Origin
of the Species, Mark IV.
In plumbing the depths of our origin and past we
look at fossil records and make educated guesses as to the sequence of events
over time. There can be more than one option and the eventual official line
will be the one seen to be most likely. As more fossil records are uncovered
often the previous most likely may become less likely but there is extreme
resistance to changing the official line once established. Alan Alford's book,
Gods of the New Millennium, covers numerous examples and translations of
ancient text that indicate Darwin's theory of evolution as regards mankind may
have been a reasonable assumption in it's day but considering the latest data
it is plainly incorrect.
This then is offered as another option which takes
account of the following,
Perhaps the Origin of Humankind was that millions
of years ago far away in the cosmos, 'our' then men of science shipped us here
to planet Earth – hey, if we in 2014 can visualise the possibility why can't someone else? Stephen
Hawking saw it as an essential eventual development, he even picked a
suitable planet, 'slight' problem though, it is 20 million light years away –
our technology has some catching up to do.
Run with this for a while, we arrive on Earth at
a time when all the land mass was one continent, Gondwanaland and the climate
all over was wet tropical. Next, continental drift sets in and the spot where
your far distant ancestors lived in the tropics, has drifted to occupy the spot
say where
During this 300 million year time frame many
seriously major catastrophes have befallen planet Earth, one, suspected to be a
meteorite, wiped out the dinosaurs but
somehow mankind survived, another involved the arrival of Venus (see Worlds in
Collision) and the apparently periodic arrival of ice ages and glacial periods.
Imagine our species existing through an ice age, one of those takes 1000s of
years to set in, then it endures for 1000s of years and yet more 1000s of years
to warm up again. In this time our diet would undergo slow but massive
transformation in response to food availability, our stature would diminish and
our lifespan shrink to 30 years or less. Four generations would come and go
every 100 years, quite easy for rapid evolutionary adaptation to take place
under those circumstances.
Now what if circumstances continually worsened
for those unfortunate enough to be on a continent that drifted very far from
the equator and we evolved ever backwards to become Cro-magnon, Neanderthal
man, Homo Erectus or backwards even further to become hair covered apes who
adapted to grow fangs as being carnivorous was the only food supply option.
Perhaps there is a tipping point where once we devolve past that then we would
be unable to re-evolve back to our original status, perhaps that point is
apehood where no matter how the ecology warms up apes just remain apes though
still able to evolve into different varieties. Over such a long period of
existence apes could conceivably gain another chromosome pair without breaking
any biology rules. Science declares that much of our DNA is from our ape
'ancestors' but it is not just as conceivable that that same DNA is human in
origin and apes got it from us?
This would explain the enigma of our eye teeth,
where did they come from? The common explanation is that they are remnants from
our 'ape ancestors' but if that were so then Neanderthal man and Homo Erectus
etc should have had even more pronounced eye teeth than we do - but they don't.
There are no vestiges of eye teeth at all on these ancient skulls, nor have
there been any on any excavated human skulls right up until the 1400s. Eye
teeth would be a new evolvement from us eating ever larger quantities of animal
flesh over the past 500 years. Will we indeed have a carnivorous full set of
fangs in a few more centuries? Certainly, much in keeping with carnivore
species, our tendency to aggressiveness is increasing with domestic violence,
road rage etc The Japanese do not have eye teeth (some do but they are glued on
veneers to make them look more ‘Western’) because they are just out of the “Rice
Age” and don’t have 500 years of meat eating history behind them.
Those of us whose ancestors were lucky enough not
to reach the tipping point would, as the ecosystem warmed up, revert to
evolving forward again, effectively retracing our steps back through
Neanderthal/Cro-magnon eras to now but we have much more evolving ahead of us
until we reach the 300 million years ago original human form.
However fanciful all the above might sound, it is
a scenario that answers some incredibly perplexing questions that have plagued
philosophers and scientists for the past 3000 years.
Many of them and a few major religions infer that
there is a repository of knowledge where all things are known and any
individual man never discovers anything himself, his eureka moments are when he
merely and inadvertently taps into this source and voila he is a famous
inventor. This repository has always been seen as 'out there' somewhere but it
looks more likely that it is built into our DNA (In 2016 only 10% of our DNA
has a defined purpose) and has been there since we were shipped here from far
out in the cosmos. Like we were complete with a handbook of instructions to
cover every possible contingency, it couldn't be in printed form, that wouldn't
survive the journey but embedded in our DNA meant it wouldn't get destroyed nor
could we be parted from it.
So why doesn't everyone know everything that
there is to know? Said Plotinus A.D 270 - What enables man to know anything at all about the world
around him? ‘Knowing demands the organ be fitted to the object’, Nothing can be
known without there being an appropriate instrument in the makeup of the
knower. This is the great truth of adequateness, which defines knowledge as the
understanding of the knower must be adequate to the thing to be known. In simple terms you can't teach nuclear physics to kids at
kindergarten. Learning is like climbing
a ladder, we must learn one step before we are capable of learning the next
step and rarely can we even visualise what is 3 steps further up.
There
seems to be minimal pre requirements to learning our way up through the lower
echelons but at advanced levels it is as if our brain with it's 100 trillion
neurons needs to function in ever more perfect unison and this can only be
achieved if all of our body's 100 trillion cells are completely clear of
toxins, acids and other impurities.
Another
of the perplexing questions is how did the builders of the Egyptian pyramids,
Inca cities, Tibetan monastries and others all get built with such great
precision where razor blades cannot be inserted between enormous blocks of
stone used in their construction. This building all happened at relatively the
same time in far flung corners of the planet by civilizations that had no
contact with each other - certainly no internet connections!!! It is a similar story with the invention of
powered flight, the Wright brothers stole the limelight for being first but
around the same time this was also achieved in Europe and
Yet another is that if we truly are fruit eaters
(not well publicised is research in 1979, Professor Alan Walker, a Johns
Hopkins University paleoanthropologist, reported that preliminary studies of
unmarked tooth enamel in early hominoids suggested that pre-human {supposedly}
ancestors apparently had a diet of mostly fruit) then why do we have digestion
capabilities to eat and survive on a large range of non fruit items? Obviously as earth shattering catastrophes
come and go so would the availability of fruit, if our food requirements were
too specific we would soon become extinct. That we are still here after 300
million years is testament to that.
We live in a totally reactive environment, the
things you eat and the things you do, determine what you are and where you are
on the ladder. Do as you always do and you will be as you always have been. If
you do as your parents did, you will suffer the same problems and have a
similar life expectancy. Were you a meat eater and changed to being vegan, then
fruitarian, would mean major changes, ever less susceptibility to diseases,
greater life expectancy and occasional glimpses into the 'all knowledge'. Were
someone a fruitarian who reverted back to being a meat eater, the reverse would
happen. There is no right or wrong to all this, what you do determines where
you are at, if you are not happy with your here and now, then you'll have to
change your inputs. If your diet includes manufactured products then you are at
the mercy of what the manufacturer puts in his product and any on the fly
changes he might make to it like cheaper often inferior ingredients, usually
the uppermost consideration being to earn more $s, almost never to enhance your
well being. This can surreptitiously negatively change where you are even
though you think you haven't changed anything, the obesity epidemic is a good
example.
For most people great store is placed on things
traditional, particularly diet and religion and unfortunately, often in early
childhood, this gets printed indelibly in our memory and becomes unshakable in
later life. This is an unfortunate mistake for generally it merely prolongs the
errors of one's ancestors near and far but the worst effect is that it
seriously curtails our transition from cave man to advanced human and tends to
hold us where our parents were. A child is born with a clean slate, it should
be let alone to develop it's own lifestyle by allowing it to choose it's own
path and it's own diet. Infants with undefiled taste buds know full well, much
better than does mum, which food is good and which is not. It is absurd too for
a child to grow and learn the physics of nature on one hand and at the same
time be indoctrinated by a church and asked without explanation to 'believe'
mythical tales from antiquity that blatantly contravene those same laws of
physics.
The assumption is that we are between ice ages
but are we? It has been said that the last ice age won't be over until all the
polar ice has melted. Wouldn't that be interesting with the sea level rising 12
meters or more. Ever wonder why
`In the past,' says the Aggaiiiia-Sutta, 'we were mind-created spiritual beings, nourished by joy. We soared through space, self-luminous and in imperishable beauty. We thus remained for long periods of time. After the passage of infinite times the sweet-tasting earth rose from the waters. It had colour, scent, and taste. We began to form it into lumps and to eat it. But while we ate frorn it our luminosity disappeared. And when it had disappeared, sun and moon, stars and constellations, day and night, weeks and months, seasons and years, made their appearance. We enjoyed the sweet-tasting earth, relished it, were nourished by it; and thus we lived for a long time.' But with the coarsening of the food the bodies of beings became more and more material and differentiated, and hereupon the division of sexes came into existence, together with sensuality and attachment. But when evil, immoral customs arose among us, the sweet-tasting earth disappeared, and when it had lost its pleasant taste, outcroppings appeared on the ground, endowed with scent, colour, and taste. Due to evil practices and further coarsening of the nature of living beings, even these nourishing outcroppings disappeared, and other self-originated plants deteriorated to such an extent that finally nothing eatable grew by itself and food had to be produced by strenuous work. Thus the earth was divided into fields, and boundaries were made, whereby the idea of 'I' and 'mine', 'own' and 'other' was created, and with it possessions, envy, greed and enslavement to material things.
It is very hard to argue that we are not exactly in the predicament as underlined, especially the plants deteriorated to such an extent that finally nothing eatable grew by itself which is so very true today (2018). As well, the exerpt's message confirms that evolvution can take us backwards and these days with rapidly esculating instances of all types of violence, by men and women, that would seem to be so.