Origin of the Species, 'Mark IV'.

In plumbing the depths of our origin and past we look at fossil records and make educated guesses as to the sequence of events over time. There can be more than one option and the eventual official line will be the one seen to be most likely. As more fossil records are uncovered often the previous most likely may become less likely but there is extreme resistance to changing the official line once established. Alan Alford's book, Gods of the New Millennium, covers numerous examples and translations of ancient text that indicate Darwin's theory of evolution as regards mankind may have been a reasonable assumption in it's day but considering the latest data it is plainly not correct.

 This then is offered as another option which takes account of the following,

  1. Around the world there have been ancient riverbeds dug up where clearly can be seen in what was then mud, human and dinosaur footprints that were put down at around the same time. In one excavation a further 4 meters deeper, this was repeated which rules out any possibility of a hoax. Obviously then we have been here for over 300 million years, not 40,000.
  2. The great ape species have 48 chromosomes whereas humans have 46. As a species evolves over time it is not unusual for that species to gain a pair of chromosomes but it never happens that the number of chromosomes become less. To claim that we had two pair fuse into one pair is grasping at straws, how would this happen at every diverse location of human habitat?
  3. Then we must reflect that today some of our scientists are advocating that in the distant future (maybe next year at the rate we are going!) having so defiled our ecosystem and/or frittered away the earth's resources that we will need to make a fresh start and transport ourselves to some far away planet whose ecosystem would be conducive to our continuing existence. It would be nice to think we will remember the mistakes we made here and not make them there but we don't have a good track record in that regard.

Perhaps the Origin of Humankind was that millions of years ago far away in the cosmos, 'our' then men of science shipped us here to planet Earth – hey, if we in 2014 can visualise the possibility why can't someone else? Stephen Hawking sees it as an essential eventual development, he has even picked a suitable planet, 'slight' problem though, it is 20 million light years away – our technology has some catching up to do. This is called the 'Intervention Theory', well outlined in a book of that name by Lloyd Pye and previously written about by Von Daniken, Zecharia Stitchin and others.

Run with this for a while, we arrive on Earth at a time when all the land mass was one continent, Gondwanaland and the climate all over was wet tropical. Next, continental drift sets in and the spot where your far distant ancestors lived in the tropics, has drifted to occupy the spot say where Canada is today. Over the millions of years that has taken, the original human form has changed from being 18 feet tall (yes, there are skeletal remains attesting to that) to a little over 5 feet with numerous other changes dictated by the drastic change in circumstances. Science deems that if a community of black Africans were to be taken today to an isolated spot in Norway and left to fend for themselves without any outside contact, in 20,000 years time they would evolve to become white people as there would be no need to maintain melanin in their skin to ward off the intense tropical sun.

During this 300 million year time frame many seriously major catastrophes have befallen planet Earth, one, suspected to be a meteorite, wiped out the dinosaurs  but somehow mankind survived, another involved the arrival of Venus (see Worlds in Collision) and the apparently periodic arrival of ice ages and glacial periods. Imagine our species existing through an ice age, one of those takes 1000s of years to set in, then it endures for 1000s of years and yet more 1000s of years to warm up again. In this time our diet would undergo slow but massive transformation in response to food availability, our stature would diminish and our lifespan shrink to 30 years or less. Four generations would come and go every 100 years, quite easy for rapid evolutionary adaptation to take place under those circumstances.

Now what if circumstances continually worsened for those unfortunate enough to be on a continent that drifted very far from the equator and we evolved ever backwards to become Cro-magnon, Neanderthal man, Homo Erectus or backwards even further to become hair covered apes who adapted to grow fangs as being carnivorous was the only food supply option. Perhaps there is a tipping point where once we devolve past that then we would be unable to re-evolve back to our original status, perhaps that point is apehood where no matter how the ecology warms up apes just remain apes though still able to evolve into different varieties. Over such a long period of existence apes could conceivably gain another chromosome pair without breaking any biology rules. Science declares that much of our DNA is from our ape 'ancestors' but it is not just as conceivable that that same DNA is human in origin and apes got it from us?

This would explain the enigma of our eye teeth, where did they come from? The common explanation is that they are remnants from our 'ape ancestors' but if that were so then Neanderthal man and Homo Erectus etc should have had even more pronounced eye teeth than we do - but they don't. There are no vestiges of eye teeth at all on these ancient skulls, nor have there been any on any excavated human skulls right up until the 1400s. Eye teeth would be a new evolvement from us eating ever larger quantities of animal flesh over the past 500 years. Will we indeed have a carnivorous full set of fangs in a few more centuries? Certainly, much in keeping with carnivore species, our tendency to aggressiveness is increasing with domestic violence, road rage etc The Japanese do not have eye teeth (some do but they are glued on veneers to make them look more ‘Western’) because they are just out of the “Rice Age” and don’t have 500 years of meat eating history behind them.

Those of us whose ancestors were lucky enough not to reach the tipping point would, as the ecosystem warmed up, revert to evolving forward again, effectively retracing our steps back through Neanderthal/Cro-magnon eras to now but we have much more evolving ahead of us until we reach the 300 million years ago original human form.

However fanciful all the above might sound, it is a scenario that answers some incredibly perplexing questions that have plagued philosophers and scientists for the past 3000 years.

Many of them and a few major religions infer that there is a repository of knowledge where all things are known and any individual man never discovers anything himself, his eureka moments are when he merely and inadvertently taps into this source and voila he is a famous inventor. This repository has always been seen as 'out there' somewhere but it looks more likely that it is built into our DNA (In 2016 only 10% of our DNA has a defined purpose) and has been there since we were shipped here from far out in the cosmos. Like we were complete with a handbook of instructions to cover every possible contingency, it couldn't be in printed form, that wouldn't survive the journey but embedded in our DNA meant it wouldn't get destroyed nor could we be parted from it.

So why doesn't everyone know everything that there is to know? Said Plotinus A.D 270 - What enables man to know anything at all about the world around him? ‘Knowing demands the organ be fitted to the object’, Nothing can be known without there being an appropriate instrument in the makeup of the knower. This is the great truth of adequateness, which defines knowledge as the understanding of the knower must be adequate to the thing to be known. In simple terms you can't teach nuclear physics to kids at kindergarten.  Learning is like climbing a ladder, we must learn one step before we are capable of learning the next step and rarely can we even visualise what is 3 steps further up.

There seems to be minimal pre requirements to learning our way up through the lower echelons but at advanced levels it is as if our brain with it's 100 trillion neurons needs to function in ever more perfect unison and this can only be achieved if all of our body's 100 trillion cells are completely clear of toxins, acids and other impurities.

Another of the perplexing questions is how did the builders of the Egyptian pyramids, Inca cities, Tibetan monastries and others all get built with such great precision where razor blades cannot be inserted between enormous blocks of stone used in their construction. This building all happened at relatively the same time in far flung corners of the planet by civilizations that had no contact with each other - certainly no internet connections!!!  It is a similar story with the invention of powered flight, the Wright brothers stole the limelight for being first but around the same time this was also achieved in Europe and New Zealand with not one of the inventors knowing either of the other two.

Yet another is that if we truly are fruit eaters (not well publicized is research in 1979, Professor Alan Walker, a Johns Hopkins University paleoanthropologist, reported that preliminary studies of unmarked tooth enamel in early hominoids suggested that pre-human {supposedly} ancestors apparently had a diet of mostly fruit) then why do we have digestion capabilities to eat and survive on a large range of non fruit items?  Obviously as earth shattering catastrophes come and go so would the availability of fruit, if our food requirements were too specific we would soon become extinct. That we are still here after 300 million years is testament to that.

We live in a totally reactive environment, the things you eat and the things you do, determine what you are and where you are on the ladder. Do as you always do and you will be as you always have been. If you do as your parents did, you will suffer the same problems and have a similar life expectancy. Were you a meat eater and changed to being vegan, then fruitarian, would mean major changes, ever less susceptibility to diseases, greater life expectancy and occasional glimpses into the 'all knowledge'. Were someone a fruitarian who reverted back to being a meat eater, the reverse would happen. There is no right or wrong to all this, what you do determines where you are at, if you are not happy with your here and now, then you'll have to change your inputs. If your diet includes manufactured products then you are at the mercy of what the manufacturer puts in his product and any on the fly changes he might make to it like cheaper often inferior ingredients, usually the uppermost consideration being to earn more $s, almost never to enhance your well being. This can surreptitiously negatively change where you are even though you think you haven't changed anything, the obesity epidemic is a good example.

For most people great store is placed on things traditional, particularly diet and religion and unfortunately, often in early childhood, this gets printed indelibly in our memory and becomes unshakable in later life. This is an unfortunate mistake for generally it merely prolongs the errors of one's ancestors near and far but the worst effect is that it seriously curtails our transition from cave man to advanced human and tends to hold us where our parents were. A child is born with a clean slate, it should be let alone to develop it's own lifestyle by allowing it to choose it's own path and it's own diet. Infants with undefiled taste buds know full well, much better than does mum, which food is good and which is not. It is absurd too for a child to grow and learn the physics of nature on one hand and at the same time be indoctrinated by a church and asked without explanation to 'believe' mythical tales from antiquity that blatantly contravene those same laws of physics.

The assumption is that we are between ice ages but are we? It has been said that the last ice age won't be over until all the polar ice has melted. Wouldn't that be interesting with the sea level rising 12 meters or more. Ever wonder why Greenland is called just that when it is nothing but a sheet of ice. It was discovered by Eric the Red in the year 982 when it was green and showed promise as a major farming area. That it is now ice might mean we are moving into a new ice age. Lately though from global warming, some signs of life are appearing again but from our present perspective, it will be a very long time before you see Greenland strawberries on supermarket shelves.