Human origins : The genetic evidence


Richard Moore

    No botanist can conclusively explain how wild plants gave rise
    to domesticated ones. ...
       ... wild varieties were entirely too small, entirely too tough
    and nutritionally inappropriate for humans. They needed to be
    greatly expanded in size, greatly softened in texture and
    overhauled at the molecular level--which would be an imposing
    challenge for modern botanists, much less Neolithic farmers.
       ...Despite the seeming impossibility of meeting those daunting
    objectives, modern botanists are confident the first
    sodbusters had all they needed to do it: time and patience.
    Over hundreds of generations of selective crossbreeding, they
    consciously directed the genetic transformation of the few
    dozen that would turn out to be most useful to humans. And how
    did they do it? By the astounding feat of doubling, tripling
    and quadrupling the number of chromosomes in the wild
    varieties! In a few cases, they did better than that. Domestic
    wheat and oats were elevated from an ancestor with seven
    chromosomes to their current 42--an expansion by a factor of

    ...Apart from disputes about the date and circumstances of our
    origin as a species, there are plenty of other problems with
    humans. Like domesticated plants and animals, humans stand
    well outside the classic Darwinian paradigm. Darwin himself
    made the observation that humans were surprisingly like
    domesticated animals. In fact, we are so unusual relative to
    other primates that it can be solidly argued that we do not
    belong on Earth at all - that we are not even from Earth,
    because we do not seem to have developed here.

Evidence for Creation by Outside Intervention 

Darwinists, Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents are
unable to explain anomalies in the emergence of domesticated
plants, animals and humans.

Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 9, Number 4 (June-July 2002) 
PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. •••@••.••• 
Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381 
From our web page at: 

by Lloyd Pye © 2002 
Email: •••@••.••• 


In 1905, a 25-year-old patent clerk named Albert Einstein
demolished the 200-year-old certainty that Isaac Newton knew
all there was to know about basic physics. In a technical
paper only a few pages long, Einstein sent a huge part of his
current "reality" to history's dustbin, where it found good
company with thousands of other discards large and small. In
1905, though, Newton's discard was about as large as the bin
would hold.

Now another grand old "certainty" hovers over history's
dustbin, and it seems only a matter of time before some new
Einstein writes the few (or many) pages that will bring it
down and relegate it to history. And, as was the case in 1905,
every "expert" in the world laughs heartily at any suggestion
that their certainty could be struck down. Yet if facts are
any yardstick--which should always be the case, but frequently
isn't--Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural
selection is moving towards extinction.

Please note this: not everyone who challenges evolution is
automatically a Creationist. Darwinists love to tar all
opponents with that brush because so much of Creationist dogma
is absurd. Creationists mulishly exclude themselves from
serious consideration by refusing to give up fatally flawed
parts of their argument, such as the literal interpretation of
"six days of creation". Of course, some have tried to take a
more reasonable stance, but those few can't be heard over the
ranting of the many who refuse.

Recently a new group has entered the fray, much better
educated than typical Creationists. This group has devised a
theory called "Intelligent Design", which has a wealth of
scientifically established facts on its side. The ID-ers,
though, give away their Creationist roots by insisting that
because life at its most basic level is so incredibly and
irreducibly complex, it could never have simply "come into
being" as Darwinists insist.

Actually, the "life somehow assembled itself out of organic
molecules" dogma is every bit as absurd as the "everything was
created in six days" dogma, which the ID-ers understand and
exploit. But they also suggest that everything came into
existence at the hands of God (by whatever name) or "by means
of outside intervention", which makes clear how they're
betting. "Outside intervention" is a transparent euphemism for
"You Know What" (with apologies to J. K. Rowling). [ In
Rowling's "Harry Potter" books, the arch villain is so
despicable and dreadful, his name should not even be uttered;
thus he is referred to as "You Know Who". Similarly, the very
idea that humans might have been created by extraterrestrials
is so despicable and dreadful to mainstream science and
religion that no mention of it should be uttered; thus the
author refers to it as "You Know What". Ed. ] To Darwinists,
Creationists and ID-ers alike, creation at the hands of You
Know What is the most absurd suggestion of all. Yet it can be
shown that You Know What has the widest array of facts on its
side and has the best chance of being proved correct in the

Virtually every scientist worth their doctorate will insist
that somehow, some way, a form of evolution is at the heart of
all life forms and processes on Earth. By "evolution", they
mean the entire panoply of possible interpretations that might
explain how, over vast stretches of time, simple organisms can
and do transform themselves into more complex organisms. That
broad definition gives science as a whole a great deal of room
to bob and weave its way towards the truth about evolution,
which ostensibly is its goal. However, among individual
scientists that same broadness of coverage means nobody has a
"lock" on the truth, which opens them up to a withering array
of internecine squabbles.

In Darwin's case, those squabbles were initially muted.
Rightly or wrongly, his theory served a much higher purpose
than merely challenging the way science thought about life's
processes. It provided something every scientist desperately
needed: a strong counter to the intellectual nonsense pouring
from pulpits in every church, synagogue and mosque in the

Since well before Charles Darwin was born, men of science knew
full well that God did not create the Earth or anything else
in the universe in six literal days. But to assert that
publicly invited the same kind of censure that erupts today
onto anyone who dares to challenge evolution openly. Dogma is
dogma in any generation.

Darwin's honeymoon with his scientific peers was relatively
brief. It lasted only as long as they needed to understand
that all he had really provided was the outline of a forest of
an idea, one that only in broad terms seemed to account for
life's stunningly wide array. His forest lacked enough
verifiable trees. Even so, once the overarching concept was
crystallised as "natural selection", the term "survival of the
fittest" was coined to explain it to laymen. When the majority
of the public became convinced that evolution was a legitimate
alternative to Creationism, the scientific gloves came off.
In-fighting became widespread regarding the trees that made up
Darwin's forest.

Over time, scientists parsed Darwin's original forest into
more different trees than he could ever have imagined. That
parsing has been wide and deep, and it has taken down
countless trees at the hands of scientists themselves. But
despite such thinning, the forest remains upright and intact.
Somehow, some way, there is a completely natural force at work
governing all aspects of the flow and change of life on Earth.
That is the scientific mantra, which is chanted religiously to
counter every Creationist--and now Intelligent
Design--challenge to one or more of the rotten trees that
frequently become obvious.

Even Darwin realised the data of his era did not provide
clear-cut evidence that his theory was correct. Especially
troubling was the absence of "transitional species" in the
fossil record. Those were needed to prove that, over vast
amounts of time, species did in fact gradually transform into
other, "higher" species.

So right out of the chute, the theory of evolution was on the
defensive regarding one of its cornerstones, and more than 140
years later there are still no clear-cut transitional species
apparent in the fossil record.

Because this is the most vulnerable part of Darwin's theory,
Creationists attack it relentlessly, which has forced
scientists periodically to put forth a series of candidates to
try to take the heat off. Unfortunately for them, in every
case those "missing links" have been shown to be outright
fakes and frauds. An excellent account is found in Icons of
Evolution by Jonathan Wells (Regnery, 2000). But scientists
are not deterred by such exposure of their shenanigans. They
feel justified because, they insist, not enough time has
passed for them to find what they need in a grossly incomplete
fossil record.

The truth is that some lengthy fossil timelines are missing,
but many more are well accounted for. Those have been
thoroughly examined in the past 140-plus years, to no avail.
In any other occupation, a 140-year-long trek up a blind alley
would indicate a wrong approach has been taken. But not to
scientists. They blithely continue forward, convinced of the
absolute rightness of their mission and confident their fabled
missing link will be found beneath the next overturned rock.
Sooner or later, they believe, one of their members will
uncover it, so they all work in harmonious concert towards
that common goal. Individually, though, it's every man and
woman for themselves.


Plants and animals evolve, eh? Alright, how do they evolve?

By gradual but constant changes, influenced by adaptive
pressures in their environment that cause physical
modifications to persist if they are advantageous.

Can you specify the kind of gradual change you're referring

In any population of plants or animals, over time, random
genetic mutations will occur. Most will be detrimental, some
will have a neutral effect and some will confer a selective
advantage, however small or seemingly inconsequential it might

Really? But wouldn't the overall population have a gene pool
deep enough to absorb and dilute even a large change? Wouldn't
a small change rapidly disappear?

Well, yes, it probably would. But not in an isolated segment
of the overall population. An isolated group would have a much
shallower gene pool, so positive mutations would stand a much
better chance of establishing a permanent place in it.

Really? What if that positive mutation gets established in the
isolated group, then somehow the isolated group gets back
together with the main population? Poof! The mutation will be
absorbed and disappear.

Well, maybe. So let's make sure the isolated population can't
get back with the main group until crossbreeding is no longer

How would you do that?

Put a mountain range between them, something impossible to

If it's impossible to cross, how did the isolated group get
there in the first place?

If you're asking me just how isolated is isolated, let me ask
you one. What kind of mutations were you talking about being

Small, absolutely random changes in base pairs at the gene

Really? Why not at the chromosome level? Wouldn't change at
the base pair level be entirely too small to create any
significant change? Wouldn't a mutation almost have to be at
the chromosome level to be noticeable?

Who says? Change at that level would probably be too much,
something the organism couldn't tolerate.

Maybe we're putting too much emphasis on mutations.

Right! What about environmental pressures? What if a species
suddenly found itself having to survive in a significantly
changed environment?

One where its members must adapt to the new circumstances or
die out?

Exactly! How would they adapt? Could they just will themselves
to grow thicker fur or stronger muscles or larger size?

That sounds like mutations have to play a part.

Mutations, eh? All right, how do they play a part?


This game of intellectual thrust and parry goes on constantly
at levels of minutiae that boggle an average mind. Traditional
Darwinists are one-upped by neo-Darwinists at every turn.
Quantum evolutionists refashion the work of those who support
the theory of peripheral isolates. Mathematicians model
mutation rates and selective forces, which biologists do not
trust. Geneticists have little use for palaeontologists, who
return the favour in spades (pun intended). Cytogenetics
labours to find a niche alongside genetics proper. Population
geneticists utilise mathematical models that challenge
palaeontologists and systematists. Sociobiologists and
evolutionary psychologists struggle to make room for their
ideas. All perform a cerebral dance of elegant form and
exquisite symmetry.

Their dance is, ironically, evolution writ large throughout
science as a process. New bits of data are put forth to a peer
group. The new data are discussed, written about, criticised,
written about again, criticised some more. This is gradualism
at work, shaping, reshaping and reshaping again if necessary
until the new data can comfortably fit into the current
paradigm in any field, whatever it is. This is necessary to
make it conform as closely as possible to every concerned
scientist's current way of thinking. To do it any other way is
to invite prompt rejection under a fusillade of withering

This system of excruciating "peer review" is how independent
thinkers among scientists have always been kept in line.
Darwin was an outsider until he barged into the club by sheer,
overpowering brilliance. Patent clerk Einstein did the same.
On the other hand, Alfred Wegener was the German meteorologist
who figured out plate tectonics in 1915. Because he dared to
bruise the egos of "authorities" outside his own field, he saw
his brilliant discovery buried under spiteful criticism that
held it down for 50 years. Every scientist in the game knows
how it is played - and very few dare to challenge its rules.

The restrictions on scientists are severe, but for a very good
reason. They work at the leading edges of knowledge, from
where the view can be anything from confusing to downright
terrifying. Among those who study the processes of life on
Earth, they must cope with the knowledge that a surprising
number of species have no business being here. In some cases,
they can't even be here. Yet they are, for better or worse,
and those worst-case examples must be hidden or at least
obscured from the general public. But no matter how often
facts are twisted, data are concealed or reality is denied,
the truth is out there.


There are two basic forms of plants and animals: wild and
domesticated. The wild ones far outnumber the domesticated
ones, which may explain why vastly more research is done on
the wild forms. But it could just as easily be that scientists
shy away from the domesticated ones because the things they
find when examining them are so far outside the accepted
evolutionary paradigm.

Nearly all domesticated plants are believed to have appeared
between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago, with different groups
coming to different parts of the world at different times.
Initially, in the so-called Fertile Crescent of modern Iraq,
Syria and Lebanon, came wheat, barley and legumes, among other
varieties. Later on, in the Far East, came wheat, millet, rice
and yams. Later still, in the New World, came maize (corn),
peppers, beans, squash, tomatoes and potatoes.

Many have "wild" predecessors that were apparently a starting
point for the domesticated variety, but others--like many
common vegetables--have no obvious precursors. But for those
that do, such as wild grasses, grains and cereals, how they
turned into wheat, barley, millet, rice, etc. is a profound

No botanist can conclusively explain how wild plants gave rise
to domesticated ones. The emphasis here is on "conclusively".
Botanists have no trouble hypothesising elaborate scenarios in
which Neolithic (New Stone Age) farmers somehow figured out
how to hybridise wild grasses, grains and cereals, not unlike
Gregor Mendel when he cross-bred pea plants to figure out the
mechanics of genetic inheritance. It all sounds so simple and
so logical, almost no one outside scientific circles ever
examines it closely.

Gregor Mendel never bred his pea plants to be anything other
than pea plants. He created short ones, tall ones and
different- coloured ones, but they were always pea plants that
produced peas. (Pea plants are a domesticated species, too,
but that is irrelevant to the point to be made here.) On the
other hand, those New Stone Age farmers who were fresh out of
their caves and only just beginning to turn soil for the first
time (as the "official" scenario goes), somehow managed to
transform the wild grasses, grains and cereals growing around
them into their domesticated "cousins". Is that possible? Only
through a course in miracles!

Actually, it requires countless miracles within two large
categories of miracles. The first was that the wild grasses
and grains and cereals were useless to humans. The seeds and
grains were maddeningly small, like pepper flakes or salt
crystals, which put them beyond the grasping and handling
capacity of human fingers. They were also hard, like tiny
nutshells, making it impossible to convert them to anything
edible. Lastly, their chemistry was suited to nourishing
animals, not humans.

So wild varieties were entirely too small, entirely too tough
and nutritionally inappropriate for humans. They needed to be
greatly expanded in size, greatly softened in texture and
overhauled at the molecular level--which would be an imposing
challenge for modern botanists, much less Neolithic farmers.

Despite the seeming impossibility of meeting those daunting
objectives, modern botanists are confident the first
sodbusters had all they needed to do it: time and patience.
Over hundreds of generations of selective crossbreeding, they
consciously directed the genetic transformation of the few
dozen that would turn out to be most useful to humans. And how
did they do it? By the astounding feat of doubling, tripling
and quadrupling the number of chromosomes in the wild
varieties! In a few cases, they did better than that. Domestic
wheat and oats were elevated from an ancestor with seven
chromosomes to their current 42--an expansion by a factor of
six. Sugar cane was expanded from a 10-chromosome ancestor to
the 80-chromosome monster it is today--a factor of eight. The
chromosomes of others, like bananas and apples, were only
multiplied by factors of two or three, while peanuts,
potatoes, tobacco and cotton, among others, were expanded by
factors of four. This is not as astounding as it sounds,
because many wild flowering plants and trees have multiple
chromosome sets.

But that brings up what Charles Darwin himself called the
"abominable mystery" of flowering plants. The first ones
appear in the fossil record between 150 and 130 million years
ago, primed to multiply into over 200,000 known species. But
no one can explain their presence because there is no
connective link to any form of plants that preceded them. It
is as if - dare I say it? - they were brought to Earth by
something akin to You Know What. If so, then it could well be
that they were delivered with a built-in capacity to develop
multiple chromosome sets, and somehow our Neolithic forebears
cracked the codes for the ones most advantageous to humans.

However the codes were cracked, the great expansion of genetic
material in each cell of the domestic varieties caused them to
grow much larger than their wild ancestors. As they grew,
their seeds and grains became large enough to be easily seen
and picked up and manipulated by human fingers.
Simultaneously, the seeds and grains softened to a degree
where they could be milled, cooked and consumed. And at the
same time, their cellular chemistry was altered enough to
begin providing nourishment to humans who ate them. The only
word that remotely equates with that achievement is: miracle.

Of course, "miracle" implies that there was actually a chance
that such complex manipulations of nature could be carried out
by primitive yeomen in eight geographical areas over 5,000
years. This strains credulity because, in each case, in each
area, someone actually had to look at a wild progenitor and
imagine what it could become, or should become, or would
become. Then they somehow had to ensure that their vision
would be carried forward through countless generations that
had to remain committed to planting, harvesting, culling and
crossbreeding wild plants that put no food on their tables
during their lifetimes, but which might feed their descendants
in some remotely distant future.

It is difficult to try to concoct a more unlikely, more
absurd, scenario, yet to modern-day botanists it is a gospel
they believe with a fervour that puts many "six day"
Creationists to shame. Why? Because to confront its towering
absurdity would force them to turn to You Know What for a more
logical and plausible explanation.

To domesticate a wild plant without using artificial (i.e.,
genetic) manipulation, it must be modified by directed
crossbreeding, which is only possible through the efforts of
humans. So the equation is simple. Firstly, wild ancestors for
many (but not all) domestic plants do seem apparent. Secondly,
most domesticated versions did appear from 10,000 to 5,000
years ago. Thirdly, the humans alive at that time were
primitive barbarians. Fourthly, in the past 5,000 years, no
plants have been domesticated that are nearly as valuable as
the dozens that were "created" by the earliest farmers all
around the world. Put an equal sign after those four factors
and it definitely does not add up to any kind of Darwinian

Botanists know they have a serious problem here, but all they
can suggest is that it simply had to have occurred by natural
means because no other intervention--by God or You Know
What--can be considered under any circumstances. That
unwavering stance is maintained by all scientists, not just
botanists, to exclude overwhelming evidence such as the fact
that in 1837 the Botanical Garden in St Petersburg, Russia,
began concerted attempts to cultivate wild rye into a new form
of domestication. They are still trying, because their rye has
lost none of its wild traits, especially the fragility of its
stalk and its small grain. Therein lies the most embarrassing
conundrum botanists face.

To domesticate a wild grass like rye or any wild grain or
cereal (which was done time and again by our Neolithic
forebears), two imposing hurdles must be cleared. These are
the problems of "rachises" and "glumes", which I discuss in my
book, Everything You Know Is Wrong - Book One: Human Origins
(pp. 283-285) (Adamu Press, 1998). Glumes are botany's name
for husks, the thin covers of seeds and grains that must be
removed before humans can digest them. Rachises are the tiny
stems that attach seeds and grains to their stalks.

While growing, glumes and rachises are strong and durable, so
rain won't knock the seeds and grains off their stalks. At
maturity, they become so brittle that a breeze will shatter
them and release their cargo to propagate. Such a high degree
of brittleness makes it impossible to harvest wild plants
because every grain or seed would be knocked loose during the
harvesting process.

So, in addition to enlarging, softening and nutritionally
altering the seeds and grains of dozens of wild plants, the
earliest farmers also had to figure out how to finely adjust
the brittleness of every plant's glumes and rachises.

That adjustment was of extremely daunting complexity, perhaps
more complex than the transformational process itself. The
rachises had to be toughened enough to hold seeds and grains
to their stalks during harvesting, yet remain brittle enough
to be collected easily by human effort during what has come to
be known as "threshing". Likewise, the glumes had to be made
tough enough to withstand harvesting after full ripeness was
achieved, yet still be brittle enough to shatter during the
threshing process. And--here's the kicker--each wild plant's
glumes and rachises required completely different degrees of
adjustment, and the final amount of each adjustment had to be
perfectly precise! In short, there is not a snowball's chance
that this happened as botanists claim it did.


As with plants, animal domestication followed a pattern of
development that extended 10,000 to 5,000 years ago. It also
started in the Fertile Crescent, with the "big four" of
cattle, sheep, goats and pigs, among other animals. Later, in
the Far East, came ducks, chickens and water buffalo, among
others. Later still, in the New World, came llamas and vicuna.
This process was not simplified by expanding the number of
chromosomes. All animals--wild and domesticated--are diploid,
which means they have two sets of chromosomes, one from each
parent. The number of chromosomes varies as widely as in
plants (humans have 46), but there are always only two sets
(humans have 23 in each).

The only "tools" available to Neolithic herdsmen were those
available to farming kinsmen: time and patience. By the same
crossbreeding techniques apparently utilised by farmers, wild
animals were selectively bred for generation after generation
until enough gradual modifications accumulated to create
domesticated versions of wild ancestors. As with plants, this
process required anywhere from hundreds to thousands of years
in each case, and was also accomplished dozens of times in
widely separated areas around the globe.

Once again, we face the problem of trying to imagine those
first herdsmen with enough vision to imagine a "final model",
to start the breeding process during their own lifetimes and
to have it carried out over centuries until the final model
was achieved. This was much trickier than simply figuring out
which animals had a strong pack or herding instinct that would
eventually allow humans to take over as "leaders" of the herd
or pack. For example, it took unbridled courage to decide to
bring a wolf cub into a campsite with the intention of
teaching it to kill and eat selectively and to earn its keep
by barking at intruders (adult wolves rarely bark). And who
could look at the massive, fearsome, ill-tempered aurochs and
visualise a much smaller, much more amiable cow? Even if
somebody could have visualised it, how could they have hoped
to accomplish it? An aurochs calf (or a wolf cub, for that
matter), carefully and lovingly raised by human "parents",
would still grow up to be a full-bodied adult with hardwired
adult instincts.

However it was done, it wasn't by crossbreeding. Entire suites
of genes must be modified to change the physical
characteristics of animals. (In an interesting counterpoint to
wild and domesticated plants, domesticated animals are usually
smaller than their wild progenitors.) But with animals,
something more - something ineffablemust be changed to alter
their basic natures from wild to docile. To accomplish it
remains beyond modern abilities, so attributing such capacity
to Neolithic humans is an insult to our intelligence.

All examples of plant and animal "domestication" are
incredible in their own right, but perhaps the most incredible
is the cheetah. There is no question it was one of the first
tamed animals, with a history stretching back to early Egypt,
India and China. As with all such examples, it could only have
been created through selective breeding by Neolithic hunters,
gatherers or early farmers. One of those three must get the

The cheetah is the most easily tamed and trained of all the
big cats. No reports are on record of a cheetah killing a
human. It seems specifically created for high speeds, with an
aerodynamically designed head and body. Its skeleton is
lighter than other big cats; its legs are long and slim, like
the legs of a greyhound. Its heart, lungs, kidneys and nasal
passages are enlarged, allowing its breathing rate to jump
from 60 per minute at rest to 150 bpm during a chase. Its top
speed is 70 miles per hour, while a thoroughbred tops out at
around 38 mph. Nothing on a savanna can outrun it. It can be
outlasted, but not outrun.

Cheetahs are unique because they combine physical traits of
two distinctly different animal families: dogs and cats. They
belong to the family of cats, but they look like long-legged
dogs. They sit and hunt like dogs. They can only partially
retract their claws, like dogs instead of cats. Their paw pads
are thick and hard like a dog's, but to climb trees they use
the first claw on their front paws in the same way a cat does.
The light-coloured fur on their body is like the fur of a
short-haired dog, but the black spots on their bodies are
inexplicably the texture of cat's fur. They contract diseases
that only dogs suffer from, but they also get "cat only"

There is something even more inexplicable about cheetahs.
Genetic tests have been done on them, and the surprising
result was that in the 50 specimens tested they were all,
every one, genetically identical with each other! This means
the skin or internal organs of any of the thousands of
cheetahs in the world could be switched with the organs of any
other cheetah and not be rejected. The only other place such
physical homogeneity is seen is in rats and other animals that
have been genetically altered in laboratories.

(Cue the music from The Twilight Zone - )

Cheetahs stand apart, of course, but all domesticated animals
have traits that are not explainable in terms that stand up to
rigorous scientific scrutiny. Rather than deal with the
embarrassment of confronting such issues, scientists
studiously ignore them and, as with the mysteries of
domesticated plants, explain them away as best they can. For
the cheetah, they insist it simply cannot be some kind of
weird genetic hybrid between cats and dogs, even though the
evidence points squarely in that direction. And why? Because
that, too, would move cheetahs into the forbidden zone
occupied by You Know What.

The problem of the cheetahs' genetic uniformity is explained
by something now known as the "bottleneck effect". What it
presumes is that the wild cheetah population--which must have
been as genetically diverse as its long history indicates--at
some recent point in time went into a very steep population
decline that left only a few breeding pairs alive. From that
decimation until now, they have all shared the same restricted
gene pool.

Unfortunately, there is no record of any extinction events
that would selectively remove cheetahs and leave every other
big cat to develop its expected genetic variation. So, as
unlikely as it seems, the "bottleneck" theory is accepted as
another scientific gospel.

Here it is appropriate to remind scientists of Carl Sagan's
famous riposte when dealing with their reviled pseudoscience:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It
seems apparent that Sagan learned that process in-house.

It also leads us, finally, to a discussion of humans, who are
so genetically recent that we, too, have been forced into one
of those "bottleneck effects" that attempt to explain away the


Like all plants and animals whether wild or domesticated,
humans are supposed to be the products of slight, gradual
improvements to countless generations spawned by vastly more
primitive forebears. This was firmly believed by most
scientists in the 1980s, when a group of geneticists decided
to try to establish a more accurate date for when humans and
chimpanzees split from their presumed common ancestor.

Palaeontologists used fossilised bones to establish a timeline
that indicated the split came between five and eight million
years ago. That wide bracket could be narrowed, geneticists
believed, by charting mutations in human mitochondrial
DNA--small bits of DNA floating outside the nuclei of our
cells. So they went to work collecting samples from all over
the world.

When the results were in, none of the geneticists could
believe it. They had to run their samples through again and
again to be certain. Even then, there was hesitancy about
announcing it. Everyone knew there would be a firestorm of
controversy, starting with the palaeontologists--who would be
given the intellectual equivalent of a black eye and a bloody
nose and their heads dunked into a toilet for good measure!
This would publicly embarrass them in a way that had not
happened since the Piltdown hoax was exposed.

Despite the usual scientific practice of keeping a lid on data
that radically differs from a current paradigm, the importance
of this new evidence finally outweighed concern for the image
and feelings of palaeontologists. The geneticists gathered
their courage and stepped into the line of fire, announcing
that humans were not anywhere near the official age range of
eight to five million years old. Humans were only about
200,000 years old. As expected, the howls of protest were

Time and much more testing of mitochondrial DNA and male
Y-chromosomes now make it beyond doubt that the geneticists
were correct. And the palaeontologists have come to accept it
because geneticists were able to squeeze humans through the
same kind of "bottleneck effect" they used to try to
ameliorate the mystery of cheetahs.

By doing so, they left palaeontologists still able to insist
that humans evolved from primitive forebears walking upright
on the savannas of Africa as long ago as five million years,
but that between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago "something"
happened to destroy nearly all humans alive at the time,
forcing them to reproduce from a small population of

That this "something" remains wholly unknown is a given,
although Creationists wildly wave their hands like
know-it-alls at the back of a classroom, desperate to suggest
it was the Great Flood. But because they refuse to move away
from the biblical timeline of the event (in the range of 6,000
years ago), nobody can take them seriously. Still, it seems
the two sides might work together productively on this crucial
issue. If only - 

Apart from disputes about the date and circumstances of our
origin as a species, there are plenty of other problems with
humans. Like domesticated plants and animals, humans stand
well outside the classic Darwinian paradigm. Darwin himself
made the observation that humans were surprisingly like
domesticated animals. In fact, we are so unusual relative to
other primates that it can be solidly argued that we do not
belong on Earth at all - that we are not even from Earth,
because we do not seem to have developed here.

We are taught that, by every scientific measure, humans are
primates very closely related to all other primates,
especially chimpanzees and gorillas. This is so ingrained in
our psyches that it seems futile even to examine it, much less
to challenge it. But we will.

Bones . Human bones are much lighter than comparable primate
bones. For that matter, our bones are much lighter than the
bones of every "pre-human" ancestor through to Neanderthal.
The ancestor bones look like primate bones; modern human bones
do not.

Muscle . Human muscles are significantly weaker than
comparable muscles in primates. Pound for pound, we are five
to ten times weaker than any other primate. Any pet monkey is
evidence of that. Somehow, getting "better" made us much, much

Skin . Human skin is not well adapted to the amount of
sunlight striking Earth. It can be modified to survive
extended exposure by greatly increasing melanin (its dark
pigment) at its surface, which only the black race has
achieved. All others must cover themselves with clothing or
frequent shade or both, or sicken from radiation poisoning.

Body Hair. Primates need not worry about direct exposure to
sunlight because they are covered from head to toe in a
distinctive pattern of long body-hair. Because they are
quadrupeds (move on all fours), the thickest hair is on their
back, the thinnest on the chest and abdomen. Humans have lost
the all-over pelt, and we have completely switched our area of
thickness to the chest and abdomen while wearing the thin part
on our back.

Fat . Humans have ten times as many fat cells attached to the
underside of their skin as primates. If a primate is wounded
by a gash or tear in the skin, when the bleeding stops the
wound's edges lie flat near each other and can quickly close
the wound by a process called "contracture". In humans, the
fat layer is so thick that it pushes up through wounds and
makes contracture difficult if not impossible. Also, contrary
to the propaganda to try to explain this oddity, the fat under
human skin does not compensate for the body hair we have lost.
Only in water is its insulating capacity useful; in air, it is
minimal at best.

Head Hair. All primates have head hair that grows to a certain
length and then stops. Human head hair grows to such lengths
that it could be dangerous in a primitive situation. Thus, we
have been forced to cut our head hair since we became a
species, which may account for some of the sharp flakes of
stones that are considered primitive hominid "tools".

Fingernails and Toenails. All primates have fingernails and
toenails that grow to a certain length and then stop, never
needing paring. Human fingernails and toenails have always
needed paring. Again, maybe those stone "tools" were not only
for butchering animals.

Skulls . The human skull is nothing like the primate skull.
There is hardly any fair morphological comparison to be made,
apart from the general parts being the same. Their design and
assembly are so radically different as to make attempts at
comparison useless.

Brains . The comparison here is even more radical because
human brains are so vastly different. (To say "improved" or
"superior" is unfair and not germane, because primate brains
work perfectly well for what primates have to do to live and

Locomotion . The comparison here is easily as wide as the
comparison of brains and skulls. Humans are bipedal; primates
are quadrupeds. That says more than enough.

Speech . Human throats are completely redesigned relative to
primate throats. The larynx has dropped to a much lower
position, so humans can break typical primate sounds into the
tiny pieces of sound (by modulation) that have come to be
human speech.

Sex . Primate females have oestrous cycles and are sexually
receptive only at special times. Human females have no
oestrous cycle in the primate sense. They are continually
receptive to sex. (Unless, of course, they have the proverbial

Chromosomes. This is the most inexplicable difference of all.
Primates have 48 chromosomes. Humans are considered vastly
superior to them in a wide array of areas, yet somehow we have
only 46 chromosomes! This begs the question of how we could
lose two full chromosomes--which represents a lot of DNA--in
the first place, and in the process become so much better.
Nothing about it makes logical sense.

Genetic Disorders. As with all wild animals (plants, too),
primates have relatively few genetic disorders spread
throughout their gene pools. Albinism is one that is common to
many animal groups as well as humans. But albinism does not
stop an animal with it from growing up and passing the gene
for it into the gene pool. Mostly, though, serious defects are
quickly weeded out in the wild. Often, parents or others in a
group will do the job swiftly and surely, so wild gene pools
stay relatively clear. In contrast, humans have over 4,000
genetic disorders, and several of those will absolutely kill
every victim before reproduction is possible. This begs the
question of how such defects could possibly get into the human
gene pool in the first place, much less how they remain so

Genetic Relatedness. A favourite Darwinist statistic is that
the total genome (all the DNA) of humans differs from
chimpanzees by only 1% and from gorillas by 2%. This makes it
seem as if evolution is indeed correct and that humans and
primates are virtually kissing cousins. However, what they
don't stress is that 1% of the human genome's three billion
base pairs is 30 million base pairs--and to any You Know What
that can adroitly manipulate genes, 30 million base pairs can
easily add up to a tremendous amount of difference.

Everything Else. The above are the larger categories at issue
in the discrepancies between primates and humans. There are
dozens more listed as sub-categories below one or more of

To delve deeper into these fascinating mysteries, check The
Scars of Evolution by Elaine Morgan (Oxford University Press,
1990). Her work is remarkable. And for a more in-depth
discussion of the mysteries within our genes and those of
domesticated plants and animals, see Everything You Know Is


When all of the above is taken together--the inexplicable
puzzles presented by domesticated plants, domesticated animals
and humans--it is clear that Darwin cannot explain it, modern
scientists cannot explain it, not Creationists nor Intelligent
Design proponents. None of them can explain it, because it is
not explainable in only Earthbound terms.

We will not answer these questions with any degree of
satisfaction until our scientists open their minds and squelch
their egos enough to acknowledge that they do not, in fact,
know much about their own backyard. Until that happens, the
truth will remain obscured.

My personal opinion, which is based on a great deal of
independent research in a wide range of disciplines relating
to human origins, is that ultimately Charles Darwin will be
best known for his observation that humans are essentially
like domesticated animals.

I believe that what Darwin observed with his own eyes and
research is the truth, and that modern scientists would see it
as clearly as he did if only they had the motivation or the
courage to seek it out. But for now, they don't - so, until
then, we can only poke and prod at them in the hope of some
day getting them to notice our complaints and address them. In
order to poke and prod successfully, more people have to be
alerted to the fact that another scientific fraud is being

Future editions of Icons of Evolution will discuss the current
era when scientists ridiculed, ignored or simply refused to
deal with a small mountain of direct, compelling evidence that
outside intervention has clearly been at work in the genes of
domesticated plants, animals and humans. You Know What has
left traces of their handiwork all over our bodies, all
through our gene pools. All that will be required for the
truth to come out is for a few "insiders" to break ranks with
their brainwashed peers.

Look to the younger generation. Without mortgages to pay,
families to raise and retirements to prepare for, they can
find the courage to act on strong convictions. Don't expect it
of anyone over forty, possibly even thirty. But somewhere in
the world, the men and women have been born who will take
Darwinism down and replace it with the truth.

The fat lady is nowhere in sight, but that doesn't mean she's
not suiting up.

About the Author:

Lloyd Pye, born in 1946 in Louisiana, USA, is a researcher,
author, novelist and scriptwriter. His independent studies
over more than three decades into all aspects of evolution
have convinced him that humans did not evolve on Earth, or at
least are the product of extraterrestrial intervention. His
book, Everything You Know Is Wrong - Book One: Human Origins ,
is available by ordering through or
Barnes & Noble at . Visit Lloyd Pye's
website at .


"Apocalypse Now and the Brave New World"

List archives:

Subscribe to low-traffic list: