The Millennium Gods: Evolutionary Failure – Man by Alan Alford – Part 2

CHAPTER 2 Evolutionary failure – man

Dangerous ideas


In November 1859, Charles Darwin published the most dangerous idea – all living things evolved along the path of natural selection. 1 Although humanity is hardly mentioned in Darwin’s interpretation, conclusions were inevitable and led to a more radical change in human perception than anything else in historical monuments. In one stroke, Darwin forwarded us from divinely created beings to monkeys who evolved through the objective mechanism of natural selection.

This idea was so threatening to a religious institution that in 1925, a Tennessee teacher, John Scope, was brought to court on charges that he was teaching Darwin’s new Theory of Evolution. In this high-profile case, the theologians of the time won a remarkable victory. Since then, Darwinian thinking has become widespread. There is little doubt that today’s evolutionists, fanatically led by such champions as Richard Dawkins, are now reaping success. These scientists have greatly refined Darwin’s theory and are able to offer even more credible evidence of the process of natural selection in action. Using examples from the animal kingdom, they exposed the Bible’s overall view of creation.

But do scientists also apply evolution to the two-legged humanoid known as man? Charles Darwin himself was strangely silent on the matter, 2 but his co-discoverer Alfred Wallace more willingly expressed his views. 3Wallace implicitly suspected an intervention of some kind in his claim that “some intellectual power led or determined human development.” Hundreds of science efforts fail in their attempt to prove Wallace wrong. Anthropologists have been unsuccessfully trying to provide fossil evidence from the “missing link” with monkeys, and there has been a growing recognition of the complexity of organs such as the human brain. It is as if science has completed a complete cycle to the point where many feel complete discomfort when evolutionary theory is applied to Homo sapiens.

There is another dangerous idea right here. If we replace the creation of God on a supernatural level with the genetic development of flesh-gods and blood-physical levels, can evolutionists withstand a reasonable debate on a purely scientific basis?

Today, four in ten Americans can hardly believe that there is a connection between humans and apes. Why is that? Compare yourself to a chimpanzee! A man is intelligent, hairless and highly sexual, a creature quite different from his primitive relatives. This may be an intuitive observation, but it is actually supported by scientific work. In 1911, anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith made a list of the anatomical features inherent in each of the primates, calling them “generic features” that distinguish each species from the rest. Its results were as follows: gorillas – 75; chimpanzee 109; orangutan 113; gibbon 116, human 312. 4 Keith thus shows that the human race is three times more sophisticated than any other monkey.

How do we reconcile Sir Arthur Keith’s study with scientific evidence that shows 98% genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees? 5 I would like to reverse this ratio and ask how a 2% difference in DNA can affect the surprising differences between a human being and his / her “cousin” primates. After all, a dog shares 98% of its genes with the fox, and at the same time the two animals are quite similar.

We need to somehow explain how the insignificant 2% genetic differences can account for so many “value-added” characteristics in humans – the brain, speaking ability and sex – a small part of the whole. Another strange thing is that Homo sapiens only has 46 chromosomes, compared to 48 chimpanzees and gorillas. 6 Natural selection theory was unable to explain how the fusion of two chromosomes – a major structural change – had nevertheless come to fruition.

Is it plausible that natural selection through a random algorithmic process could concentrate our 2 percent genetic mutations in the most sophisticated areas? The idea is, quite frankly, rather ridiculous. It is a paradigm-born idea that once we exist and since the chimpanzee is our closest genetic relative, we have evolved from a common ancestor of the chimpanzee. The missing probability that explains the highly concentrated alteration in human DNA is the unthinkable idea of ​​genetic intervention by the gods. But is it really that unthinkable? It must have been fifty years ago when the genetic code had not yet been discovered. But by the end of the twentieth century, it was already a fact that we had the genetic ability to act as “gods” by creating life on another planet.

In this chapter, I set humanity itself for discussion. As a sage once said, “Once we are the result of the events we seek, most answers will be found among ourselves.” 7 We will put to the test the claims of the interventionists of ancient civilizations against the recently adopted thesis of the continuous and gradual evolution of humanity. What we will find are the missing evolutionary links, the over-speed schedule, and finally the biological traits that do not fit the known evolutionary history on planet Earth.

My intention is to actually reinforce natural selection as a general theory. Because by moving the evolution of Homo sapiens to the evolutionary home of the gods myself, I will effectively remove the greatest dilemma of the Darwinists from their sphere of competence.

Darwinism today


In order to throw the glove of challenge at evolutionists, the most important thing is to fight the battle on their own territory. In this case, it is extremely important to get into the bottom of modern Darwinian thinking.

When Darwin first exposed the theory of evolution through natural selection, he probably did not even know the mechanism by which this happened. Almost a hundred years later, in 1953, James Watson and Frances Creek became the discoverers of this mechanism – DNA and genetic inheritance. It was these two scientists who discovered the double-helical structure of the DNA molecule, the chemical that encodes the genetic information. Our students now understand that each cell in the body contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, on which approximately 100,000 genes are produced that produce what is known as the human genome. The information contained in these genes is sometimes unlocked to be read, and sometimes not, depending on the cell and tissue (muscles, bones, etc.) to be produced.

How does genetics help us understand Darwinism? It is now clear that our genes undergo random mutations as they pass through the generations. Some of these mutations will be wrong, some good. Any mutation that favors the survival of the creatures will be a long process over many generations, spread across the entire population. This coincides with Darwin’s idea of ​​natural selection, a protracted struggle for existence in which those organisms that are best placed in the environment are most likely to survive. By surviving, their genes are most likely, according to statistics, to be passed on to more generations through the process of sexual reproduction.

A common inconsistency with natural selection is that genes will be directly refined depending on their environment, causing optimal adaptability to the body. It is now accepted that such adaptations are in fact random mutations that become environmentally friendly and therefore have survived. According to Steve Jones, “we are products of evolution, a set of successful mistakes.” 8

How fast is the process of evolution? All experts agree with Darwin’s basic idea that natural selection is a very slow and lengthy process. As one of today’s great champions of evolution Richard Dawkins put it: “Nobody thinks that evolution has ever been enough jump-like to find a whole new fundamental cross-section in one fell swoop.” 9 Of course, experts believe that large evolutionary leap known as macromutation, it is completely impossible to succeed because it is likely to be painful for the survival of living beings who have already adapted well to their environment.

In this way, we are left with the process of random genetic flow and the cumulative effects of genetic mutations. Even these small mutations are nevertheless considered extremely painful. Daniel Denet conscientiously illustrates the problem by showing an analogy with a game in which one tries to perfect a classic work of literature, making only a printing change. While multiple changes such as missing commas or misspellings would have a minor effect, visible ones in most cases would spoil the body of the text. It is rare, but not impossible, for occasional changes to refine the text. 10

There are already a lot of doubts about genetic improvement, but we have to add another factor. A deliberate mutation could only affect a small, isolated population. 11 This was the case on the island of Gapapagos, where Charles Darwin did much of his research. Elsewhere, targeted mutations will be lost and destroyed in a large population, and scientists suggest that the process will be much slower.

If the evolution of living beings is a time-consuming process, then the separation of one being into two different beings must be seen as an even longer process. The separation – which Richard Dawkins means by the term “Goodbye” – is defined as the moment when two groups within the same ancestral community are no longer able to cross each other. Dawkins compares the genes of different creatures with rivers of genes that have flowed for millions of years. 12 The source of these rivers is the genetic code, which is identical to all animals, plants and bacteria that have ever been studied. 13The body’s body dies soon, but through sexual reproduction acts as a mechanism that genes can use to travel over time. Those genes that interact well with their partner genes and best assist in the survival of the bodies they pass through will prevail over many generations.

But what causes rivers or creatures to split into two branches? To quote Richard Dawkins:

“The details are contradictory, but no one doubts that the most important element is the random geographical division.” 14 (The explanation follows.)

As amazing as it may seem to statistically obtain a new being, the fact is that today there are approximately 30 million individual individuals on Earth, and it is estimated that another 3 billion living creatures may have existed before and are extinct. 15 This can only be understood in the context of the history of the cataclysms on planet Earth – a view that is being increasingly accepted. 16 However, today it is impossible to cite even one example of a living being who has recently (over the last half a million years) improved through mutation or split into two separate beings. 17

With the exception of viruses, evolution emerges as an indescribably slow process. Daniel Denet recently suggested that a period of 100,000 years for the emergence of a new animal species would be considered “sudden”. 18 At the other extreme is the unpretentious horse lice, which have remained apparently unchanged for 200 million years. 19 The consensus is that the normal range of evolution is somewhere in the middle. The famous biologist Thomas Huxley, for example, states:

          “Huge changes (in living things) have taken place over tens of millions of years, while really significant (macro changes) have taken place over a hundred million years or more.”

          Yet humanity has benefited from not one but several macromutations over the course of just six million years!

Due to the absence of fossil evidence, we are dealing exclusively with theoretical questions. However, modern science has on several occasions managed to offer acceptable explanations of how, step by step, the evolutionary process can produce what appears to be a perfect organ or organism. The most famous case is the computer-simulated evolution of the eye by Nilson and Pelger. Beginning with a simple photocell that was allowed to undergo random mutations, Nilson and Pelger’s computer generated acceptable full-chamber refinement, thereby making a smooth ascending change with improvement at each intermediate step. 21

This idea of ​​ascending or increasing change is central to the modern notion of evolution. The key point is that for the successful propagation of a mutation to a population, each step will be only as perfect as it needs to be to provide a border of survival. Leverage Dawkins uses the example of cheetahs and antelopes to show how genetic rivalry works; Cheetahs seem to be created perfectly to increase death among antelopes, while antelopes appear just as perfectly designed to prevent death from cheetahs. 22The result is two animal species in equilibrium where the weakest individuals die, but both species survive. This principle was first laid out by Alfred Wallace, who argued: “Nature never stocks itself with living beings beyond the necessities of daily existence.” 23 The situation is the same with trees in dense forests that have been increasing for a long period. your height in competition for light.

So, back to the annoying question about the evolution of humanity itself. And we throw the gauntlet of challenge to Dawkins and Denet in their own academic yard. Because in the rest of this chapter we will see amazing examples of how our evolution was well above the requirements of daily existence and in the complete absence of an intellectual rival. According to current theories of upward change and natural selection, many aspects of Homo sapiens are an evolutionary impossibility!

In search of the missing link

          According to experts, human and chimpanzee rivers split from a common precursor source sometime 5 to 7 million years ago, while gorilla gene rivers are generally thought to have formed a little earlier. In order for this isolation to occur, three populations of common monkey precursors are future gorillas, chimpanzees, and humanoids) had to somehow divide geographically and then be subjected to genetic flux influenced by different environments. The search for the missing link is the search for the earliest humanoid, upright, two-legged monkey who waved goodbye to his four-legged friends.

Many scientists have encountered great difficulty in accepting the idea that our closest relatives are chimpanzees that are so culturally different from us. However, recent research has shown that a certain type of chimpanzee-pygmy, known as “bonobos”, is remarkably similar to human. 25 Unlike other monkeys, bonobos often cluster face to face, and as they say, compared to their sex lives, Sodom and

Gomorrah looked like an afternoon party at a vicar’s home! Bonobos and chimpanzees are thought to have escaped 3 million years ago, and it seems likely that our common ancestor with apes may have behaved more like bonobos than chimpanzees.

          I will now briefly attempt to summarize what is known about human evolution.

          The search for the missing link has overturned a number of fossil rivals dating back about 4 million years ago, but the picture remains too unfinished and the sample size is too small to draw any statistically valid conclusions. However, there are three contenders for the award of the first fully two-legged humanoid, all found in the East African Rift Valley, which stretches across Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania.

The first entrant, discovered in Ethiopia’s Afar province in 1974, is named Lucy, though her more scientific name is Australopithecus Affairis. 26 Lucy is believed to have lived about 3.6 – 3.2 million years ago. Unfortunately, only 40 percent of her skeleton remained, resulting in controversy over her two-headedness and whether or not she really was “him”!

The second contender for the prize is Australopithecus ramidus – a 4.4 million-year-old chimpanzee pygmy discovered at Aramis in Ethiopia by Professor Timothy White in 1994. Despite the preserved 70 percent of the skeleton, it was again impossible to conclusively prove whether the creature was there were two or four legs. 27

The third participant in the race, dating from 4.1 to 3.9 million years ago, is the Australopithecus anamnesis discovered at Turkana Lake in Kenya by Dr. Meeve Leakey in August 1995. A large femur from Anamensis was used to support the claim that the creature walked on two feet.

The proof of our oldest ancestors was confusing because they seemed not to be too closely related to one another. Anamances, for example, seems to have no connection with Ramidus. The inexplicable lack of fossil evidence for the past 10 million years made it impossible to prove the exact date of separation of these early humanoids from the four-legged monkeys. It is also important to emphasize that many of these discoveries have cheekbones more like chimpanzees than humans. They may be the first monkeys to walk, but as with 4 million years ago, we are too far from something that looks at least partially human.

Moving forward in time, we find evidence of several types of wounded person who are just as confusing. We own the 1.8 million-year-old, appropriately named Robustus, the 2.5-million-year-old, lighter Africanus construction, and the 1.5 to 2 million-year-old Advant (Australasian) australopithecus. The latter, as the name implies, is more humanlike than the others and is sometimes described as “close to man” or Homo habilis (“dexterous man”). It is generally accepted that Homo Habilis was the first human-like creature to walk effectively and use many primitive stone tools of labor. Fossil evidence does not reveal whether rudimentary speaking ability was developed at this stage.

About 1.5 million years ago, Homo erectus appeared on the scene. This humanoid possessed a significantly larger brain box (cranium) than its predecessors and began to create and use more sophisticated stone tools. Widespread fossils indicate that Homo erectus groups left Africa and dispersed around China, Australia, and Europe about 1 000 000 – 700 000 years ago, but for unknown reasons completely disappear about 300 000 – 200 000 years ago. the path of elimination that this is the order in which Homo sapiens has branched out.

The missing link still remains a mystery. In 1995, the Sunday Times summarized evolutionary evidence as follows:

           “The scientists themselves are confused. A series of discoveries recently forced them to break the simplistic diagrams they had become accustomed to cheerfully linking… the classic ancestral tree that forked the origins of a monkey we knew from school gave way to the theory of genetic islands. The construction of bridges between them is an assumption for everyone. ” 28

           As for the various rivals, the alleged predecessors of the human being, the Sunday Times states: “The kinship between them remains shrouded in mystery, and no one has sufficiently identified any of them as the first humanoid to emerge from Homo sapiens.”

The race to find the missing link continues. Rival anthropologists have spent millions of dollars to sponsor their searches. With such chambers of investment, no doubt a major breakthrough will be announced. Until then, we must keep our sense of perspective. As one commenter noted, there is no guarantee that any of these fossils 29 have actually left any heirs. The evidence is so scattered that several more sensational discoveries still hold scientists trapped as a drowning man. Human evolutionary history will remain veiled in mystery. Only one thing is clear: the fossil remains spanning 6 million to 1 million years ago and prove that the wheels of evolution are turning very, very slowly indeed.

The miracle of man


Why did Homo sapiens develop intelligence and self-knowledge while his monkey cousins ​​spent the last 6 million years in evolutionary stagnation? Why is there no other creature in the animal world who has developed an advanced level of intelligence?

The usual answer is that we got up, so we released both our hands and started using the tools of labor. This achievement accelerated our learning through a feedback system that stimulated brain improvement.

     Recent scientific studies do confirm that electro-chemical processes in the brain can sometimes stimulate the growth of dendrites (nerve branches), tiny signal receptors that bind to neurons (nerve cells). Experiments with rats in a cell showed a greater brain mass, developing when the cell was full of toys, 30 than when empty.

            But is this answer so simple? For example, a kangaroo is extremely adept at using tools, but never rules it, until the animal kingdom is filled with beings who really use the tools of labor but have never acquired intelligence. Here are some examples. The Egyptian vulture throws stones at the ostrich eggs to break their hard shell. The singing woodpecker of the Galapagos Islands uses cactus twigs or spikes in five different ways to poison the insects absorbed in the wood of decayed trees. The sea otter along the Pacific coast of North America uses a stone as a hammer to dig its favorite food, a crab, and another stone as an anvil to crush an open crab. 31

There are also examples of using simple tools, but there is no sign that this leads to anything. Our closest relatives, chimpanzees, also make and use simple tools of work, 32 but can you really see any evolution to our intellectual level? Why did we become sensible while chimpanzees were not?

Could our upright position cause such a change? Generally, anthropologists agree that a group of monkeys may have left their cousins ​​inhabiting the forests and went to the open savannah, probably due to climate change. There direct heat from the sun has supported the genetic mutations that are offered better opportunity of these monkeys to stand up and protect your brain from the higher 33 temperature at ground level. The insecurity of these new humanoids in the open savannah may then have led to favorable conditions for accidental mutations in the brain that have increased the chances of hidden survival.

           The new upright posture may have led to physical changes in brain evolution. Proponents of this “cranial emission” theory, such as Professor Dean Folk, claim that these fossil remains show an enlarged marginal sinus system and, in addition, tiny holes in the cheekbones and brain entrance. 34 It is believed that these changes may have in some way accelerated the evolution of intelligence. But these changes could not happen yesterday for today. It is unacceptable that a group of monkeys have suddenly become completely bipedal for the simple reason that in order to do so, they have become less mobile and more vulnerable than their ancestors. One joker suggested, “If you put a hungry lion, a human, a chimpanzee, a baboon, and a dog in a large cage, obviously the human will be 35 eaten first! “

        What do the fossils explain to us about our ability to evolve the brain? Unfortunately, they are so scattered that they tell us only half the truth. It is generally accepted that a larger skull implies a greater capacity of the brain box and hence a larger and better brain. This may be generally true, but size is not everything. However, compare the elephant’s intellect with its 11-liter brain * with our own 3-liter brain. The size itself misses the point that improvements can also be made from a better electrical installation. An appropriate analogy is a computer that has been provided with extremely advanced functionality from far superior software. Unfortunately, our software is brain tissue, and it does not occur every step of the way for paleoanthropologists to examine!

What do we expect to see from the evolution of brain-box capacity? According to evolutionists, the development of our brains should probably have involved an upward change, this is refinement through an extremely large number of very small steps. Natural selection probably favored only those genes that led to improvements in the capacity of the nervous system, which promoted a useful coast for survival. In that case, could we consider the increasing changes in size and efficiency going on at the same time, or would it be possible to increase efficiency first until capacity constraints are reached? The latter may seem logical, but natural selection involves random genetic mutations and does not always reach its limits in the shortest way.

Now let us recall the evidence obtained from excavations of the volume of the skull. The data varies greatly and should be interpreted with care (as sample sizes are limited), but the following is raw material. The early humanoid Afarenis holds about 500 cubic centimeters, and the Habilis australopithecus already has about 700 cubic centimeters. So 1 liter = 0.459 kg. While it is not at all certain that one evolved from the other, these numbers make it possible to see the evolutionary effect for more than two million years in the new environment of the humanoid.

Moving forward in time to 1.5 million years, we find a sudden jump in the volume of the Homo erectus skull to about 900-1000 cubic centimeters. macromutation is least likely. On the other hand, we could explain this anomaly by considering Erectus as a separate creature whose ancestors have not yet been discovered because of the scarce remains found during excavations.

Finally, after surviving 1.2 to 1.3 million years, with no apparent changes, and having managed to spread from Africa to China, Australasia and Europe, something extraordinary happened to the homoid Homo erectus. Probably due to climate change, his population began to decline until he finally died. Yet, while most of Homo erectus was dying out, a small group managed to change into Homo sapiens with a huge increase in skull volume from 950 to 1450 cc. It is widespread that we are heirs to Homo erectus was there to be popped), but sudden change negates all known laws of evolution!

That is why human evolution resembles an hourglass with a narrowing population of Homo erectus, possibly leading to a mutant whose advanced genes emerge in a new era of unprecedented progress. The transformation from failure to success is incredible. While Darwinists may find the little isolated population they need, this fact still strains the imagination to believe that our predecessor is Clark Kent Super Erectus, who suddenly assumed that he had increased his brain by as much as 50 percent!

In my opinion, paleontologists are concentrating the search for the missing link at the wrong time. We are constantly reading about the search for our oldest ancestor of monkey origin, but more intriguing is the missing Super Erectus link.


In 1954, it was thought that the humanoid leading to the human race originated from apes about 30 million years ago, and that we have evolved ascending to our present species. 36 This transition leaves an impartial mark on how long evolution has spanned. Following the discovery that separation only took place 6 million years ago, evolutionists have been forced to accept a faster scope of evolution to explain our existence.

           Another unconvincing finding after 1954 is the shockingly slow evolutionary progress made by Homo erectus and its predecessors 200,000 years ago. In this way, the evolution chart changed from a fine straight line to an explosion overnight (Fig. 5). Anthropologists have continually tried to show an upward evolution from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens, albeit with steep ascending steps. However, their attempts to force the data to coincide with their assumptions were constantly exposed by new data.

           For example, it was initially thought that the anatomically modern Homo sapiens (Cro-Magnon) 37 appeared only 35,000 years ago and thus broke away from the Neanderthal, who disappeared at the same time. 38 Just then, it seems, one of the most dramatic events in human history happened. The Cro-Magnon suddenly appeared in Europe, building huts, organizing in lineages, wearing leather for clothing and constructing special tools and weapons using wood and bones. It is at this stage of the development of Homo sapiens that we attribute the astonishing 39 cave art to that in Lascaux, France, dating back 27,000 years ago.

          But it is now accepted that, despite differences in behavior, the European Cromanion was no different in anatomy from the Homo sapiens discovered in the Middle East 100,000 years ago. Both would be visibly indistinguishable from today’s population if they could be dressed in contemporary clothes. It is also clear that Homo sapiens did not stray from the Neanderthal as previously assumed. Several recent findings in Israel have undoubtedly confirmed that Homo sapiens coexisted with the Neanderthal in the 100-90,000 years ago.

           In that case, what is our connection to the Neanderthal? We are already accustomed to seeing artistic images based on his famous qualities – unadorned limbs and rough features, but everything else, such as copious body hair, is pure conjecture designed to give us an idea of ​​evolutionary integrity. Recent revelations have led to a significant reassessment of the Neanderthal. In particular, in the Kebara Cave, Mount Carmel in Israel, the remains of a Neanderthal from 60,000 years ago were found in excavations, with intact sublingual bone, virtually identical to our present sublingual bone. 41Because this bone makes human speech possible, scientists were forced to conclude that the Neanderthal had the ability to speak. And many scientists see speech as the key to the greatest human leap forward in development.

Currently, many anthropologists acknowledge that the Neanderthal is a complete Homo sapiens, which has long been equivalent in behavior to other Homo sapiens. It is quite possible that the Neanderthal was as human and intelligent as we are today. It was speculated that his huge and rough facial features might just be a genetic disorder similar to that of agromegaly. Such errors are rapidly spreading among small isolated groups of people due to the incest effect. 42

As a result of the final dating of the modern remains of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, a new theory has emerged, suggesting that they are both branches of an earlier “archaic” Homo sapiens. The remains of several so-called archaic creatures have been found that combine different sides of primitive Erectus and modern human anatomy. The popular press generally cites that these archaic creatures originated somewhere around 300,000 years ago, but again this is pure conjecture based on a small number of samples, prejudices and hypotheses. What are the true facts?

In 1989, a seminar was held entitled “The Roots of the Adaptability of Modern Man”, which discussed specifically archaic-contemporary binder material. Summarizing the results of the discussion, Eric Trinkhaus reports that: “The key point of the agreement during the workshop was that, during the most recent Pleistocene (the last 1 million years), a relatively short period of transition was transformed from archaic to the modern man – a transformation that is expressed both in culture and in biology … the transformation from the archaic to the modern man, testifying not only to the reorganization of the brain and body and a change in stonemasonry from a simple expedient technology to complex and elegant craftsmanship,43 (The following is an explanation.)

Eric Trinkhaus states that the most important point of the seminar was the difference between the most recent archaic person and the earliest modern humans, but at the time of transformation he could only say the following:

“… our control over the exact chronology is inadequate for periods before the limited limits of radioactive carbon dating (35,000 BC) and from there back through most of the Middle Pleistocene.”

A subsequent seminar in 1992 also focused on the issue of the transition from archaic to modern man. 44 One of the reports presented includes the following comment:

       “The transition period is beyond the scope of carbon dating 14, so it was necessary to use the case to redirect to new dating technologies.” 45

           The various reports read at the seminar were published by Aitken, Stringer and Mellars in 1993 and focused especially on refining technological dating methods. There has been remarkable progress in an appropriate range of new dating technologies – the uranium dating series, luminescent (thermal or optical) and electronic spin (ESR) resonance – but each has suffered from different constraints under different circumstances. However, very reliable dating based on these methods (instead of radioactive carbon 14) was presented. It is noteworthy that all the remains found during the excavation of an archaic man were incorrectly dated and could not be confirmed by any of the new methods. 46

As far as contemporaries are concerned, the earliest categorical and reliable dating is cited as 120-110,000 BC in Quafzeh, Israel. None of the other dates published by a group of highly respected scientists is earlier than 200,000 BC. The date of the modern man’s appearance can only be speculated within a wide time range of 500-200,000 BC. .

This is the true state of scientific knowledge on the subject. There is no evidence that the archaic Homo sapiens existed 300,000 years ago, nor that the Neanderthal dates back 230,000 years ago. 47 the fact is that remnants of Homo sapiens from the last 200,000 years suddenly appear, without a clear explanation of their origin. The “Atlas of Ancient Archeology” position is summarized as follows: “The modern history of Homo sapiens (sapiens) remains adversely unclear … so few really know about the approach to one of the turning points of our global history.” 48 Meanwhile, Roger Lewin argued in 1984 :

          “The origins of perfectly modern humans, denoted by the subspecies Homo sapiens, remain one of the great mysteries of the 49 paleontology.”

          The advent of Homo sapiens is more than a difficult mosaic – statistically it is close to impossible! After millions of years of little progress with the stone tools of labor, Homo sapiens suddenly appeared 200,000 years ago with a 50 percent larger skull volume, along with the ability to speak and fully modern anatomy. For unexplained reasons, he continues to live primitively, using stone tools for the next 160,000 years. And suddenly, 40,000 years ago, he seemed to be undergoing a transition to modern behavior. As it goes north, it extends over most of the globe 13,000 years ago. After 1,000 years it discovered agriculture, and 6,000 years later built great civilizations with advanced astronomical knowledge (see Chapters 5 and 6).

The above scenario seems extremely improbable and openly contradicts the overall understanding of evolutionary theory as a slow and gradual process. Common sense would suggest at least another million years for Homo sapiens to evolve from stone tools to the use of other materials, and probably another hundred million years to handle mathematics, engineering and astronomy.

Darwin’s Jigsaw Puzzle

            Earlier, I pointed out that size is not everything about the brain. Nevertheless, size is clearly an advantage in combination with a high level of operational efficiency. A four-liter “VM \ / \ /” will always outperform a two-liter “VM \ L /”, although the latter is a later generation, with a more sophisticated design. In this section we will see that Homo sapiens had the best of both worlds – relatively large brain and highly efficient design.

            For the past 10 years, scientists have used new imaging technologies (such as positron emission tomography) to discover the human brain more than ever before. The full extent of the complexity of his billions of cells was becoming increasingly apparent. In addition to the physiological complexity of the brain, its manifestations know no boundaries – mathematics and art, abstract thinking and conceptualism, and above all – moral consciousness and self-knowledge. While much of the mystery of the human brain remains shrouded in mystery, enough has yet to be awakened so that the National Biographer can boldly describe it as the “most complex object” known in the 50 universes. “

            Evolutionists view the brain as nothing more than a set of algorithms, but they are also forced to agree that it is so complex and unique that there is no chance of overturning the engineering of the evolutionary process that created it. For these reasons, there is a tendency for philosophers to play a leading role in formulating theories of brain evolution.

Theologians also had their rejoicing day with the discovery that the human brain is such a complex and perfect organ. However, leaving aside the irrational arguments for his divine creation, how could we rebut the theory of upward evolution? We still can’t get those early humanoids to 1.0. test – coefficient of intelligence. We cannot even judge their intellect based on their behavior alone, because you are very likely to have an advanced intellectual level without acquiring the material culture we now know as civilization. Fortunately, we can count on a strong dose of cabinet logic, an approach sometimes used by the highly respected Richard Dawkins himself. At birth, the human brain represents a quarter of the size of an adult. The need for a large skull to feed a fully grown adult brain is why babies have extremely large heads (relative to other primates). The passage of the baby’s head through the birth canal is therefore the main problem of childbirth and causes acute pain to the mother.

For many biologists, gynecologists and anatomists, it is a mystery why women have not developed a larger birth canal. The answer is simple – engineering. Such a change would require a radical redesign of the skeletal structure, an impossibility within the confined body that is designed to walk on two legs. 51 Therefore, the birth canal is the limiting factor for the volume of the human skull.

If we reconfigure our minds back in time – several hundred thousand years ago, when there were no hospitals and midwives, it is not difficult to imagine that a huge number of children were stillborn or their mothers died at birth. It therefore seems highly doubtful that natural selection would favor a gene for a large brain size, with its potentially painful consequences for both mother and child. To put it simply, such a gene would not spread successfully.

It seems much more plausible that natural selection would deselect the brain and have a retarding effect instead of working on a better-functioning nervous system network, or alternatively, a way to reverse the growth of the skull from prenatal to postpartum. the fact that he did not, and the fact that the nerve system of the brain also seems to be highly efficient in construction, strongly underlines two basic evolutionary requirements. The first – an indescribably long period, and the second pressing need to develop its optimal potential. Neither of these two requirements is satisfied by established evolutionary circumstances.

Modern evolutionists agree that natural selection would only accommodate as much of new and better physical trends as are necessary for survival. The cheetah and antelope I have already mentioned is a typical example of the world of Richard Dawkins, where progress comes from the constructive tension between individuals – a critical balance between survival and extinction. Under this scenario, genes that make good brains benefit from natural selection only because they are critical for survival.

Richard Dawkins illustrates his point of view with a story about how car tycoon Henry Ford instructed his staff to survey waste depots and find out which of the Model T materials were not being worn. As a result, the axles were rebuilt to a lower standard. According to Dawkins, the same principle applies to evolution through natural selection. It is worth exploring Dawkins in full, because we will turn this argument against him:

“It is a component of an animal to be too good for him, and we should expect that natural selection would abetted lowering quality to, but not beyond, the point of balance with the qualities of the other components of the body.” 52

Evolution is already here. As effective as the brain is, the average intelligent human being does not use it even close to its full capacity. How could Dawkins explain such a massive over-engineering of the human brain? What useful survival skills did music and math provide to our predecessor hunters?

Evolutionists would argue that the brain’s algorithms have not evolved for music and math, but they have become appropriate thanks to development for other purposes. However, no one can guess what those other goals that led to such a highly developed mental capacity might be. Charles Darwin’s partner, Alfred Wallace, clearly acknowledges the contradiction when he writes:

“An instrument (the human brain) was refined before its owner had such needs.”

Going back a million years to a time when one was struggling to survive, how could Richard Dawkins explain how evolution favored non-essential abilities in art, music, and mathematics? Why didn’t the brain, which should have evolved at least in part, benefit from any type of survival skills like enhanced sense of smell, infrared vision, improved hearing, etc.? It is supposed that the theory of evolution should explain everything, but obviously it does not explain the human brain. It is for this reason that some highly skilled modern scientists have begun to seek a new mechanism of natural selection. 53 Alfred Wallace first opened the debate, raising his suspicion that another factor, “some unknown spiritual element,” was needed to explain man’s extraordinary artistic and scientific ability.

The last nail in the coffin of evolutionists is this: where is the competitor who caused the evolution of the brain of Homo sapiens to such an extreme level of size and complexity? Which rival has made the intellectual capacity to be so substantially developed for survival? Who are we trying to make a fool of?

Could rivalry between species be an explanation? Nowadays, the most remarkable achievements, space flights and nuclear weapons, for example, are the result of a superpower race. Were the primitive people divided into rival, rival groups? Could the Neanderthal pose a rival danger to his friend Homo sapiens? On the contrary, events prove that the Neanderthal and the Cro-Magnon co-existed peacefully and quietly. Discoveries at the Saint-Cézar Cave, France, show that they lived for millennia in the immediate vicinity without fighting. Moreover, early humanoids continued to use simple stone tools for millions of years until 200,000 years ago. There is no sign that there has been an increase in cannon use, caused by conflict between different species. In the absence of an intellectual rival coinciding with this period of time, the evolutionary scenario for the human brain remains completely unthinkable.

Language barriers

        Many scholars believe that language is the key to humanity’s great leap forward, because it uniquely enables us to communicate 54 and pass on ideas and experiences from one generation to the next. Until recently, this leap forward was associated with behavioral changes that flooded Europe about 40,000 years ago. But in 1983 came the shocking revelation of the Neanderthal sublingual bone of 60,000 years ago, mentioned earlier, which proves that he was able to speak.

The origin of human speaking ability remains a contradictory problem and raises more questions than answers. Daniel Denet summarizes the state of confusion:

… The work of neuroanatomists and psychologists has shown that our brains have features that are missing in the brains of our closest relatives, characteristics that have played a significant role in language perception and reproduction. There is a huge division of opinion about when the last 6 million years or so, our language is 55 acquired these traits in what order and why. “

          Most scientists today believe that Homo sapiens have had speech since it first appeared. Human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) studies say that because speech is widespread today, it may have evolved from a genetic mutation in the “mitochondrial Eve” (mtDNA Eve) 200,000 years ago (see Chapter 11).

Noam Chomsky’s pioneering work has shown that newborn babies genetically inherit an innate and highly developed language structure. According to the recently refined and universally validated Chomsky theory of universal grammar, a child is able to subconsciously switch several electric keys in order to grasp and speak the language of his or her parents, no matter in which part of the world they are born. It is very telling that Chomsky, the world’s leading expert in the field of linguistics, cannot understand how the human speech acquisition system could have evolved through natural selection. ™

One of the most prominent evolutionists, Stephen J. Gould, acknowledges the difficulties of language evolution, assuming successfully that it is fraud or accidental development:

“The universality of the language are so different than anything else in nature and so bizarre in its structures, the origin as a side consequence of the increased volume of the brain primarily, rather than a simple progress in the beeping and gesturing ancestors seems telling.” 57 (It should accent.)

Why is one so proficient in speaking? According to Darwin’s theory, just a few simple throats would be enough for daily existence, and here we are with more than 26 alphabets and an average vocabulary of 25,000 words.

Moreover, speaking ability was not so simple or an obvious goal of natural selection. Human speech ability has affected both the shape and structure of the mouth and throat, as well as the brain. In the elderly, the larynx (voice box) is located much lower than in other mammals, and the palate (the hanging part of the cartilage above the root of the tongue) is not able to reach the top of the roof of the mouth. That is why we cannot breathe and swallow at the same time and are uniquely at risk of choking! 58This one-of-a-kind combination of traits can have only one purpose – to make human speech possible. In every other sense, this is an evolutionary flaw. Apart from the risk of choking, it is the reason why our teeth are too thick, so that before the antibiotics are discovered, moles that have been exposed to infection have often proved fatal. As difficult as it is to turn engineering into improving the brain and its acquired speech ability, it is so difficult to change the technique for developing speech ability.

Once again, we return to the mystery of the human brain. We are expected to believe that for some 6 million years, natural selection has led to the growth of our brains to the physical limits of the birth canal. Oh yes, quite an evolutionary pace! At the same time, the brain has acquired an indescribably efficient design with capabilities that are light years away from our daily existence needs. As Arthur Koostler put it:

“Cortex of humanoids has evolved over the last half a million years … with explosive speed, which as far as we are aware, is unprecedented.” 59

And here’s the biggest mystery. We are not supposed to have become intelligent overnight, but evolution is considered to be a slow process. Therefore, if we go back one or two million years, we would find a semi-intelligent being, using his newfound abilities to make attempts at primitive writing, the beginnings of art, and simple multiplication. But there is nothing there. Without exception, any evidence shows that man has continued to use the simplest stone tools for 6 million years, despite the growing volume of his brain. This is too strange and contradictory. We deserve a better explanation.

Sexual revolution

        I would like to complete the historical review of man – an evolutionary misunderstanding, focusing on a few more mysteries and chronological absurdities.

First, there is the mystery of missing hair. Some anthropologists claim that we remain covered with delicate hair, but this statement does not completely cover the substance of the matter. In a detailed study of The Naked Monkey, Desmond Morris sheds light on this strange anomaly:

         “Functionally, we are absolutely bare and our skin is completely exposed to the outside world. This state of affairs still needs to be explained, no matter how many gentle hairs we can count under a magnifying glass. ” 60

         Desmond Morris contrasts Homo sapiens with another 4237 mammals, most of them completely or partially hairy. The only unshaven creatures are those living underground (thus keeping their body temperature free of fur), aquatic animals (taking advantage of its aerodynamic shape) and armored living creatures such as the armadillo (where the coat would be superfluous). Morris’s comment is:

“The naked monkey (man) is completely lonely, marked by his nakedness, among the thousands of hairy, furry or fluffy mammals … if the coat had to be dropped, then it is clear that there must have been a serious reason for its removal.” 6 ‘

Darwinists are still forced today to give a satisfactory answer as to how and why one has lost their hair. Many imaginative theories were proposed, but none could provide a satisfactory explanation. One conclusion that probably needs to be suggested, based on the principle of ascending change, is that a person has spent a long time evolving at the same time either in water, 62 or in a very hot environment.

Another unique feature of humanity may provide us with a solution to the loss of body hair. The characteristic is sexuality. The issue was covered in a juicy detail by Desmond Morris, which highlighted unique human qualities, such as increased arousal, longer copulation and orgasm. 63 One particular anomaly is that the human female individual is always “warmed up”, although she may only conceive for several days each month. As Jared Diamond noted, this is an evolutionary enigma that cannot be explained by natural selection:

“The hot debate on human reproductive evolution to explain why we, nevertheless, finished with concealed ovulation and what kindness we receive from its timeless copulation.” 64

Many scientists have also commented on the anomaly of the male penis, which is by far the largest aroused penis among any living primate. Geneticist Steve Jones marks it as a mystery, “unexplained by science,” a 65th opinion that is continued by Jerad Diamond:

“… we come to a gross failure: the inability of twentieth-century science to formulate an adequate ‘Penis Length Theory’ … surprisingly, the important functions of the human penis seem unclear.” 66

Desmond Morris describes man as the “sexiest living primate”, but why has evolution given us such a generous gift? The whole human body looks perfectly designed for sexual arousal and mating. Morris sees elements of this plan in the enlarged breasts of the breast, sensitive ear pads and lips, and a vaginal angle that aids copulation face to face. 67 It also sheds light on our abundance of odor-producing glands, our unique facial motility, and our unique ability to produce tears at times – all qualities that enhance the extraordinary emotional bonding of couples between man and woman.

This great project was impossible until humans also lost their furry hair clothes, and as if the mystery of missing hair was resolved Unfortunately, it was not so simple because evolution did not come to fruition to achieve great design! The Darwinists are strangely silent about what accelerated steps are involved, but when it did, it was probably needed in a very, very long time.

No one has adequately explained the steps through which these tremendous changes were achieved in rallies in a short period of time – only 6 million years. Instead of a prolonged sexual evolution, it turns out that we have gone through a sudden sexual revolution, in complete opposition to the laws of Darwinism.

It is worth noting three more anomalies. The first is the horrific inability of human skin to self-recover. 68 In the context of the transition to the open savannah, where the two-legged man has become a completely vulnerable target, and in view of the gradual loss of the fur coat, it seems quite improbable that human skin should have become so delicate as that of our primal cousins.

The second anomaly is the unique lack of bone in the man’s penis. This is in stark contrast to other mammals who use the penis for short copulation. The selection of this vital bone has compromised the existence of human beings unless it has happened over a long period of time and in a peaceful environment.

The third anomaly is our eating habits. While most animals would swallow their food at one go, we allow ourselves the luxury of transporting our food from mouth to stomach for a full 6 seconds. This again implies a long period of quiet evolution.

The question that arises is where this prolonged and peaceful evolutionary process is supposed to have taken place, because it certainly does not meet the scenario already presented for Homo sapiens.

Genetic Engineering

         Now let’s explore the alternative to incredible human evolution. Could we be genetically created by gods “in their image and likeness”?

The texts cited in Chap. 1, really suggest that a physical operation was performed that resulted in Adam’s DNA being used to create Eve. Moreover, the texts suggest that humans were then mass-produced through a process that we would today recognize as “cloning.” As for the first Adam, the evidence claims that he was a hybrid mixture of god and homo erectus. If that seems too improbable, let’s pause and focus on genetics science. This is an area that will appear continuously in the next chapters.

The gene is basically a package of chemical information consisting of deoxyribonucleic acid – DNA. It is now clear that the qualities of individuals are determined by the four letters of the DNA alphabet, or the “bases” of A, D, C and T (A, 0, C, T), 69 combined in three-letter words, generating 64 possible words. These words mostly encode amino acids, which combine to form proteins (proteins), the building blocks of the body. Nowadays, scientists have begun to “read” these “letters” and “words” of the genetic code, thus isolating many genes and identifying their specific instructions.

The human genome spans all the genes of our 23 pairs of chromosomes. It is estimated that there are three billion chemical “letters” in the entire human genome, providing data equivalent to a billion-page directory. Scientists refer to it as “our inherited message” or “biological recipe for man.” It is a commonly cited statistic that DNA in one cell, if untwisted, would reach 6 feet * in length, and DNA from the entire human body would spread to the moon and back 8,000 times.

After the discovery of DNA from Watson and Creek in 1953, rivers of new discoveries poured into genetics. In 1980, two very significant discoveries were made, awarded with the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Walter Gilbert of Harvard and Frederic Sanger of the University of Cambridge together refined accelerated methods for reading huge segments of DNA, while Paul Berg of Stanford University invented the gene fusion process.

How could gods of flesh and blood use genetics to perform physical intervention in human creation? Let’s take a quick look at the three main lines of applied genetic science that have been discovered in the last twenty years: cloning, gene fusion, and cell fusion.

Cloning of human beings has been possible for many years, although for ethical reasons the practice is limited to animals. The process would work if the set of 23 chromosomes from the female egg were removed first. 70 The egg can then be implanted with the entire set of 46 chromosomes from each human cell. This would result in the fertilization and birth of a predetermined individual, an exact copy of the source of the indivisible set of chromosomes. An alternative to eliminating female chromosomes is to deactivate the nucleus of the egg either chemically or by irradiation.

* 1 ft = 0.3048 m (white translation)

            Gene splicing, also known as recombinant DNA technology, may take the form of inserting a new gene into or removing an unwanted gene from the DNA strand. The process involves the use of enzymes to allow the strands of DNA to be cut at desired locations and then either to remove the “core” that makes up the gene or to insert a “foreign” gene; the DNA is subsequently recombined. An example of gene fusion is the Mighty Mouse, created by researchers at the Universities of Washington and Pennsylvania in 1982 by incorporating an adult rat gene into a mouse; then the mouse grew twice its normal size. A number of ‘improved’ plants have been created to resist disease, including the infamous example of decayed tomato.

While gene fusion attempts to enhance the selective aspect without altering the individual, cell fusion even more controversially involves the creation of new hybrid beings! The process works by fusing cells from two different sources into a “supercell” containing two nuclei and a double set of mating chromosomes. When this cell is divided, the result is a selected mixture. For example, in 1983, scientists combined sheep and goats (which do not naturally gather), creating a “coffin” with rich fleece and goat horns. However, it has not been proven that it is possible to predetermine the result of mixing, so that the production of these experiments is an unpredictable chimera.

In 1989, the Human Genome project was officially announced in the US to coordinate $ 3 billion in international research. The purpose of this international project is to detect, analyze and record the 3 billion chemical “letters” of the human genome and map our 100,000 genes in specific geographical areas based on our chromosomes. In December 1993, a “human genome physical map” was published by the Sickle – Center for the Study of Human Diversity in Paris, representing the enormous significance of this study. By making its map internationally accessible via the Internet, Sickle believes it enables gene hunters to move ten times faster in the future, with the real prospect of deciphering all 3 billion chemical letters in the human genetic code as early as the beginning of the 21st century. Dr. Daniel Cohen, director of Sickle, states:

“Until today there was physical map only 2 percent of the human genome, our map covers about 90 percent.” 71

Since this research has been completed, humanity already has the power to create its own image in its own image. At that time, if we were able to find beings on another planet that would have a similarity to our DNA, we would be able to cross with them and choose any features that we would like to include; or, of course, to exclude. And these creatures could undoubtedly call us “gods.”

One hundred years ago, science fiction would have been the assumption that humanity looked like the fruit of genetic engineering as a hybrid creature and then cloned. It would also be outrageous to assume that the biblical Elohim actually resorted to such physical methods. Today, such assumptions are scientifically valid and absolutely acceptable. The question is, “Are we just reinventing the technology that was used 200,000 years ago?”

Find out from Chapter Two

• Homo sapiens suddenly appeared about 200,000 years ago with a fifty percent enlargement of the brain, along with the ability to speak modern anatomy. According to the theory of natural selection, this is statistically almost impossible.

  • Human DNA shows signs of passing through an extremely long and relatively quiet period of evolution. This is inconsistent with the evolutionary separation of apes some 6 million years ago.
  • The evolutionary anomalies in man completely coincide with the idea of ​​concentrated genetic intervention by gods of flesh and blood.
  • According to ancient texts, the first Adam is a test baby in a test tube made by gods of already living matter. Adam’s DNA (not his rib) was used to create the first woman. The humans are then cloned to rid the gods of “overwork”.

About the author:


“When the Gods came down” is Alan Allen’s second translated book, after “The Gods of the New Millennium” (Guturanov and Son, ed.). He visited the pyramids for 14 years, and since then the ancient mysteries have not left his mind. He travels constantly, studying religions and archeology. And he writes his books. In so doing, it concludes that the original universal human god was “born” as a celestial body, which exploded and fertilized the Earth with its meteorites. And this revelation leads him to destroy the secret meaning of the flood and the creation of man.

Erich von Deniken inspired the young Alford. “Even if von Deniken’s theories are wrong (and now I’m sure they are), the fact is that his open-minded and open-minded mindset sheds light on many anomalies in orthodox” explanations “is his estimate today. Even if his theories turn out to be wrong, at least his books are fascinating. And thicker than the Deniken’s.