bananas and apples, only multiplied by factors of two or three, while
peanuts, potatoes, tobacco and cotton, among others, expanded by factors
of four.
This is not as astounding as it sounds because many wild flowering
plants and trees have multiple chromosome sets. But that brings up what
Charles Darwin himself called the “abominable mystery” of flowering
plants. The first ones appear in the fossil record between 150 and 130
million years ago, primed to multiply into over 200,000 known species. But
no one can explain their presence because there is no connective link to
any form of plants that preceded them. It is as if….dare I say it?….they
were brought to Earth by something akin to You-Know-What. If so, then it
could well be they were delivered with a built-in capacity to develop
multiple chromosome sets, and somehow our Neolithic forebears cracked the
codes for the ones most advantageous to humans.
However the codes were cracked, the great expansion of genetic material
in each cell of the domestic varieties caused them to grow much larger
than their wild ancestors. As they grew, their seeds and grains became
large enough to be easily seen, picked up, and manipulated by human
fingers. Simultaneously, the seeds and grains softened to a degree where
they could be milled, cooked, and consumed. And at the same time, their
cellular chemistry was altered enough to begin providing nourishment to
humans who ate them. The only word that remotely equates with that
achievement is: miracle.
Of course, “miracle” implies there was actually a chance that such
complex manipulations of nature could be carried out by primitive yeomen
in eight geographical areas over 5,000 years. This strains credulity
because in each case in each area someone had to actually look at a wild
progenitor and imagine what it could become, or should become, or would
become. Then they had to somehow insure that their vision would be carried
forward through countless generations that had to remain committed to
planting, harvesting, culling, and crossbreeding wild plants that put no
food on their tables during their lifetimes, but which might feed their
descendants in some remotely distant future.
It is difficult to try to concoct a more unlikely—even absurd—scenario,
yet to modern-day botanists it is a gospel they believe with a fervor that
puts many “six day” Creationists to shame. Why? Because to confront its
towering absurdity would force them to turn to You-Know-What for a more
logical and plausible explanation.
To domesticate a wild plant without using artificial (i.e. genetic)
manipulation, it must be modified by directed crossbreeding, which is only
possible through the efforts of humans. So the equation is simple. First,
wild ancestors for many (but not all) domestic plants do seem apparent.
Second, most domesticated versions did appear from 10,000 to 5,000 years
ago. Third, the humans alive at that time were primitive barbarians.
Fourth, in the past 5,000 years no plants have been domesticated that are
nearly as valuable as the dozens that were “created” by the earliest
farmers all around the world. Put an equal sign after those four factors
and it definitely does not add up to any kind of Darwinian model.
Botanists know they have a serious problem here, but all they can
suggest is that it simply had to have occurred by natural means because no
other intervention—by God or You-Know-What—can be considered under any
circumstances. That unwavering stance is maintained by all scientists, not
just botanists, to exclude overwhelming evidence such as the fact that in
1837 the Botanical Garden BIN RAS in St. Petersburg, Russia, began
concerted attempts to cultivate wild rye into a new form of domestication.
They are still trying because their rye has lost none of its wild traits,
especially the fragility of its stalk and its small grain. Therein lies
the most embarrassing conundrum botanists face.
To domesticate a wild grass like rye, or any wild grain or cereal
(which was done time and again by our Neolithic forebears), two imposing
hurdles must be cleared. These are the problems of rachises and glumes,
which I discuss in my book, “Everything You Know Is Wrong—Book One: Human
Origins” (pgs. 283-285). Glumes are botany’s name for husks, the thin
covers of seeds and grains that must be removed before humans can digest
them. Rachises are the tiny stems that attach seeds and grains to their
stalks.
While growing, glumes and rachises are strong and durable so rain won’t
knock the seeds and grains off their stalks. At maturity they become so
brittle that a breeze will shatter them and release their cargo to
propagate. Such a high degree of brittleness makes it impossible to
harvest wild plants because every grain or seed would be knocked loose
during the harvesting process. So in addition to enlarging and softening
and nutritionally altering the seeds and grains of dozens of wild plants,
the earliest farmers had to also figure out how to finely adjust the
brittleness of every plant’s glumes and rachises.
That adjustment was of extremely daunting complexity, perhaps more
complex than the transformational process itself. The rachises had to be
toughened enough to hold seeds and grains to their stalks during
harvesting, yet remain brittle enough to be easily collected by human
effort during what has come to be known as “threshing.” Likewise, the
glumes had to be made tough enough to withstand harvesting after full
ripeness was achieved, yet still be brittle enough to shatter during the
threshing process. And—here’s the kicker—each wild plant’s glumes and
rachises required completely different degrees of adjustment, and the
final amount of each adjustment had to be perfectly precise!
In short, there is not a snowball’s chance this happened as botanists
claim it did.
[Midway Point]
As with plants, animal domestication followed a pattern of development
that extended 10,000 to 5,000 years ago. It also started in the Fertile
Crescent, with the “big four” of cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs, among
others. Later, in the Far East, came ducks, chickens, and water buffalo,
among others. Later still, in the New World, came llamas and vicuna. This
process was not simplified by expanding the number of chromosomes. All
animals—wild and domesticated—are diploid, which means they have two sets
of chromosomes, one from each parent. The number of chromosomes varies as
widely as in plants (humans have 46), but there are always only two sets
(humans have 23 in each).
The only “tools” available to Neolithic herdsmen were those available
to farming kinsmen: time and patience. By the same crossbreeding
techniques apparently utilized by farmers, wild animals were selectively
bred for generation after generation until enough gradual modifications
accumulated to create domesticated versions of wild ancestors. As with
plants, this process required anywhere from hundreds to thousands of years
in each case, and was also accomplished dozens of times in widely
separated areas around the globe. Once again, we face the problem of
trying to imagine those first herdsmen with enough vision to imagine a
“final model,” to start the breeding process during their own lifetimes,
and to have it carried out over centuries until the final model was
achieved.
This was much trickier than simply figuring out which animals had a
strong pack or herding instinct that would eventually allow humans to take
over as “leaders” of the herd or pack. For example, it took serious
cajones to decide to bring a wolf cub into a campsite with the intention
of teaching it to kill and eat selectively, and to earn its keep by
barking at intruders (adult wolves rarely bark). And who could look at the
massive, fearsome, ill-tempered aurochs and visualize a much smaller, much
more amiable cow? Even if somebody could have visualized it, how could
they have hoped to accomplish it? An aurochs calf (or a wolf cub for that
matter) carefully and lovingly raised by human “parents” would still grow
up to be a full-bodied adult with hard-wired adult instincts.
However it was done, it wasn’t by crossbreeding. Entire suites of genes
must be modified to change the physical characteristics of animals. (In an
interesting counterpoint to wild and domesticated plants, domesticated
animals are usually smaller than their wild progenitors). But with animals
something more…something ineffable…must be changed to alter their basic
natures from wild to docile. To accomplish it remains beyond modern
abilities, so attributing such capacity to Neolithic humans is an insult
to our intelligence.
All examples of plant and animal “domestication” are incredible in
their own right, but perhaps the most incredible is the cheetah. There is
no question it was one of the first tamed animals, with a history
stretching back to early Egypt, India, and China. As with all such
examples, it could only have been created through selective breeding by
Neolithic hunters, gatherers, or early farmers. One of those three must
get the credit.
The cheetah is the most easily tamed and trained of all the big cats.
No reports are on record of a cheetah killing a human. It seems
specifically created for high speeds, with an aerodynamically designed
head and body. Its skeleton is lighter than other big cats; its legs are
long and slim, like the legs of a greyhound. Its heart, lungs, kidneys,
and nasal passages are enlarged, allowing its breathing to jump from 60
per minute at rest to 150 bpm during a chase. Its top speed is 70 miles
per hour while a thoroughbred tops out at around 38 mph. Nothing on a
savanna can outrun it. It can be outlasted, but not outrun.
Cheetahs are unique because they combine physical traits of two
distinctly different animal families: dogs and cats. They belong to the
family of cats, but they look like long-legged dogs. They sit and hunt
like dogs. They can only partially retract their claws, like dogs instead
of cats. Their paws are thick and hard like dogs. They contract diseases
that only dogs suffer from. The light-colored fur on their body is like
the fur of a shorthaired dog. However, to climb trees they use the first
claw on their front paws in the same way that cats do. In addition to
their “dog only” diseases, they also get “cat only” ones. And the black
spots on their bodies are, inexplicably, the texture of cat’s fur.
There is something even more inexplicable about cheetahs. Genetic tests
have been done on them and the surprising result was that in the 50
specimens tested, they were all—every one—genetically identical with all
the others! This means the skin or internal organs of any of the thousands
of cheetahs in the world could be switched with the organs of any other
cheetah and not be rejected. The only other place such physical
homogeneity is seen is in rats and other animals that have been
genetically altered in labs.
Cue the music from “The Twilight Zone”….
Cheetahs stand apart, of course, but all domesticated animals have
traits that are not explainable in terms that stand up to rigorous
scientific scrutiny. Rather than deal with the embarrassment of
confronting such issues, scientists studiously ignore them and, as with
the mysteries of domesticated plants, explain them away as best they can.
For the cheetah, they insist it simply can not be some kind of weird
genetic hybrid between cats and dogs, even though the evidence points
squarely in that direction. And why? Because that, too, would move
cheetahs into the forbidden zone occupied by You-Know-What.
The problem of the cheetahs’ genetic uniformity is explained by
something now known as the “bottleneck effect.” What it presumes is that
the wild cheetah population—which must have been as genetically diverse as
its long history indicates—at some recent point in time went into a very
steep population decline that left only a few breeding pairs alive. From
that decimation until now they have all shared the same restricted gene
pool. Unfortunately, there is no record of any extinction events that
would selectively remove cheetahs and leave every other big cat to develop
its expected genetic variation. So for as unlikely as it seems, the
“bottleneck” theory is accepted as another scientific gospel.
Here it is appropriate to remind scientists of Carl Sagan’s famous
riposte when dealing with their reviled pseudoscience: “Extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence.” It seems apparent that Sagan
learned that process in-house. It also leads us, finally, to a discussion
of humans, who are so genetically recent that we, too, have been forced
into one of those “bottleneck effects” that attempt to explain away the
cheetah.
Like all plants and animals, whether wild or domesticated, humans are
supposed to be the products of slight, gradual improvements to countless
generations spawned by vastly more primitive forebears. This was firmly
believed by all scientists in the 1980’s, when a group of geneticists
decided to try to establish a more accurate date for when humans and
chimps split from their presumed common ancestor. Paleontologists used
fossilized bones to establish a timeline that indicated the split came
between five and eight million years ago. That wide bracket could be
narrowed, geneticists believed, by charting mutations in human
mitochondrial DNA, small bits of DNA floating outside the nuclei of our
cells. So they went to work collecting samples from all over the world.
When the results were in, none of the geneticists could believe it.
They had to run their samples through again and again to be certain. Even
then, there was hesitancy about announcing it. Everyone knew there would
be a firestorm of controversy, starting with the paleontologists, who
would be given the intellectual equivalent of a black eye and a bloody
nose, and their heads dunked into a toilet for good measure. This would
publicly embarrass them in a way that had not happened since the Piltdown
hoax was exposed.
Despite the usual scientific practice of keeping a lid on data that
radically differed with a current paradigm, the importance of this new
evidence finally outweighed concern for the image and feelings of
paleontologists. The geneticists gathered their courage and stepped into
the line of fire, announcing that humans were not anywhere near the
official age range of eight to five million years old. Humans were only
about 200,000 years old. As expected, the howls of protest were deafening.
Time and much more testing of mitochondrial DNA and male Y-chromosomes
now make it beyond doubt that the geneticists were correct. And the
paleontologists have come to accept it because geneticists were able to
squeeze humans through the same kind of “bottleneck effect” they used to
try to ameliorate the mystery of cheetahs. By doing so they left
paleontologists able to still insist that humans evolved from primitive
forebears walking upright on the savannahs of Africa as long as five
million years ago, but between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago “something”
happened to destroy nearly all humans alive at the time, forcing them to
start reproducing again from a small population of survivors.
That the “something” remains wholly unknown is a given, although
Creationists wildly wave their hands like know-it-alls at the back of a
classroom, desperate to suggest it was the Great Flood. But because they
refuse to move away from the Biblical timeline of the event (in the range
of 6,000 years ago), nobody can take them seriously. Still, it seems the
two sides might work together productively on this crucial issue. If
only…..
Apart from disputes about the date and circumstances of our origin as a
species, there are plenty of other problems with humans. Like domesticated
plants and animals, humans stand well outside the classic Darwinian
paradigm. Darwin himself made the observation that humans were
surprisingly like domesticated animals. In fact, we are so unusual
relative to other primates that it can be solidly argued we do not belong
on Earth at all….that we are not even from Earth because we do not seem to
have developed here.
We are taught that by every scientific measure humans are primates very
closely related to all other primates, especially to chimpanzees and
gorillas. This is so ingrained in our psyches it seems futile to even
examine it, much less challenge it. But we will.
Bones. Human bones are much lighter than comparable primate bones. For
that matter, our bones are much lighter than the bones of every “prehuman”
ancestor through Neanderthal. The ancestor bones look like primate bones;
modern human bones do not.
Muscle. Human muscles are significantly weaker than comparable muscles
in primates. Pound-for-pound we are five to ten times weaker than any
other primate. Any pet monkey is evidence of that. Somehow getting
“better” made us much, much weaker.
Skin. Human skin is not well adapted to the amount of sunlight striking
Earth. It can be modified to survive extended exposure by greatly
increasing melanin (its dark pigment) at its surface, which only the black
race has achieved. All others must cover themselves with clothing or
frequent shade or both, or sicken from radiation poisoning.
Body Hair. Primates need not worry about direct exposure to sunlight
because they are covered from head to toe in a distinctive pattern of long
body hair. Because they are quadrupeds (move on all fours), the thickest
is on their back, the thinnest on the chest and abdomen. Humans have lost
the all-over pelt, and we have completely switched our area of thickness
to the chest and abdomen while wearing the thin part on our backs.
Fat. Humans have ten times as many fat cells attached to the underside
of their skin as primates. If a primate is wounded by a gash or tear in
the skin, when the bleeding stops the wound’s edges lay flat near each
other and can quickly close the wound by a process called “contracture.”
In humans the fat layer is so thick that it pushes up through wounds and
makes contracture difficult if not impossible. Also, contrary to
propaganda to try to explain this oddity, the fat under human skin does
not compensate for the body hair we have lost. Only in water is its
insulating capacity useful; in air it is minimal at best.
Head Hair. All primates have head hair that grows to a certain length
and stops. Human head hair grows to such lengths that it could be
dangerous in a primitive situation. Thus, we have been forced to cut our
head hair since we became a species, which might account for the sharp
flakes of stones that are considered primitive hominid “tools.”
Fingernails & Toenails. All primates have fingernails and toenails that
grow to a certain length and then stop, never needing paring. Human
fingernails and toenails have always needed paring. Again, maybe those
stone “tools” were not for butchering animals.
Skulls. The human skull is nothing like the primate skull. There is
hardly any fair morphological comparison to be made apart from the general
parts being the same. Their design and assembly are so radically different
as to make attempts at comparison useless.
Brains. The comparison here is even more radical because human brains
are so vastly different. (To say “improved” or “superior” is unfair and
not germane because primate brains work perfectly well for what primates
have to do to live and reproduce.)
Locomotion. The comparison here is easily as wide as the comparison of
brains and skulls. Humans are bipedal, primates are quadrupeds. That says
more than enough.
Speech. Human throats are completely redesigned relative to primates.
The larynx has dropped to a much lower position so humans can break
typical primate sounds into the tiny pieces of sound (by modulation) that
have come to be human speech.
Sex. Primate females have estrous cycles and are sexually receptive
only at special times. Human females have no estrous cycle in the primate
sense. They are continually receptive to sex. (Unless, of course, they
have the proverbial headache.)
Chromosomes. This is the most inexplicable difference of all. Primates
have 48 chromosomes. Humans are considered vastly superior to them in a
wide array of areas, yet somehow we have only 46 chromosomes! This begs
the question of how could we lose two full chromosomes, which represents a
lot of DNA, in the first place? And in the process, how could we become so
much better? Nothing about it makes logical sense.
Genetic Disorders. As with all wild animals (plants, too), primates
have relatively few genetic disorders spread throughout their gene pools.
Albinism is one that is common to many animal groups, as well as humans.
But albinism does not stop an animal with it from growing up and passing
the gene for it into the gene pool. Mostly, though, serious defects are
quickly weeded out in the wild. Often parents or others in a group will do
the job swiftly and surely. So wild gene pools stay relatively clear. In
contrast, humans have over 4,000 genetic disorders, and several of those
will absolutely kill every victim before reproduction is possible. This
begs the question of how such defects could possibly get into the human
gene pool in the first place, much less how do they remain widespread?
Genetic Relatedness. A favorite Darwinist statistic is that the total
genome (all the DNA) of humans differs from chimps by only 1% and from
gorillas by 2%. This makes it seem as if evolution is indeed correct and
that humans and primates are virtually kissing cousins. However, what they
don’t stress is that 1% of the human genome’s 3 billion base pairs is 30
million base pairs, and to any You-Know-What that can adroitly manipulate
genes, 30 million base pairs can easily add up to a tremendous amount of
difference.
Everything Else. The above are the larger categories at issue in the
discrepancies between primates and humans. There are dozens more listed as
sub-categories below one or more of these. To delve deeper into these
fascinating mysteries, check “The Scars Of Evolution” by Elaine Morgan
(Oxford University Press, 1990). Her work is remarkable. And for a more
in-depth discussion of the mysteries within our genes and in those of
domesticated plants and animals, I cover it extensively in “Everything You
Know Is Wrong” (available only by ordering through www.iUniverse.com --
not Amazon.)
When all of the above is taken together—the inexplicable puzzles
presented by domesticated plants, domesticated animals, and humans—it is
clear that Darwin cannot explain it, modern scientists cannot explain it,
not Creationists nor Intelligent Designers. None of them can explain it
because it is not explainable in only Earthbound terms. We will not answer
these questions with any degree of satisfaction until our scientists open
their minds and squelch their egos enough to acknowledge that they do not,
in fact, know much about their own back yard. Until that happens, the
truth will remain obscured.
My personal opinion, which is based on a great deal of independent
research in a wide range of disciplines relating to human origins, is that
ultimately Charles Darwin will be best known for his observation that
humans are essentially like domesticated animals. I believe what Darwin
observed with his own eyes and research is the truth, and modern
scientists would see it as clearly as he did if only they had the
motivation, or the courage, to seek it out. But for now they don’t, so
until then we can only poke and prod at them in the hope of someday
getting them to notice our complaints and address them.
In order to poke and prod successfully, more people have to be alerted
to the fact that another scientific fraud is being perpetrated. Later
editions of “Icons Of Evolution” will discuss the current era when
scientists ridiculed, ignored, or simply refused to deal with a small
mountain of direct, compelling evidence that outside intervention has
clearly been at work in the genes of domesticated plants, animals, and
humans. You-Know-What has left traces of their handiwork all over our
bodies, all through our gene pools, and all that will be required is for a
few “insiders” to break ranks with their brainwashed peers.
Look to the younger generation. Without mortgages to pay, families to
raise, and retirements to prepare for, they can find the courage to act on
strong convictions. Don’t expect it of anyone over forty, possibly even
thirty. But somewhere in the world the men and women have been born who
will take Darwinism down and replace it with the truth.
The fat lady is nowhere in sight, but that doesn’t mean she’s not
suiting up.
Copyright © 2004 by Lloyd Pye.
All Rights Reserved. Reprinted with Permission
Links
References/Books
Lloyd Pye was born in 1946 in Louisiana. He grew up in the small town
of Amite, where he was a star running back, receiver, and punter on a
State Championship football team. That led to a football scholarship to
Tulane University in New Orleans, where he was a running back and
nationally ranked punter before graduating in 1968 with a B.S. in
psychology.
After graduating from Tulane he joined the U.S. Army and became a
Military Intelligence Agent performing routine background checks
throughout northern Georgia. Based out of Third Army Headquarters in
Atlanta, he was never a "spy" or anything like that, although on orders he
did infiltrate a few student rallies at the University of Georgia (during
the era of SDS, when J. Edgar Hoover saw a student radical behind every
bushy beard). His experience at that was more comical than serious, which
taught him that "black ops" were not his forte.
It was during this time that Mr. Pye began a serious independent study
of all aspects of human evolution. By the time he was 30, his studies led
him to conclude humans could not possibly have evolved on Earth according
to the prevailing Darwinian paradigm. By the time he was 40, he could
convincingly illustrate his belief by comparing skeletons in the so-called
"prehuman" fossil record with those reported to belong to the world's four
basic types of hominoids (Bigfoot/Sasquatch, The Abominable Snowman/Yeti,
and two other types Westerners know next to nothing about: Almas and
Agogwes).
Although Mr. Pye's research had convinced him that humans did not
evolve on Earth, he had no idea where we might have come from, so he
undertook an extended search for an answer. At the same time, he was
attempting to establish himself as a novelist and scriptwriter. His first
novel was published in 1977, his next a decade later, in between which he
lived and worked in the hinterlands of Hollywood, achieving a few modest
successes before finally accepting that he was temperamentally unsuited to
the Hollywood lifestyle.
Still pursuing his human origins research, in 1990 Mr. Pye got lucky
enough to stumble onto the work of Zecharia Sitchin, whose brilliant,
monumental research into the historical writings of the ancient Sumerians
provided the fact-based answers to human development that he had been
seeking. In every way Mr. Pye could think to judge it, Mr. Sitchin's
research appeared unimpeachable, so it became the bedrock of correctness
that he had been seeking, a genuine turning point in his life and in his
career as a writer.
Realizing his own hominoid research provided a "front end" to Mr.
Sitchin's research into all aspects of the Sumerian culture, and that Mr.
Sitchin's work provided a "back end" to his own extensive research into
hominoids, in 1990 Mr. Pye began working to find a way to fuse the two
together. "Everything You Know Is Wrong—Book One: Human Origins" is the
result of that fusion. And due to Mr. Pye's many years as a fiction
writer, it is constructed like no other purely nonfiction text of its
kind. It is designed much like a "whodunit," with a sequential,
clue-by-clue development of the storyline that allows readers to try to
anticipate and figure out "what comes next."
"Everything You Know Is Wrong--Book One: Human Origins" is highly
informative, continually entertaining, and downright fun to read. But more
than that, it plausibly and convincingly answers some of the most profound
questions we can ask of ourselves: Who are we? Why are we here? And most
important of all: Are we alone? So Mr. Pye hit the interstates in an old
Buick Roadmaster to bring his book and his message to the public. With no
training at all as a platform speaker, he was rapidly and widely acclaimed
as one of the very best in the entire field of alternative knowledge.
Because of the notoriety he generated with his whirlwind tour promoting
EYKIW, in February of 1999 a couple in west Texas contacted him about a
peculiar artifact they owned. It was a genuine bone skull that weighed
half as much as a normal human skull and looked nothing like one. However,
it looked very much like a skull that would fit inside the head of a
so-called "grey" alien. They asked Mr. Pye if he would examine their
highly anomalous artifact. He agreed to do so and was immediately blown
away by how far it was from the human norms in every dimension he knew how
to evaluate. He told them he felt it was very likely not a natural
deformity and not entirely human.
They asked him to undertake the task of getting the skull
scientifically tested to determine its genetic pedigree. He agreed to do
so, which meant stopping his all-out campaign to promote EYKIW. The
900-year-old skull has come to be known as The Starchild Skull. It has
been publicized around the world through The Learning Channel, Animal X,
Extra (on Globbo TV), and in a wide range of print media. Its genetic
heritage should be determined by the middle of 2003. Regular updates about
it are posted at www.starchildproject.com.
Starchild and Lloyd Pye were featured in a recent National
Geographic episode of their show "Is It Real?" The episode is
"Ancient Astronauts," and can be found in any location by checking
the National Geographic cable channel website.
Copyright 2006 by Lloyd Pye.
Presented with permission of the author.
http://www.lloydpye.com/articles.html
Recommend this website to your friends:
Contact Us
The best way to contact us is by e-mail: contact@world-mysteries.com
|
