Will
Hart: Our Extraterrestrial DNA and the True Origins of the Species
01 November 2012
Source:
The
Healers Journal, 11/01/12
The
Dawn of the Genesis Race: Our Extraterrestrial DNA and the True Origins of the
Species
By Will
Hart | New Dawn Magazine
The mysteries of ancient
history, such as how the Great Pyramid was built and by whom and why, have been
well established over the past four decades. Similar archaeological enigmas
litter the landscape around the planet and they raise many difficult questions
about the origin of human civilisation.
Erik Von Daniken’s
series of books, which began with Chariots of the Gods,presented
archeological evidence while recounting many mythological traditions that have
“gods” arriving on Earth from a distant world and bringing technology and the
arts of civilised life to primitive human tribes.
Many writers followed
Von Daniken’s lead and an entire school of alternative historical thought
called the “ancient astronaut” theory emerged over the years. This school must
be distinguished from another branch largely defined by such writers as Graham
Hancock, which we can sum up as the “lost civilisation” school.
The latter does not
figure into this discussion nor is it covered in my book The Genesis
Race because it never really addresses the issue of the ultimate origins
of Man or civilisation. Even if you accept the idea ancient Egypt and Sumer had
their origins in Atlantis, who created that civilisation and from what
precursors?
The essential questions
the author has been studying over the past three decades are: 1) how did life
originate and evolve on Earth?, and 2) how did civilisation suddenly emerge
from mankind’s primitive roots? To my mind it seemed the ancient astronaut
theory could be defeated if Darwin’s theory proved to be correct, which
“official science” claims it has been. That premise can be justified using
several valid arguments.
The “ancient astronaut”
theory generally includes the idea summed up in the first chapter
of Genesis, which indicates the “gods” genetically engineered a
proto-human race. The actual verse reads, “Let us make man in our image.” If
Darwinism is accurate then this assertion would be untrue and the notion of
cosmic intervention by an advanced race would fall apart.
The second reason is
Darwin’s theory has not only been applied to biology, it is also used to
explain the emergence and development of human civilisation by a process
referred to as cultural evolution.
At its core Darwinism is
based on a simple concept: life evolves slowly via a process of incremental
adaptations to a wide variety of external stimulus. He applied it to biology
and anthropologists, archaeologists and historians applied the same principles
to culture and human history. If this is correct then we should not find any
abrupt transformations in human “evolution” either biological or historical.
I reason that if Darwinism
is accurate then there may not be any valid scientific basis for the “ancient
astronaut” theory, which posited intervention and rapid-fire metamorphosis in
both the biological and historical spheres. The results of this research proved
surprising. Darwinism is not only unproven – it has been shown by scientists to
be fatally flawed. This is where my book, The Genesis Race, begins.
Chapters two and three clearly show the flaws in the theory of evolution. It
has failed exactly where Darwin feared it might – in the fossil record. Here we
find – instead of widespread confirmation – a large number of missing links.
The general public is
given to believe the only “missing link” in the fossil record exists between
apes and man. This is not true. The fossil record contains hundreds of gaps
between ancient and modern plant and animal species. Darwin referred to the gap
separating the primitive non-flowering plants (gymnosperms) and flowering
plants (angiosperms) as the “abominable problem.” Why? Because the gymnosperms,
like ferns, existed for billions of years and they still exist today. The
angiosperms, like roses, appeared on the scene about 150 million years ago and
they exist today. Where is the evidence showing the fern evolved through a
series of slow, incremental changes into a rose?
According to Darwinism
the angiosperms evolved from the gymnosperms. If this is true then where are
the intermediate forms linking the two very different types of plants? They
have not been found in the fossil record and none exist today. This seems
impossible and it is if you accept the principles of Darwinism.
There is no scientific
explanation for the lack of intermediate plants linking the ancient and modern
types. In fact, there should be millions of such fossils since they would have
been evolving for hundreds of millions of years, far longer than flowering
plants.
Scientists also have no
explanation why gymnosperms and angiosperms exist side by side. Somehow all the
intermediate plants they say connect the two kingdoms mysteriously vanished
from the fossil record and became extinct. Logic would dictate that the older,
ancient plants (non-flowering) should have been the ones to go the way of
extinction. This is actually enough evidence to kill Darwinism. Official
science would have us believe the only dissenters against Darwinism are
Creationists that come from the ranks of the Religious Right. However, I
present numerous references to bona fide scientists that slam the door on
Darwin’s theory of natural evolution.
What is, or should be,
of great interest to anyone interested in the pursuit of science – as it
applies to getting to the truth of human origins and the emergence of
civilisation – are the works of Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle.
While Von Daniken’s
books were becoming popular in mainstream culture, these two eminent scientists
wrote books about the origins of life on Earth. Both were highly critical of
Darwinism and posited that life did not originate on Earth. They said the seeds
of the biosphere originated in the cosmos.
In his book Life
Itself, Crick – a Nobel prize-winner and the co-founder of the shape of the DNA
molecule – claimed an advanced civilisation transported the seeds of life to
Earth in a spacecraft. Hoyle, an astronomer who gave the world the steady state
theory of the Universe, proposed that life came from the stars borne on comets
or riding on the currents of light waves. The unfortunate thing is these
rigorous scientific arguments were largely dismissed or completely ignored by
“official science”, and also overlooked by the same folks embracing Von
Daniken’s relatively unscientific, yet popular approach. (Erik did make people
question and think.)
I want to clarify what I
mean by that statement. Von Daniken claimed he was presenting a theory yet the title
of his first book ended with a question mark. A new theory is normally offered
by presenting arguments against the currently accepted theory, as Crick and
Hoyle did, and it is presented assertively with equal measures of humility and
confidence that do not end in a question mark. His somewhat insecure and
uncritical approach has characterised much of the “ancient astronaut”
literature, which official science finds easy to debunk.
That is why The
Genesis Race begins with a serious critique of Darwinism. That is followed
by several chapters re-examining the account of human genesis and the early
history found in the Bible. A revolutionary analysis of the first three
chapters clearly shows there were two creation events of life (and mankind) on
Earth. It also shows the history given in the Bible agrees with the findings of
paleontology and anthropology. In the first chapter we find that an early
proto-human race was created and lived in the wilderness, like other animals,
as hunter-gatherers. They were given “every green thing to eat” by the gods
andGenesis 1 ends with that covenant.
However, in the second
chapter we are told Adam is created to be a gardener and Eve is taken from
Adam’s rib and the “gods” give them clothing and self-awareness. The chronological
account of Creation in the second chapter is entirely different than that of
the first chapter of Genesis.
This is a critical
point. Not only do the two accounts differ completely, we find Adam is not to
live in the wilderness as an animal but is intended to be a caretaker and
farmer. If the two accounts are compared side by side the difference is
obvious: Adam and Eve are not equivalent to the race created inGenesis 1;
and Genesis 2 and 3 are not a detailed elucidation of the events described
in the first chapter, which is normally implied or taught in church Bible
classes.
What the first three
chapters of Genesis actually describe are: 1) the creation of a
proto-human race, the pre-Neanderthals and Neanderthals who live as
hunter-gatherers in an innocent state as described in chapter 1, followed by,
2) the genesis of modern Homosapiens (Adam) fit for the agricultural
revolution. That is exactly the history given in Genesis and it
agrees with everything modern science establishes about the chronology of human
pre-history.
This
is a radical revision giving much stronger support to the Biblical version of
human genesis and how and why the agricultural revolution took place. It also
clarifies who the “us” refers to when God is abruptly referred to as ‘a plurality’
that intervenes and genetically alters life on Earth, the Genesis Race;
and it sets the stage for a presentation of the enigmatic archaeological and
additional evidence that further supports the theory of intervention by a
technologically advanced extraterrestrial race.
Archaeology has never
even addressed all the questions raised by the sudden emergence of agriculture
and highly advanced civilisations in Mesopotamia and Egypt in the 3rd
millennium BCE, let alone answered the most critical ones.
From the perspective of
conventional archeological and anthropological thinking, the origins of
humankind and the emergence of civilisation from the Stone Age remain
enigmatic. We have incontrovertible proof our ancestors could not have built
the Great Pyramid with the tools and methods they possessed. Yet official
science simply ignores or tries to explain away many serious questions and
issues such as how the Great Pyramid – the world’s largest precision-engineered
stone structure – was constructed using only hammer-stones, ropes, manpower and
sledges.
However, there are other
issues that need to be addressed and today’s genetic research is shedding new
light on this field. The implications of several important recent findings seem
to have escaped the attention of many independent investigators. Established
archaeologists and anthropologists have either ignored or railed against the
findings of these controversial DNA studies. I am referring to genetic studies
into the origin of the domesticated dog and into the diet of our Paleolithic
and early Neolithic ancestors.
You may ask what do the
dog and Stone Age dietary habits have to do with solving the enigmas of
mankind’s ancient past? The answer is everything. Until recently it was
believed dogs (Canis familiaris) came from a variety of wild canines such as
wolves, coyotes, dingos, jackals, etc. But the latest DNA research shows that
the wolf alone is the ancestral race of all dogs.
This poses a set of very
difficult problems. The first dog would have been a mutant wolf. However,
wolves are extremely sensitive to the genetic fitness and strength of each
member of the pack. They are constantly testing and establishing a stringent
social pecking order and only the alphas reproduce. So how would a mutant ever
have survived and reproduced given the rigours of pack behaviour? No wolves in
captivity have produced viable mutants and geneticists tell us mutants are
normally unfit and do not survive.
We are faced with a real
conundrum. If we pose that early human tribes intervened and bred wolves into
dogs we are faced with an equally impossible scenario. How could primitive
humans have known it was possible to selectively breed a wild animal into one
possessing only those traits beneficial to them? We take the characteristics of
dogs for granted, however, they present us with a profound mystery. A dog is
the embodiment of only those wolf traits that people find useful, attractive
and safe. How did genetically illiterate Stone Age humans achieve this feat of
genetic engineering?
This problem is
compounded when we are confronted by evidence from our earliest civilisations
showing that salukis, sighthounds and the pharaoh’s hound, had already been
bred in ancient Sumeria and Egypt. How is it possible our ancestors, recently
emerged from the Stone Age, could have successfully engineered purebred lines
at the onset of civilisation? In addition, dogs are not only temperamentally
different than their wild progenitors, they differ physiologically as well.
A wild alpha male and
female only breed once a year, whereas dogs can breed any time. Wolves shed
their winter coats, dogs do not. These diverging physiological characteristics
take time to develop, in fact, many generations. Again, how did our ancestors
at the onset of civilisation accomplish this?
This mystery is
underscored by the fact most of the modern dog breeds originated thousands of
years ago. Science has not even addressed most of these issues let alone have
the experts satisfactorily explained how wolves became dogs – 100,000 years ago
– nor have they shown the step-by-step transitions. Purebred dogs just suddenly
appear in the archeological record as if by magic. This is also true of
agriculture and our key cereal and legume crops. Wheat, corn, beans and rice
pose a second set of genetic enigmas.
Research into the
dietary habits of Stone Age tribes around the globe show our ancient
hunter-gatherer ancestors subsisted on leafy plants and lean muscle meats. This
makes perfect sense because these foods were readily available, took little or
no processing, and wild game could be cooked over an open fire. The problem
with our grain crops, and they are the basis of civilisation, is wild grass
seeds are so miniscule the cost/benefit of harvesting them was not in favour of
it. They also require harvesting, threshing and cooking technology since they
have to be boiled extensively. This was technology Stone Age Man lacked.
The reason grains have
to be cooked is that the human gut is not adapted to digest wild grains. This
makes it very clear the use of wild grass seeds as a primary food source is of
recent origin. Our Paleolithic ancestors did not subsist on them. Once again,
this poses a set of formidable problems that need to be studied rigorously. If
our ancestors did not harvest and eat wild grains, how could they have
domesticated and bred the wild species so quickly?
Without many generations
of trial and error experimentation – culminating in a vast body of agronomic
knowledge and agricultural practices that would have included genetics and
breeding – it is all but impossible to understand how the agricultural
revolution was brought about. Official science tries to explain the evolution
of nomadic hunter-gatherers into sedentary, crop-growing farmers by claiming
they discovered crops quite by accident. We are told it happened when a
primitive villager tossed a seed bearing plant into the trash pile and noticed
that it sprouted.
But that trite tale can
hardly explain how they selected the best wild species to use as the basis for
the agricultural revolution. There are thousands and thousands of potential
wild plants that could be turned into agricultural crops. How is it people with
very little experience with wild grasses were able to pick the best varieties
to breed? This represents a quantum leap. What we are asked to believe is that
our ancestors, without much experience at the seminal stage of civilisation,
were able to select and breed the very best varieties of wild grass species.
How do we know this is
true? Because we still grow the very crops they supposedly selected even after
5000 years of continuous technological and agricultural development. We are
asked to suspend disbelief and accept they also constructed the largest
precision-engineered stone building the world has ever seen – the Great Pyramid
of Giza – using only primitive hand tools and backbreaking labor. Something is
obviously wrong with this picture.
Is it logical to assume
our Earthly ancestors could (or would) have thrown together the agricultural
revolution and then the entire civilisations of Sumer and Egypt out of whole
cloth? No it is not; and neither do these suppositions represent sound science.
For those of us in the
alternative history camp, one of the most fundamental questions we must impress
upon the public and upon ‘official science’ is to ask where are the antecedents
and precedents? Show us the slow Darwinian stages of development that official
history presupposes. How can you explain the sudden appearance of genetically
altered food crops and advanced engineering techniques at the onset of human
civilisation?
We need step-by-step
documentation and incontrovertible evidence and it ought to be copious and
devoid of missing links since we are supposedly talking about events that
occurred thousands and not tens or hundreds of millions of years ago, as is the
case with biological evolution.
Where did our
Paleolithic ancestors acquire the knowledge and skills to breed wild plants
into food crops while also constructing planned cities? How did they achieve an
exacting command of the principles of civil engineering as exhibited in Sumeria
and the Harrappan civilisation of the Indus Valley? How did humans go from mud
huts and collecting leafy plants to building ziggurats, flush toilets, public
bathhouses (Mohenjo Daro), making bread in ovens, and inventing process
metallurgy seemingly overnight? In plain language, where is the proof – the
missing links – demonstrating your (official science) theories are confirmed in
the archaeological record and meet simple standards of logic and commonsense?
Turning to what our
ancestors in Sumer, Mexico, Egypt and Peru have to say about the origins of
agriculture and civilisation we find a very different story. According to the
ancient records, written and oral traditions, none of the earliest
civilisations claimed they invented it. What is of profound interest is they
are in unanimous accord in claiming they were given the arts of civilisation by
the ‘gods’.
It is very unlike human
nature to give credit to anyone else for anything we have invented or achieved.
The ancient Egyptians left copious records of every aspect of their culture in
a huge collection of artwork, hieroglyphics and texts. Yet we find no reference
in their 3,000 year history as to how or why ‘they’ built the pyramids. What a
curious lapse of documentation for such a communicative race assuming they did
indeed built the pyramids. Would they have omitted any reference to their most
important monuments?
That seems a
preposterous supposition and yet Egyptologists gloss over it as they do the
lack of mummies in the alleged ‘pyramids-as-tombs’ scenario they embrace
without blushing.
These are all clues,
pieces of a vast planetary puzzle, telling the story of the Genesis Race.
The references to these ‘gods’ that arrived on Earth to uplift man are
described in the Bible and other ancient texts and traditions. Their megalithic
calling cards are found in Egypt, Mexico, Peru and China.
The Darwinian-based
theories of ‘official science’, concerning the origin of Man and human
civilisation, lead to a series of intellectual dead ends. If we closely examine
the record we find civilisation was founded upon five primary inventions: 1)
Agriculture, 2) Urbanisation, 3) Writing, 4) The Wheel, and 5) Process
metallurgy.
Now, what happens when
we try to uncover the origins of these key inventions in the archaeological and
historical record? We find anthropologists and historians positing that
agriculture was probably discovered by accident when our primitive
ancestors tossed plants into the garbage heap and noticed the seeds produced
new plants. Of course that does not explain what motivated them to plant and
harvest wild grass seeds (they almost never ate) and how they learned to selectively
breed and domesticate (alter) these plants genetically.
Well, they brush aside
these queries with the same logic. This, too, was probably a serendipitous
process that moved forward by a series of benign and happy coincidences. We are
given to imagine the first domesticated animal, an example of perfect selective
breeding, also took place when Paleolithic tribesman – via unknown techniques –
domesticated a line of mutant wolves. Then we learn that process metallurgy,
too, was the result of an accident, when someone dropped a piece of malachite
into a campfire and observantly noticed that as it melted it produced copper.
–
Subscribe to author feed
