|
Subject Related Articles by Lloyd Pye:
Recommend this website to your friends:
Helping Hand? Copyright 2004 by World-Mysteries.com
INTERVENTION: THE NEW THEORY MUSCLING IN ON EVOLUTION, CREATION,
AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN
by Lloyd Pye
Evolution should have put creationism away ages ago—the very ages
creationists mulishly, stupidly insist didn’t happen. By every
outward sign the ideological contest was shaping up as a slam-dunk
shutout runaway rout. The evolution team went in at halftime, after
the Scopes Trial in 1925, ahead on all cards, three of seven,
50-zip. No bookies would take a bet at any odds against them. Yet
now, closing out the first half-decade of the 21st century, the
evolutionists’ classic rope-a-dope tactic of letting their
dogma-hobbled opponents futilely flail away has, in a stunning
reversal, stopped working.
Fifteen years ago the depleted, rubber-limbed creationists
somehow wised up enough to turn the battle into a tag-team match.
They staggered to the ropes to touch the hand of a fresh partner,
intelligent design, and with sharp wits and shrewd tactics the
intelligent designers have turned the tide. Evolution’s knees are
buckling and its hands have dropped, opening it up for the kind of
haymaker that took out Clint’s Million Dollar Baby. Is it time to
crown a new champion? Yes, without a doubt—but not intelligent
design.
Loosening up on a heavy bag just beyond ringside is a much older,
vastly tougher contender in the long running, bitterly disputed
battle over human origins. This contender not only has “hands of
stone,” it is made of stone…written, carved, or shaped into forms
that can never be dismissed by authority or circumvented by
tautology. A grizzled, time-tested theory set in stone thousands of
years ago, now primed for battle against three thoroughly worn out,
beaten-to-a-bloody-pulp opponents. When Vegas hears about the
breadth and depth of supporting facts this contender brings into the
ring, not a penny will be wagered against it. If ever there was a
“sure thing,” this is it.
Evolution, creation, intelligent design…meet intervention.
In 1915 a German meteorologist named Alfred Wegener wrote that
the earth’s continents had at some point in the distant past been
fused into one gigantic continent. At the time this was a stunningly
radical notion, yet he showed numerous examples of how mountain
ranges on one continent had perfect geological analogues on other
continents. Similarly, numerous plants and animals living on
continental coastlines had perfect analogues on the coastlines of
other continents. He didn’t merely suggest these analogues, he
proved them, beyond any reasonable degree of scientific doubt. What
he couldn’t do, however, was establish a mechanism for how
continents might move. He proved they did, proved it definitively,
but he couldn’t show how.
Without a mechanism, Alfred Wegener was dismissed by the ruling
elite of science in 1915. They were unmoved by the obvious validity
of his observations because nobody wanted to have to deal with what
they meant. Generations had been needed to accommodate the idea that
earth wasn’t the center of the solar system. Then came the
realization that centrifugal motion held planets in place as they
whirled through the galaxy, which itself was but a speck in a
mind-bogglingly large universe. As earth shrunk in significance,
Wegener came along to show it wasn’t even stable underfoot. Enough
was enough, and that was too much. Nobody was ready for an unstable
earth.
Wegener’s brilliant insight required forty years and the deaths
of all the leading earth scientists of his day to remove the
dogmatists holding it down so researchers in the mid-1950’s could be
free to seek—and finally find—its unknown mechanism (tectonic plates
floating at a glacial pace across the magma of the mantle). A fellow
German, physicist Max Planck, was moved to state it this way: “A new
scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents
eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with
it.” That, and the fact you can’t see what you refuse to
acknowledge.
Wegener’s case relates to the debate about origins because it
typifies how science reacts to new ideas that attempt to move the
line of knowledge farther than a few inches. Anything significant
enough to alter an entrenched paradigm will be vigorously criticized
and uniformly rejected unless—and this is important to note—unless
there is some overarching need for the new information. In those
cases the breakthrough will be welcomed by scientists with open
arms, even if the discovery doesn’t come from one of their own, and
even if they know it is wrong or is likely to be proved wrong. If it
works to their immediate advantage, they will trumpet it until the
notes turn sour.
Like it or not, accept it or not, science is no different from
politics. Truth is never the absolute expected by those outside
their fraternity.
Unlike maligned Alfred Wegener, Charles Darwin produced a theory
that was woefully short on actual confirmable facts to support it,
but he had the one thing Wegener lacked—a mechanism. Where Wegener
could show numerous geological and biological links between
continents, Darwin could not produce a single example of the
linchpin of his theory—an intermediate link between one species and
another, which was required in the thousands, if not millions, to
validate his suggestion that all forms of life emerged from earlier,
less sophisticated forms. Darwin understood the precariousness of
his position, admitting that if such intermediate links were not
eventually confirmed (which he fully expected to occur once his
scientific colleagues knew to begin the search), his theory would
have to be judged wrong.
Even in 1859, when On The Origin Of Species was published, the
fossil record of the era was well known to present an erratic
pattern of the history of life on earth. Darwin and his colleagues
knew full well that, as it was then understood, it did not support
his theory; but they all expected that in the fullness of time and
further research, it would. Besides, the “natural” mechanism he had
devised for the creation and subsequent proliferation of life had a
much more important purpose to scientists of all stripes, not just
the biological fraternity. Darwin’s new mechanism gave scientists
power.
In 1859 religion ruled the world, internally and externally, in
every country. It dominated thinking on every front except
scientific pursuits, but even there religion’s tentacles reached
deep into the heart of the process. In the 250 years since Galileo
was obliterated in the first great battle between science and
religion, the status of scientists was only marginally improved.
They still had to be careful to avoid censure—or worse—by the church
for suggesting that at any level of inquiry there might be a sounder
means for explaining life’s deepest mysteries than an omnipotent,
omnipresent God.
In an irony of stupendous magnitude, young Charles Darwin was a
theology student who in later years came to reject religion as a
final arbiter of scientific inquiry. Like most of his colleagues, he
accepted the pressing need to transform the religion-science dynamic
so scientists could be free—intellectually, emotionally,
spiritually—to follow where their logic, intuition, experience,
research, and testing might lead. But he also wanted, if possible,
to remain in good standing with his church, not to mention with his
deeply devout wife. Walking that fine line, he overcame his moral
ambiguities to publish his “natural” origin of life and its
subsequent propagation on earth.
Darwin was in the right place at the right time with the right
idea. The facts behind his idea were dubious from the beginning and
were recognized as such by most scientists who could grasp what he
was proposing. But they equally understood that by placing the
mechanism for life’s processes in the hands of nature, it could be
removed from God and thereby lift the onerous foot of religion—which
they viewed as separate from God—off their necks.
Darwin lifted that foot to allow science to breathe freely at
last, and for the fifteen decades since, religion has been
spitefully playing catch-up.
In 1873, only fourteen years after The Origin Of Species,
geologist J.W. Dawson, chancellor of McGill University in Montreal,
published The Story Of The Earth And Man, as well written and
carefully argued as Charles Darwin’s masterpiece. In it Dawson
pointed out that Darwin and his cohorts were promoting a theory
based on three fallacious “gaps” in reasoning that could not be
reconciled with the knowledge of their era. What is so telling about
Dawson’s three fallacies is that they remain unchanged to this day.
The first fallacy is that life can spontaneously animate from
organic material. In 1873 Dawson complained that “the men who evolve
all things from physical forces do not yet know how these forces can
produce the phenomenon of life even in its humblest forms.” He added
that “in every case heretofore, the effort (to create animate life)
has proved vain.” After a century of heavily subsidized efforts to
create even the most basic rudiments of life in a laboratory,
scientists are still batting zero. In any other endeavor reason
would suggest it is time to call in the dogs and water down the
fire. But when it comes to Darwinian logic, as Dawson noted, “here
also we are required to admit as a general principle what is
contrary to experience.”
Dawson’s second fallacy was the gap that separates plant and
animal life. “These are necessarily the converse of each other, the
one deoxidizes and accumulates, the other oxidizes and expends. Only
in reproduction or decay does the plant simulate the action of the
animal, and the animal never in its simplest forms assumes the
functions of the plant. This gap, I believe, can be filled up only
by an appeal to our ignorance.” Thus it remains today. If life
evolved as Darwinists claim, it would have to bridge the gaping
chasm between plant and animal life at least once, and more likely
countless times. Lacking one undeniable example of this bridging,
science again bats zero.
The third gap in the knowledge of 1873 was “that between any
species of animal or plant and any other species. It is this gap,
and this only, which Darwin undertook to fill up by his great work
on the origin of species; but, notwithstanding the immense amount of
material thus expended, it yawns as wide as ever, since it must be
admitted that no case has been ascertained in which individuals of
one species have transgressed the limits between it and other
species.” Here, too, despite a ceaseless din of scientific protests
to the contrary, there remains not a single unquestioned example of
one species evolving even partially into another distinct and
separate species.
To be fair, some of today’s best-known geneticists and
naturalists have broken ranks and acknowledged that what Dawson
complained about in 1873 remains true today. Thomas H. Morgan, who
won a Nobel Prize for work on heredity, wrote: “Within the period of
human history, we do not know of a single instance of the
transformation of one species into another if we apply the most
rigid and extreme tests used to distinguish wild species.” Colin
Patterson, director of the British Museum of Natural History,
stated: “No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural
selection. No one has gotten near it.” And these are by no means
exceptional disclosures.
Scientists know these limitations of evolutionary theory are true
and will be enduring, but shamefully few have the nerve to address
them openly.
Luckily for the newly empowered Darwinists, the first
creationists to enter the ring against them were the most
fundamentally strict, dogma bound scientists and apologists of their
generation. By hewing so closely to a literal reading of Biblical
scripture, they lost credibility with the public media, who steadily
relayed their disillusionment to the public itself. By the time of
the do-or-die Scopes Trial in 1925, creationists had methodically
positioned themselves as irrelevant to the mood of the times. In the
go-go Roaring 20’s, progress was the watchword on all fronts.
Evolution had caught the surging wave of modernism, leaving creation
stranded on the beach of another era.
Evolutionists coasted along, secure in their dominant position,
making the creationist mistake of allowing their theoretical
framework to ossify into dogma. As the 20th century neared its end,
the theory proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859 had morphed into an
intellectual straitjacket with all the outward trappings of a
religion. There were tenets of the faith, colleges for its
perpetuation, and high priests and cardinals tasked with ensuring
that all contrary views were neutralized or, when necessary,
eradicated. As with the creationists they overthrew, their feet grew
to fill the shoes of oppression.
By 1990 a small group of capable scientists—mostly young Turks in
their respective fields—had become disenchanted with Darwinian
evolution as the bottom line of existence. Chaos theory and
microbiology and genetics were steadily underlining what J.W. Dawson
expressed in 1873: the basic structure of evolution by descent with
modification (mutation) was clearly, indisputably wrong. Accepting
that as an undeniable truth meant nature was no longer the only
player in the game. Something else seemed to be required to fill the
gaping holes popping up everywhere they looked for certainty in
evolution. Instead of certainty they found what they came to call
“irreducible complexity,” a degree of interrelatedness in biological
parts so finely tuned to each other that something incomprehensibly
intelligent had to have been behind it all. They decided it
required—no, demanded—a designer.
If nature is not now and never was the initiator or perpetuator
of life on earth, then God must be granted the honor by default.
However, because the intelligent designers were intelligent, they
knew the “G” word was not politically correct in a world where,
above all else, individual rights must never be abrogated. Rather
than inflict their perception of a super rational entity on others,
the omnipresent, omnipotent God of early creationists was replaced
by the amorphous, gender indistinct, small-letter “designer” that
can be anything anyone wants it or him or her or whazzisname to be.
But few doubt that intelligent design’s checks are still signed by
“G-o-d.”
In fifteen years one small group of disenchanted scientists has
grown to be the first major intellectual movement of the 21st
century. Victor Hugo said that nothing is as powerful as an idea
whose time has come, which has proved true time and again. However,
intelligent design has not produced a new idea whose time has come.
They have refashioned the old idea that God trumps nature, using it
to fill ever-widening cracks opened up in evolution’s crumbling
edifice of invincibility. Indeed, Darwin’s venerable theory is now
slowly, methodically being exposed as the charade it was from its
inception.
Enduring ideas replace; most temporarily hold a place.
I realize such extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence, which is readily available in a wide range of disciplines
for anyone who cares to seek them out. Unfortunately, in an essay
like this, detailing every source would irreparably bog down the
narrative, so I have to beg readers’ indulgence with an assurance
that no one has to look hard or far to find any number of books,
documentaries, and internet websites focused on the idea that
Darwin’s gradual evolution was and is a myth that became a religion.
Any serious researcher will also find an intellectual subculture
known in the U.S. as “alternative knowledge” and as “frontier
science” in countries where the word “frontier” does not conjure up
images of Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett. This subculture is alive
and well and in some ways thriving, though it is hard to truly
thrive without access to mainstream media outlets, the majority of
which have been intimidated by overprotective scientists. A few
examples show how thoroughly this exclusion of ideas has taken root.
In 1981, Rupert Sheldrake published A New Science Of Life, which
introduced the concept of “morphic fields,” an unrecognized form of
energy surrounding everything and acting as a guiding influence on
the life of each living entity. That notion coupled with the
discovery of human beings living more or less normal lives with no
brains in their skulls gave Sheldrake valid credibility. However,
such a radical idea was unacceptable to the scientific elite,
prompting one of their chief spokesmen, John Maddox, the editor of
Nature magazine, to run an editorial calling for the book to be
burned.
In 1990, Thomas Gold substantiated his radical idea that
petroleum might well be a result of geochemical processes in the
planet’s core. If true, this could have considerable impact on Big
Oil and the price everyone pays for fuel, so geologists petitioned
to have all mention of it removed from the nation’s libraries (from
a Washington Post interview with Gold in 1999).
In 1993, NBC aired Mystery of the Sphinx, a documentary that
provided overwhelming evidence that the limestone of the Sphinx and
its enclosure had been deeply weathered by rain. Because Egypt’s
Sahara has been desert for at least 8,000 years, that meant the
Sphinx must have been carved well prior to that, perhaps as long ago
as 12,000 or 15,000 years ago. This was a flagrant challenge to
mainstream Egyptology, whose defenders insisted that all three Great
Pyramids and the Sphinx complex were created together within a
100-year period only 5,500 years ago (3,500 B.C.)
Such a public repudiation of “expert” consensus could not be
allowed to stand unchallenged. Outraged scientists bombarded NBC
with calls and letters of complaint, insisting they should have been
“consulted” regarding the show so they could have explained how
egregiously the facts had been misrepresented. They also insisted
that NBC drop plans to follow the initial airing of the show with a
rerun later in the year. To its credit, NBC did not succumb to the
pressure and did air the rerun. Later that year Mystery of the
Sphinx won an Emmy Award for outstanding documentary achievement,
and to this day not one word broadcast as fact has been successfully
repudiated.
To follow the critical acclaim garnered by Mystery of the Sphinx,
NBC decided to broadcast another controversial documentary in 1996.
The Mysterious Origins of Man was based largely on Forbidden
Archeology, a mammoth tome by Michael Cremo and Richard L. Thompson.
Narrated by actor Charlton Heston, the show revealed numerous
examples of real, true, bona fide artifacts studiously ignored by
mainstream science because they didn’t fit with the accepted
chronology for mankind’s tenure on earth. This array of evidence was
even more damaging to the mainstream position than the Sphinx show,
and the reaction of scientists was entirely commensurate.
Having learned from their previous experience that NBC would not
budge from the pressures they could apply by en masse protests, they
took their case directly to the Federal Communication Commission,
requesting that it forbid NBC from airing the show as a rerun. One
letter to the FCC was written by Dr. Allison Palmer, President of
the Institute for Cambrian Studies, and said in part: “At the very
least NBC should be required to make substantial prime-time
apologies to their viewing audience for a sufficient period of time
so the audience clearly gets the message they were duped.” Once
again NBC refused to buckle to the pressure, and once again not a
word in the show stated as a fact has ever been successfully
repudiated.
Despite NBC’s initial courage, threats by scientists to boycott
the products of their sponsors eventually had the desired effect. No
original documentaries of such potential impact have been broadcast
by a major network or cable channel since The Mysterious Origins of
Man in 1996.
Courage, and the lack thereof, relates to the competing theories
of origins because no mainstream media are anxious to pour gasoline
on the fire now making mainstream evolutionists sweat. Every time a
major media outlet makes room on its pages or provides time on its
airwaves for theories or ideas critical of the currently favored
paradigms, they know they will be bombarded by ever-watchful,
ever-paranoid scientists. Those scientists are especially touchy
about the rise of intelligent design as an idea that, unlike its
creationism parent, can’t be dismissed or ridiculed into
irrelevancy.
The Negro League’s pitching great Satchel Paige used to say,
“Don’t look back, something might be gaining on you.” Intelligent
design is clearly, indisputably gaining on evolution for the very
good reason that each of its fundamental tenets is being proved—or
has already been proved—wrong. Standing that deeply against the
ropes, being pounded day after day by their clever, media-savvy
opponent, the last thing they—or their opponent for that matter—want
to confront is another theory (intervention) joining the battle. All
that keeps the newcomer outside the ring of public awareness is its
lack of media exposure. Fortunately, that situation shows signs of
improving.
This essay is an opening wedge.
Intervention theory began in 1968 with the publication of Erich
Von Daniken’s Chariots of the Gods. Von Daniken focused on the wide
array of megalithic structures around the world that so obviously
are beyond modern capacities to match. Surely, he argued, only
intervention by non-human, off-world entities could explain how such
immense structures could be built to tolerances that today’s
engineers can only marvel at. One favorite quote is that the
Pyramids are “Rolex watches built on a scale of small mountains,” as
are Baalbek in Lebanon, Tiahuanaco in Bolivia, and Sachsahuaman and
Ollantaytambo in Peru, among dozens less cyclopean in size but no
more likely to have been created by the minds and muscles of
ordinary humans.
Like Alfred Wegener in 1915, Erich Von Daniken was undoubtedly
correct when asserting that no Stone Age culture could possibly have
created such immense, intricate edifices. But also like Wegener, he
couldn’t provide a mechanism whereby off-planet visitors could make
a journey to our planet in a reasonable time span. Our sun’s closest
neighbor is Proxima Centauri at 4.2 light years away. Assuming the
speed of light is as constant as Einstein claimed (this is now
challenged by considerable frontier science research), intergalactic
travel at earthly speeds on earthly timescales seems improbable.
However, these factors are limiting or absolute only because
scientific hubris makes them so. In reality they might not exist at
all. Unfortunately for Von Daniken, in 1968 he had no way to counter
scientific ridicule of his ideas.
As a result, he was effectively laughed out of the ring.
In 1976 a new champion of intervention appeared. Zecharia Sitchin
published The Twelfth Planet, which supplied a different array of
evidence to support Von Daniken’s assertion that earth bristled with
the remains of non-human activity in a not-too-distant past. Sitchin
based his conclusions on the voluminous written records of Sumer,
the “sudden civilization” that sprang up virtually overnight in the
Tigris-Euphrates Valley of modern Iraq. Historians can’t begin to
plausibly explain how Sumerians were transformed from Stone Age
farmers to extremely sophisticated city dwellers in a matter of only
a few hundred years around 5,000 years ago. The mystery is so deep
and so profound, few historians dare attempt to deal with it, mostly
leaving only one thing about Sumer openly discussed in history
classes—writing.
Sumerians combined myriad orientations of a single wedge-shaped
image to create a complex, convoluted, cleverly subtle graphic
technique known as cuneiform, which is readily acknowledged as the
first form of writing. The wedges were pressed into clay tablets
that were then put into the first kilns (one of dozens of
sophisticated technologies introduced by this supposedly “primitive”
society) and fired into stone to provide what became the gold
standard of knowledge in all subsequent cultures: written in stone.
Historians are so baffled by the things Sumerians wrote, they
classify nearly all of it as “myth,” nothing more than flights of
fancy by surprisingly creative “primitives.” When Albert Einstein
was asked how he came to see the basics of his great theories, he
replied, “I ignored an axiom.” Fortunately for those in the
intervention movement, Zecharia Sitchin did the same thing.
Sitchin rejected the “myth” appellation officially applied to
Sumerian writings, treating them as the true history Sumerians said
they were. Looking beyond the flourishes of the language, its
subtleties and allegories, he found an astonishing array of facts
that could be corroborated by modern research. What he found was
literally mind-boggling in 1976, and it remains so today.
Sumerians wrote in stone 4,000 years ago that superior beings
from beyond earth lived among them as their lords and masters, and
in far earlier times actually created humans “in their own image,
after their own likeness” (words exactly copied 2,000 years later to
be incorporated into Genesis) in a “house of fashioning” (a genetic
laboratory?) where also were created all of the known domesticated
plants and animals “to give the gods their ease.”
The Sumerians always referred to their gods in a multiple sense
and never with upper case emphasis. They wrote about those gods in
matter-of-fact terms, describing them as flesh-and-blood beings with
whom they could have sex, produce hybrid offspring, even
occasionally marry. And Sumerian knowledge went much deeper. They
had a plausible explanation for how our solar system came to have
its unusual lineup of planets and moons. Earth’s missing crust and
Wegener’s tectonic plates are impossible in an astral body forming
normally in the vacuum of space, yet the Sumerians accounted for
both. It is equally impossible for earth’s oceans of water to form
as close to the sun as the planet now orbits, yet there it is. The
Sumerians gave a reason that makes sense. Earth’s overly large,
precisely aligned moon is also dealt with, as is the asteroid belt,
another conundrum they neatly accommodate.
Then comes the cruncher, a swing-from-the-heels knockout punch.
The Sumerians wrote that our immediate solar system contained
nine planets plus one other, a tenth, traveling in a 3600-year
elliptical (rather than the usual circular) orbit around the sun.
That planet they called Nibiru, the home of their gods, whom they
called the Anunnaki. At a stroke this negated the objection that
off-world beings couldn’t make a journey to earth from the closest
star systems in anything approaching a reasonable timeframe. These
gods came from the neighborhood, so to speak, from just around the
corner.
The Sumerians also counted planets from the perspective of the
space-faring gods on Nibiru, from the outside in, calling earth the
seventh, rather than the third rock from the sun. And, with a
stunning flash of insight, they wrote that when viewed from “on
high” in the heavens, Uranus and Neptune looked like “blue-green
watery twins.” Most astronomers assumed anything past Saturn was
likely to be a cold dead rock, so it came as quite a surprise to see
photographs from Voyager 2 in 1986, and again in 1989, proving the
Sumerians were right. Uranus and Neptune were made of blue-green
slush.
How could the Sumerians know such things? How could they know
Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto were even there, much less how they
looked if viewed up close in space? We didn’t learn about the
existence of those three planets until 1781, 1846, and 1930,
respectively. How could the Sumerians know about any of it, much
less all of it? Simple…their gods told them.
They were refreshingly candid about it. All they knew, all they
were, their very existence was owed to the beneficence of the
Anunnaki gods who created them, created their “sudden” culture and
civilization, and who often erratically ruled their lives as the
fortunes of one principal god waxed and another’s waned. They wrote
of an astonishingly active history thrust upon them by living on
earth at that unique time, in that unique place. Yet the vast
majority of people in the world today have no idea any of this ever
existed.
As Sitchin points out in the title of his book, Sumerians also
included the moon and the sun to make twelve major members of this
solar system—a number that crops up in Sumerian writings more than
once. They introduced the world to twelve signs of the zodiac, the
same ones that have, by nothing short of a miracle, come down to us
today intact, the same twelve that have passed through the
Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and all cultures in between. The
Sumerians also had twelve major Anunnaki gods (the same twelve of
Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and others) ruling in Sumer over a
plethora of lesser gods and their adamu (which came to Genesis as
“Adam”), the human slaves and servants they engineered to make their
lives easier on what had to be a hardship outpost on a planet far
distant and different from their own.
In doing that engineering, they gave the intervention theory a
fresh new foothold in the origins debate, and this one is finally
gaining traction.
In 1998, intervention theory was taken to the next level by Lloyd
Pye (yes, that’s me) in the book Everything You Know Is Wrong.
Despite that facetious title, the book revealed a mechanism that
Erich Von Daniken and Zecharia Sitchin had lacked, a mechanism that
could unmistakably establish proof of outside intervention on
earth—genetics. Sitchin made clear that the Anunnaki claimed to
create humans as well as all the known domesticated plants and
animals in a “house of fashioning,” which he logically assumed must
be their name for a genetics lab. But in 1976 not enough was known
about human DNA to look for, much less establish, proof of such a
claim.
By 1998 enough was known, and Pye revealed it. In 1996, only two
years earlier, geneticists announced the results of their years-long
efforts to establish when humans split off from the “common
ancestor” they shared at some point with chimpanzees, our closest
genetic relatives. The uniformly accepted timeframe of archeologists
and anthropologists was between 5.0 million to 8.0 million years
ago, so geneticists felt they could put a bracket inside that wide
range by analyzing the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of a statistically
meaningful array of modern humans to determine which groups were the
oldest, and then date those by counting mutations to their mtDNA.
When the answer came in, everyone was flabbergasted. Human DNA
history didn’t go back to 8.0 million years ago, or to 5.0 million
years ago. It went back only a relative eye blink—to just 200,000
years! Something had to be wrong, hugely wrong, with such a recent
date. If humans were no older than 200,000 years…. That possibility
sent shudders through every scientist forced to seriously consider
it. It just had to be wrong. However, subsequent testing of the male
Y chromosome showed it was unquestionably true.
Because there was no way to rationally or logically explain such
a glaring discrepancy in the evolutionist story of human origins,
the new date had to be explained away. This was done by creating the
phantasmagorical device of a “genetic bottleneck” through which
humanity could be squeezed. For as absurd as that sounds (and is),
here is how the scenario played out:
“First, nobody get excited. Okay? Everything’s gonna stay the
same. Humans did, in fact, evolve from an ancient common ancestor
with chimps. Yes, this mitochondrial mess was a close call, but now
Jake’s come up with a loophole, so we can go back to normal and move
ahead like nothing ever happened. Everybody got that? Good. Now,
here’s what we have to say….”
By some unknown but deadly means, virtually every human ancestor
alive at 200,000 years ago was wiped out. Only a literal handful in
southern Africa (where the geneticists proved the earliest humans
appeared) managed to avoid the plague that felled everyone else.
That literal handful, no more than a few dozen at most, became the
breeding stock for every member of every race on the planet
today—all six billion of us. Only by imagining such an improbable
worldwide catastrophe can Darwinian evolution be distorted enough to
jibe with the impossible-to-distort mitochondrial DNA results.
Suddenly, our creation at the hands of the Anunnaki from Nibiru,
the tenth planet in our solar system, doesn’t seem quite so
farfetched. Now add this kicker: the Sumerians wrote that the
Anunnaki claimed to have created humans in “the house of fashioning”
in southern Africa 200,000 years ago!
I’m well aware of how this sounds, but it is true and defendable.
Even more compelling and defendable are the immense physical gaps
between humans and every other “higher” primate, not just
chimpanzees. In 1911, then-famous British anthropologist, Sir Arthur
Keith, quantized all of the anatomical characteristics that set a
species of ape apart from the others. He found that gorillas had 75
unique physiological attributes; chimpanzees, 109; orangutans, 113;
gibbons, 116; and humans, 312. Thus, humans have an array of traits
that are three times more distinctive than higher primates.
This is surprising because evolutionists so loudly trumpet that
humans and chimps share 98% the same DNA. This is, it should come as
no surprise, powerfully dependent on who does the counting and how
it is done; but the bottom line is that its trumpeting is a
subterfuge to hide from view several embarrassing facts known about
the inner structure of the human genome.
First up: the chromosome count. All higher primates have 48 but
humans have “only” 46. How could that happen? How could two entire
chromosomes—a significant chunk of the 20,000 or so genes humans are
now known to possess—be lost, yet somehow we end up three times as
different physiologically as our ape relatives and a light year
different in intellectual capacity? Better yet, how were they lost?
Where did they go?
Well, guess what? Here’s a great secret… shhhhh! …a great secret
evolutionary biologists and geneticists would hate to see turned
into public discourse, especially within hearing range of their
opponents in the battle over human origins. Those two “missing”
chromosomes are not missing!
It turns out the 2nd and 3rd chromosomes in all higher primates
have miraculously been fused together in humans to make one long
chromosome that still contains all of the higher primate’s DNA. That
fact is remarkable enough. However, it borders on miraculous when we
discover that by more sleight-of-hand by nature, certain areas on
key human chromosomes have been flipped—literally cut loose in
certain places, turned on end, and then reinserted and re-fused into
the chromosomes to make them whole again.
Talk to any geneticist or read any genetics text and these
miracles of nature will be explained in blandly prosaic terms. These
things are not new, not original, not rare, and are certainly
nothing to get excited about. This is political spinning at its most
glaring. They know the truth, in the same way scientists in 1915
knew the truth about Alfred Wegener’s discovery. But just as earlier
scientists were not ready or willing to accept that the earth could
be unstable beneath their feet, modern scientists are equally
unwilling and unprepared to confront the alarming bottom line of
intervention theory.
We humans are not now, and never have been, alone. Period.
I began this essay by saying that as intervention theory enters
the origins debate against its vastly better known opponents, it
brings Roberto Duran’s famous “hands of stone,” which in our case is
comprised of literal stone—hundreds of megalithic structures around
the world, and extensive writings of the ancient Sumerians. Then I
moved to genetics, which at first glance is not in any way related
to stone; but it actually is in this context:
Intervention says that human beings and all domesticated plants
and animals are the result of genetic engineering by off-world
beings of some kind, whether they prove to be the Anunnaki or not.
As with the megalithic stones, our DNA clearly reveals evidence of
their handiwork while here. But another array of stones makes it
equally clear that humans did not evolve on earth in the way every
evolutionist insists had to occur. Those stones are the fossils of
the so-called “prehumans” of the past five or six million years.
We’ve all seen their mug shots, so I’m not asserting anything
that can be construed as distortion. From the early
Australopithecines (Lucy and her type), through all of the Homos (Habilis,
Erectus, Neandertal), every single “prehuman” fossil (which, please
recall, is bone turned into stone) presents an array of physical
features diametrically opposed to modern humans.
They all have thick heavy brow ridges above large round
night-vision eyes. They have no forehead, wide nasal passages, no
chins, and mouths that project from their faces in the prognathous
fashion. From Australopithecines to Neanderthals this is their
uniform pattern, then at “only” 120,000 years ago (so far) the first
true human, Cro-Magnon, appears in the fossil record. This timeframe
is a comfortable chronological fit within the 200,000 years since
the creation of humans established by the Sumerians 4,000 years ago.
Like it or not, agree with it or not, stone is what it is and
says what it says, with no chance ever to change it, revise it,
alter it, or shred it.
I assume this essay will be upsetting, if not infuriating, to
many of those who read it. On the other hand, equal numbers—if not a
substantial majority—will hear echoes of doubts they might have
registered along the course of their lives when struck by some
simplicity or absurdity passed off as “truth” by mainstream
scientists desperately clinging to old convictions.
It was the same in 1915 and will remain the same far into the
future, unless and until ordinary people open their minds enough to
fairly evaluate all opposing viewpoints; and if circumstances
dictate a change in direction, they will have to rise up and
literally cram unwanted facts down the throats of a scientific
community more worried about social status, job tenure, and running
afoul of peer reviews for grants than honestly searching for truth.
Let me close by repeating the quote from Max Planck:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its
opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is
familiar with it.”
This essay was written to familiarize a new generation—as well as
open-minded individuals in the entrenched one—with the fundamentals
of intervention theory. When enough doubters lift the prejudicial
ropes keeping it out of their mental rings, a very different fight
over origins will begin.
Copyright 2006 by Lloyd Pye.
Presented with permission of the author.
Recommend this website to your friends:
Subject Related Articles by Lloyd Pye:
Contact Us
The best way to contact us is by e-mail: contact@world-mysteries.com
|
