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