Evidence for Creation by Outside
Darwinists, Creationists and
Intelligent Design proponents are unable to explain anomalies in the
emergence of domesticated plants, animals and humans.
Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume
9, Number 4 (June-July 2002)
PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. email@example.com
Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com
by Lloyd Pye © 2002
THE ABSURDITIES OF DOGMA
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
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 (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 towards 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 God (by whatever name) or "by means of outside
intervention", which makes clear how they're betting. "Outside
intervention" is a transparent euphemism for "You Know What"
(with apologies to J. K. Rowling). [In Rowling's
"Harry Potter" books, the arch villain is so despicable and
dreadful, his name should not even be uttered; thus he is referred to as
"You Know Who". Similarly, the very idea that humans might have
been created by extraterrestrials is so despicable and dreadful to
mainstream science and religion that no mention of it should be uttered;
thus the author refers to it as "You Know What". Ed.]
To Darwinists, Creationists and ID-ers alike, creation at the hands of You
Know What 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 has the best chance
of being proved correct in the end.
Virtually every scientist worth their doctorate will
insist that somehow, some way, 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 towards the truth about
evolution, which ostensibly is 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
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 challenge
evolution openly. 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 crystallised 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. In-fighting 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, some way, 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 realised the data of his era did not provide
clear-cut evidence that 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
Because this is the most vulnerable part of Darwin's
theory, Creationists attack it relentlessly, which has forced scientists
periodically to 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 will 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 towards that common goal. Individually, though, it's
every man and woman for themselves.
TWEEDLEDUM AND TWEEDLEDEE
Plants and animals evolve, eh? Alright, how do they
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
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
How would you do that?
Put a mountain range between them, something impossible
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
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
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
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 minutiae 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
palaeontologists, who return the favour in spades (pun intended).
Cytogenetics labours to find a niche alongside genetics proper. Population
geneticists utilise mathematical models that challenge palaeontologists and
systematists. Sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists struggle to
make room for their ideas. All perform a cerebral dance of elegant form and
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, criticised, written about
again, criticised 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 playedÉand 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.
THE EMERGENCE OF DOMESTICATED PLANTS
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 between 10,000 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 other varieties. 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 here is on "conclusively".
Botanists have no trouble hypothesising elaborate scenarios in which
Neolithic (New Stone Age) farmers somehow figured out how to hybridise wild
grasses, 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-
coloured 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 New 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 seven chromosomes to their current 42--an expansion by a
factor of six. Sugar cane was 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, were only multiplied by factors of two or
three, while peanuts, potatoes, tobacco and cotton, among others, were
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 ifÉdare I say it?Éthey were brought to Earth by something
akin to You Know What. If so, then it could well be that 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
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 and 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 that 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 actually had
to look at a wild progenitor and imagine what it could become, or should
become, or would become. Then they somehow had to ensure 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, more
absurd, scenario, yet to modern-day botanists it is a gospel they believe
with a fervour 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. Firstly, wild ancestors for many (but not all) domestic plants do
seem apparent. Secondly, most domesticated versions did appear from 10,000
to 5,000 years ago. Thirdly, the humans alive at that time were primitive
barbarians. Fourthly, 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 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 &endash; Book One: Human Origins
(pp. 283&endash;285) (Adamu Press, 1998). 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, softening and nutritionally
altering the seeds and grains of dozens of wild plants, the earliest farmers
also had to 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 collected easily 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 that this happened as botanists claim it did.
THE EMERGENCE OF DOMESTICATED ANIMALS
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 other animals. 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 utilised 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 unbridled
courage 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 visualise a much smaller, much more
amiable cow? Even if somebody could have visualised 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 hardwired 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 moreÉsomething ineffableÉ 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 rate 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 paw pads are thick and hard like a dog's, but to climb trees
they use the first claw on their front paws in the same way a cat does. The
light-coloured fur on their body is like the fur of a short-haired dog, but
the black spots on their bodies are inexplicably the texture of cat's fur.
They contract diseases that only dogs suffer from, but they also get
"cat only" diseases.
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
each other! 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
(Cue the music from The Twilight ZoneÉ)
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 cannot 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, 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.
THE ARRIVAL OF HUMANS
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 most scientists in the 1980s, when a group of geneticists
decided to try to establish a more accurate date for when humans and
chimpanzees split from their presumed common ancestor.
Palaeontologists used fossilised 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
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
palaeontologists--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 differs from a current paradigm, the importance of this
new evidence finally outweighed concern for the image and feelings of
palaeontologists. 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 palaeontologists 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 palaeontologists still able to
insist that humans evolved from primitive forebears walking upright on the
savannas of Africa as long ago as five million years, but that between
100,000 and 200,000 years ago "something" happened to destroy
nearly all humans alive at the time, forcing them to reproduce from a small
population of survivors.
That this "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.
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 that we do not belong on
Earth at allÉthat 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
chimpanzees and gorillas. This is so ingrained in our psyches that it seems
futile even to examine it, much less to 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 "pre-human" ancestor through to
Neanderthal. The ancestor bones look like primate bones; modern human bones
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
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
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 hair 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 back.
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 lie 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 the 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 then 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 may account for some of the sharp flakes of stones that are
considered primitive hominid "tools".
Fingernails and 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 only for
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
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 primate throats. 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
oestrous cycles and are sexually receptive only at special times. Human
females have no oestrous 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 we could lose two
full chromosomes--which represents a lot of DNA--in the first place, and in
the process 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 they remain so widespread.
Genetic Relatedness. A
favourite Darwinist statistic is that the total genome (all the DNA) of
humans differs from chimpanzees 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 three 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
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 those of domesticated plants and animals, see
Everything You Know Is Wrong.
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 Design proponents. 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
backyard. 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 that what Darwin observed with his own eyes and
research is the truth, and that 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'tÉso, until then, we can only poke and prod at them in
the hope of some day 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.
Future 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. All that will be required for
the truth to come out 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.
About the Author:
Lloyd Pye, born in 1946 in Louisiana, USA, is a researcher, author, novelist
and scriptwriter. His independent studies over more than three decades into
all aspects of evolution have convinced him that humans did not evolve on
Earth, or at least are the product of extraterrestrial intervention. His
book, Everything You Know Is Wrong &endash;
Book One: Human Origins, is available by ordering
through http://www.iUniverse.com or
Barnes & Noble at http://www.bn.com.
Visit Lloyd Pye's website at http://www.lloydpye.com.
Return to Institute for