The extra-terrestrial contribution to Man

“There was no ‘Missing Link’ in our jump from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens, because the Anunnaki jumped the gun on Evolution through genetic engineering” (Zachariah Sitchin in ‘Gods, Demigods, and Human Ancestry: The Evidence of Alien DNA’). “… it happened some 300,000 years ago – just when Homo Sapiens suddenly appeared in southeast Africa.”

“The Bible, though more briefly, reports the same: ‘And Yahweh Elohim took The Adam’ – from where he had been created – ‘and placed him in the Garden of Eden to till it and tend it.’ (The Bible specifically precedes here ‘Adam’ – He of Earth, an Earthling – with the definitive article ‘The’, making clear it is a species that is written about … “). So said Sitchin.

Sitchin also says “ … there was one source of DNA for all life on Earth … “ “ … the human genome contains 223 genes that do not have any predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree.” “ … the difference between Man and Chimpanzee is just about 300 genes … “ He says that our genome contains less than 30,000 genes.

An amazing view. How credible is it?

Evolution or cataclysm?

What was the skin colour of the earliest of the homo species? More relevantly, what was the skin colour of homo sapiens? Would it have been somewhere between black and white? Although modern Man came out of Africa (refer Oppenheimer), it does not mean that our ancestor was black. In fact, the colour of Neanderthal Man was recently assessed as coppery brown. Perhaps, taupe (dark-brownish grey) is the near-norm for humans and many animals (and many of the birds in my district).

I have read that the original colour of mankind was tan (dark honey). Prolonged exposure to the sun (say, at the coast) would obviously darken that skin, but that does not explain black skin colour. Furthermore, relatively dark-skinned people have been reported as resident in Taiwan, on the Chinese mainland, and Central America.

How then explain the whitish people – spread across the globe from East Asia to Europe and further West? Living away from the sun for eons cannot whiten a brown body. A suggested explanation is that a blast of cosmic radiation from a supernova, affecting the terrain centred on the Tropic of Cancer, occurring about 40,000 years ago, resulted in the descendants of the survivors becoming predominantly white (with a more coppery touch in the European peninsula of Asia). The Cosmos, rather than evolution, may have been responsible for all those denied a lovely colouration (I do admit my bias!)

As for black skin, could evolution, working through natural selection, have favoured those humans living in hot, tropical lands who had developed near-black to black skin through random mutation? The trigger for random mutation of our genes may most likely be the torrent of radiation flowing from the sun, as well as from space – and of which we are not aware!

The only explanation left is that the alleged 223 extra-terrestrial genes in Man were predisposed to black skin.

How did religiosity arise in Man?

One can imagine that, very early Man, in spite of habitually moving upright on 2 legs, behaved no differently from the animals when best by awesome, terribly frightening thunder and lightning accompanying heavy rain. As well, there may have been devastating explosions caused by a few deadly sporadic impacts by meteors, or even larger lumps of cosmic rock.

For instance, reportedly, there is a vast vertical tunnel about 20 kms deep into the sea adjacent to Chile. That might explain the sudden rise of the Andes mountain range; as well as the presence of sea shells at the top of this range. How would mankind – early or advanced – cope with that, or similar bombardments from the sky?

Did the feelings of awe and fear lead, somehow, to attempts to propitiate those imagined to be responsible for the clamour and catastrophes continually cast upon them? However, to conceive of an act of propitiation would surely require a brain far superior to that of Early Man. The latter may have evolved from, or been based upon, our alleged near-cousin in the animal kingdom.

Could random mutation somehow expand the conceptual capacity of the human brain? Or, did the extra-terrestrials who had introduced the extra 223 genes into Man been responsible? Or, did a cosmic cataclysm, in the form of an exceptional burst of radiation, alter the human brain, increasing its capacity for conceptualisation? This issue has nothing to do with brain size.

An interesting thought: did not THE Adam (refer the Bible), whether created, wrought, or evolved, have to learn about morality, about right or wrong behaviour? It does take a certain level of brain function to learn, as evidenced by animals (as well as people, of course) being trained. For instance, I trained a German Shepherd pup in 2 months, but failed with a pedigreed pup of another breed over 4 months.

Did the eventual move from propitiation to a full-blown religiosity require a further development of the human brain? If so, what were the physical causes? Or, were there social relationship causes; that is, learning to do things in a collective manner?

Who benefits from religious conversion?

Is there some benefit to someone persuading a member of a faith to convert to another faith? Which religious institutions encourage their members to seek converts? Is there some incentive provided to the converter by his church? What benefits flow to the church which acquires members persuaded to convert or join? More (voting) power when dealing with politicians? Why would churches seek more power?

From a different perspective: what benefits, if any, flow to the converted or joiner? Would these benefits be significantly different from the benefits available from any organisation active in civil society; that is, organisations such as Rotary or some other group working for the betterment of society?

I have also been told that Christianity’s New Testament offers the following: ‘Only through me shall ye know God.’ Such a statement would surely have been made by Jesus only to those in his environment about 2,000 years ago.

Against that, the Hindus’ Krishna is reported to have said “Whatever god to whom you pray, it is I who will answer.’ Can both statements be true? Since these statements would have been directed to widely divergent audiences, in different places, at significantly separate times in history, without either knowing about the other … … !

The crucial issue here is – is there any need for religions to compete with one another? What would be the benefit of competition? Were we all, as individuals, to arrive at the single much-desired door by different paths, what could we say to one another?

Collecting heathen souls

At a weekly morning-coffee session in the university ‘caf’ (cafeteria) of a handful of Asian students (from India, Ceylon and Malaya), there arrived a young lady tutor in the company of one of the regulars. One morning, after they had come together for a few weeks, the tutor asked me about my faith. I told her.

I was then surprised at her next question. Would I consider becoming a Christian? By then I had become aware of something terrible – the bitter sectarian divide between Roman Catholics and Protestants in Australia. While the back of my mind fleetingly wondered which brand of Christianity I was being invited to join, I became curious as to why I was receiving such an invitation. Did I look like a lost soul? Did I so miss my usual practice of reaching out to God at home that it was perceivable by my new friend?

With this invitation, I decided to ask a different question. I said, “You know about my religious beliefs. I have also told you that we live our faith; we practice it. I do it here. So, should I become a Christian, what would I do differently? Would my behaviour need to change?” “I’ll consider your question until we meet again,” she said.

At our next meeting, she said, to the surprise of everyone present, “No, you will not be behaving differently. There is no need for you to convert.” I was pleased. Religion is for living, not for spouting dogma or soul-hunting, surely!

A sole path to salvation?

“Have you considered joining the faith?” he asked me. I had no idea what he was referring to. I was all of 19, with little contact with Europeans (white people) and their accents, and in a country (Australia) whose occupants did not generally present themselves as friendly (not even my fellow-students at the university), and here I was being asked a personal question by a total stranger! I was seated in the auditorium waiting the speaker when a youngish man dressed in black sat next to me.

To the few, on public transport or at the university, who sought to talk to us Asian students, I would respond to questions about where I had come from, and why I was in the country. The man-in-black went further: he asked if I was religious. I therefore told him that I had attended a Hindu temple once a week (as soon as I was old enough to cycle there), and that the family prayed every night before dinner in a niche in a room set up for that purpose.

In response to the question from that stranger – who had already touched upon what would, in a civilised society, be a private matter – I asked “What faith?” “Christianity” he replied. After a moment’s thought, I asked “ Why would I need to change religions, since I had just told you about the extent of my devotions?

He took a few moments before he said, “For your salvation.” Somehow I understood what he was implying. I then said “Why do you say, since you already know about the depth of my faith, that you will be saved, but not me?”

He turned his head away, sat silently for a minute, and then walked away without a word. An honest man, I thought. But a frustrated soul-gatherer, and rude!

What are we humans evolving into?

This is another challenge from a fellow-blogger. It is a worthwhile thought! Quo vadis?

Evolution in the biological sphere is an automatic process. Random alterations in the genome occur all the time; change is probably ubiquitous in circumstances when movement, perhaps in the form of vibrations (such as electromagnetic vibrations), is also the norm. One can envisage the dances of the particles constituting matter, or the myriad waves of forces permeating all spaces in the universe.

When genetic variation results in new features or characteristics, and the modification enhances the operational or survival capacity of the individual, this may provide the individual (or even the species) with an advantage in survival. This is known as natural selection – the essence of an autonomous pathway.

It has been claimed that a shock wave of radiation from a supernova named Vela about 40,000 years ago affected mankind significantly. The artistic (and possibly conceptual) abilities of Early Man are said to have evolved then. The cave paintings we know are said to have originated within about 2,000 years (or 71 generations) after that shock wave went through Earth.

However, at issue is whether the progress claimed for Nature through this autonomous process of evolution covered the original evolution of Man. Since no inter-species evolution has been proven (only intra-species evolution), and since we apparently have about 222 genes not found in the animal kingdom, how did we evolve? Through extra-terrestrial intervention? By the modification of an appropriate species? Refer THE Adam in the Old Testament, and Zachariah Sitchin’s claim (seemingly based on Sumerian cuneiform writings) that giants from planet Nibiru created mankind.

Evolution is implicated in the concept of reincarnation. Each life is said to offer opportunities for moral improvement – which we certainly need! Here, chance is replaced by choice (free will)!

Nature may yet enable us to evolve through the genome, but would it need a cosmic cataclysm as a trigger? Would we possibly evolve through the intervention of ‘higher beings’? Could any evolution bypass the genome, perhaps in a Lamarkian manner; that is, through the inheritance of acquired characteristics without any change in the genetic pathway?

In a universe in which anything can seemingly happen, we will need to wait and see.

Searching for the truth

Two opposing views – both cannot be true; exclusivity is a must for truth to exist. This most interesting thought has been raised with me by a fellow blogger.

I am challenged by the idea that exclusivity is a must for truth. So, only one sun per solar system? How about the Sirius system? Then, what is truth? That the sun spun around Earth – was that not once the truth? Of course – truth requires a fact or some form of reality.

When the spirit of my uncle appears without a body, communicates telepathically with my clairvoyant while lacking a brain, and heard and responded to something I said to the clairvoyant, was that reality restricted to me and the clairvoyant? As well, when light can be both particle and wave (proven beyond doubt), isn’t the truth bifurcated, non-exclusive?

When the truth relates to a religious belief, how does one define truth? Can there be multiple truths? What of dogma devised to achieve a competitive edge (eg. regarding the Messiah)? There have been, and there are, wars caused by combating religions or their sects reflecting their version of the truth about God (and our relationships with Him).

When the rigorous processes of the scientific method cannot achieve durable – yes, durable and unchallengeable – conclusions in so many key areas of scientific relevance, should assertions of belief in other matters be left to the philosophers? They will, no doubt, enjoy the semantic exchanges which will follow, with abstractions of higher or lower orders confusing the rest of us.

Perhaps, (a) by keeping the claims of religionists to the simplest operational level, (b) by accepting that truth, however defined, may not be static, and (c) allowing multiple truth-claims to co-exist without any priority, the betterment of mankind may be achieved.

For those of us who believe in a Creator, it would be desirable surely to join together spiritually while we tread the many paths to the Divine. The ultimate truth may be found when we accept that we are all responsible for taking one another, including our great spiritual teachers in history, amicably to that which we all seek!

How would the sceptics explain these?

A grandson of mine, at the age of 5, could ‘pot’ a basket ball into a ring set at adult height. He would also pirouette from time to time, face the ring, and pot the ball accurately. Inheritance? A past-life memory skill? How could such a young boy display the most improbable capability of an adult skill?

I have seen little drummers and pianists on the Internet display high standards of adult performance, normally beyond the muscular and mental co-ordination of age-cohorts. Only past-life memories make sense. To reject that as a possibility (only as a possibility) is to invite suspicions of intellectual incapacity or emotional bias.

This is a further extract from the article by Stacy Horn titled ‘The children who’ve lived before’ in the May 2015 issue of Reader’s Digest.

“Close to three quarters of the cases investigated by the team are ‘solved,’ meaning that a person from the past matching the child’s memories is identified. In addition, nearly 20% of the kids in the UVA cases have naturally occurring marks or impairments that match scars and injuries on the past person. One boy who recalled being shot possessed two birthmarks – a large ragged one over his left eye and a small one on the back of his head – which lined up like a bullet’s entrance and exit wounds.”

I wonder how anyone objective could reject such evidence.

However, it is important not to confuse the investigations into the reports of little children about their past lives with investigations under hypnosis of older children and adults – whether of past lives or of paranormal experiences. False memories (cryptomnesia?), much based on contamination-exposures, have been proven to occur with investigations of the latter.

The former can be verified objectively by actual events and persons involved.
The latter investigations involve subjective perceptions and alleged memories, which can be quite unreliable, especially when the subjects refer to satanic experiences, and also falsely implicate innocent family members. What of the role of the hypnotist in the latter cases?

The possibility of reincarnation

Cultures circumscribe the human mind. The only Christians I know who are willing to accept the possibility of reincarnation are those who do not attend Church, and who are not interested in the dogma of the church. Cultural bias is also insidious.

It creeps into your baggage of beliefs by a form of emotional osmosis. You may not even be aware of that bias. Since scientists and scholars are human too, some will deny any bias, preferring to sail on a semantic sea with sceptical scenarios to fill their sails.

According to the Reader’s Digest article of May 2015 by Stacy Horn titled ‘The children who’ve lived before,’ “ … more than 75 million people in America – across all religions – believed in reincarnation.” Against that, one would expect every believer in the ‘forest’ religions of Asia would accept reincarnation as reality. This belief is a crucial component of these faiths; and, as said by a professor of religious studies quoted in the above article, “It’s a great improvement over the doctrine of eternal hell.”

It would be obvious to any open-minded person that, in a universe which manifests all manner of features not yet explained (or never to be explained), a belief in reincarnation is, like the belief in the reality of spirits and an Afterlife, just that. There is really no need to feel challenged. Why feel challenged?

All beliefs are just that. Proof or disproof is not possible. Why reject any reliable evidence available? In the absence of such evidence, can we deny someone’s belief simply because we do not like it? I have in mind a priest who claims that he talks to God every day!