We Are the Children of the Stars (19 page)

Richard B. Goldschmidt, first-class geneticist of the University of California, calls it the “famous old problem of the eye.”
⁸
He says the development of the human eye depends on one basic premise – photosensitivity. But when you try to explain how one certain portion of human protoplasm should become selectively adapted to seeing by photosensitivity, he says, you bog down when confronted with the great number of biological details of the eye. He concludes by stating his opinion that it is “impossible” to explain the human eye and its workings via the Theory of Evolution, no matter how cleverly you mix up natural selection, mutations, and adaptations.

But the clincher comes from Professor Hardin, University of California, who stated:

“That damned eye
[his italics] . . . the human eye . . . which Darwin freely conceded to constitute a severe strain on his Theory of Evolution. Is so simple a principle as natural selection equal to explaining so complex a structure as the image-producing eye? Can the step-by-step process of Darwinian Evolution carry adaptation so far?”
⁹

Our
italics
follow in his final words:
“Competent opinion
[among evolutionists and biologists]
has wavered on this point.”

And as the book's author points out, competent opinion has never to this day come up with an acceptable explanation for the human eye.

To cap it all off, let us hear from the master himself, who quite honestly wrote in his original book on Evolution: “To suppose
that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances . . . could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
¹⁰
And he never did come up with any attempt to cover that major black mark against his theory.

We think we can safely say that next to the human brain (see chapters ahead) the human pair of eyes is another strike-three count against classical Evolution. Its followers cannot explain the phenomenal eyesight of the human race, because it didn't arise on Earth at all.

Yet, if it came from our starmen sires, just how did
they
obtain this tremendous visual gift?

Explanation
.

Actually, since it seems entirely out of range of natural selection on this or any world, we cannot resort to saying that superlong stretches of Evolution produced Starman's eye on his home-world.

The answer in that case must be genetic control and deliberate improvement of the eye on their part.

And why not? If they long ago realized, after their evolutionary climb to humanhood, that the eye furnished 90 percent of all outside stimuli to feed data to the brain, then why would they not set about to use advanced biotechniques to develop their eyesight themselves? Geneticists on Earth, who are probably one-thousandth as skilled as the starmen, are already talking excitedly of “improving” the human race by genetic means. Assuming they can isolate the genes that control the formation of the eyes and learn to manipulate them in new ways, even earthly scientists could then proudly display a man with 100-100 (percent) vision.

But by the time the starmen came to Earth to speed up Evolution for mankind, it was past history how they had endowed themselves with super-eyes. And those super-eyes, or some factor of them, were then inherited by the human race during hybridization procedures.

Super-eyes, which plagued Darwin from the start and are still plaguing evolutionists today, a century later.

Our theory of Hybrid Man being a created product of the starmen almost presupposes that their biogenetic doings are, to our limited minds, superscientific “Magic,” nothing less. Hence, our theory does not have to strain to make the assumption that Starman, on his own world,
speeded up his own Evolution artificially.

Along with Hybrid Man on Earth, Starman “created” himself in his new image, vastly superior to anything the blind-chance syndrome of natural selection could ever accomplish for him. If you take the “blind chance” out of Evolution, you can save millions of years and reach your goal without false starts and aborted biological changes consuming ages of time.

So why not take over the reins from natural Evolution and improve their own breed? The marvelous human eye, the superb brain, and all the other special attributes of man may actually have been achieved by “auto-evolution.” Self-evolution as master geneticists took over the task of changing the human body and its organs into a new and superior kind of “animal species” that nature itself could never produce.

In that case, Darwinian Evolution and natural selection had no part at all in the ultimate product of the starmen, and never could have. This would account particularly for the human brain, that incredible organ that was an “overendowment” created by Starman himself, step by step, as he learned how the wondrous DNA chain of genes was the key to constant improvement of the breed.

A startling thought. A shocking thought. We will not pursue it here except to offer it as an alternative explanation to Evolution, which even in its snail-slow march might
never
have created the powerful brain of thinking humans.

Incidentally, classical Evolution depends heavily on natural “mutations,” members of species in whom genes randomly produce a “better” animal. By interbreeding, these mutations supposedly multiply and eventually replace the older species that is “inferior.”

Modern genetics give a resounding “no way!” to that. First of all, science has yet to discover where any species of any creature, from small to large, is
presently
in the stage of mutating into
another type of species. And this happens to be
essential
to the theory of Evolution, that new species should be constantly arising as they did in the past.

Furthermore, when mutations are found in nature, they are predominantly abnormalities that are inferior to the main species, not superior. In fact, the evidence of modern experiments in producing even artificial mutants indicates that, by far, they are deleterious to the species. No useful mutations have appeared in the lab, and none are expected. The consensus is that over 99 percent of all mutated genes are harmful.

In research with humans, geneticists (who are indeed a thorn in the side of evolutionists) believe that a good gene that can reproduce and become effective is a rare event. It occurs only once in a million animals, or once in the lifetime of a million human beings. Mutations are so far apart that it happens only once in 100,000 generations.

The knock-out blow is that researchers estimate any single human gene may remain stable for 2.5 million years. Evolution's dependence on the mutational straw it grasps is a lost cause.

On that basis, it would seem only the
deliberate
production of new and worthwhile genes by the starmen could reasonably have created themselves into a unique form of superbrained species that would never exist under the rules of the far-short strivings of evolution.

Reviewing all the remarkable physiological anomalies of humanity, we might point out that Man is actually a
walking museum of anatomical curios from another planet
, if scientists would but take note and bury their prejudices against new ideas.

It is rather ironic to think of researchers laboring in biolabs day and night, archeologists digging industriously around the world, and anthropologists painstakingly patching fossil bones together, in the attempt to solve the mystery of Man –
when all it would take is to examine Man himself.

One man who recognized this is Professor John Tyler Bonner of Harvard, who deplored the lack of answers we had as to the mysteries of Evolution.
¹¹
He then said, “The answers may come
with further study, but they must be discovered by physiological experiments, not by complacent speculation.”

Physiological experiments!
Sage words, and exactly what we are recommending in this chapter as an untapped gold mine of information about ourselves.

We might say that Man is the “hardware” (material proof) that pins down his extraterrestrial origin, and the germ of his species was really the
first
thing brought in from space (by the starmen), not the moon rocks of the Apollo expeditions!

If the biologists would only look, what fantastic “records” are locked up in our genes and chromosomes that ordered our transformation into a thinking, talking, inventing creature? That elevated us to a majesty and destiny beyond the power of blind evolutionary forces to mold?

The Bible constantly reiterates that “divine” intervention lifted stumbling mankind into the light. Can it be (is it heresy to seek the truth?) that starmen have been the “angels” and emissaries of God, in an indirect way, with the mission of creating sentient life on Earth? Are we the “Sons of God” by virtue of colonization by a people so highly advanced in morals, ethics, intelligence, and spiritual wisdom that it is part of a Greater Plan than we know?

10

I
F MAN IS distinctly different from the apes and all animals in physiological ways, there is a still greater gulf between them in Man's sexual habits and his reproductive cycle. Sexually, the human animal's activities are vastly removed from any resemblance to animal sexuality.

This is put forth succinctly by an authority who says:

How does our sexual behavior compare with that of the other living primates? Straightaway we can see that there is much more intense sexual activity in our own species than in any other primates, including our closest relations. . . . The precopulatory patterns in apes are brief and usually consist of no more than a few facial expressions and simple vocalizations.

Copulation itself is also very brief. In baboons, for instance, the time taken from mounting to ejaculation is no more than seven or eight seconds, with a total of no more than 15 pelvic thrusts, often fewer. The female does not appear to experience any kind of orgasm.
¹

Pointing out that sex foreplay occupies a much longer time between human couples, that the actual joining takes minutes rather than seconds, and that both the female and male often enjoy mutual orgasm, the author concludes, “Clearly, the naked ape [Man] is the sexiest primate alive.”

We hardly need proof, looking around at the 4 billion or more human beings living on Earth today, outnumbering all animals by species except perhaps a few prolific rodents. It is nothing less than superfecundity. (And that, incidentally, is also a hallmark of the breeding vigor of any hybrid – another clue to our basic theme's soundness.)

Why is Man, far above and beyond any other animal, such a sexually active creature? The human female, first and foremost, has no counterpart in the animal kingdom, for she alone:

1. Enjoys orgasm during sex intercourse.
   
2. Is almost always “in heat.”
   
3. Has a vaginal angle conducive to either front or back mating.
   
4. Possesses voluptuous breasts and buttocks that are spurs to male desire.
   
5. Possesses a hymen during virginity.
   

Taking these traits in turn, the author above states, “If there is anything that could be called an orgasm [in female apes] it is a trivial response when compared with that of the female of our own species.”
²

The orgasms experienced by human females are hardly a “trivial response,” as most males on Earth well know. It is part and parcel of the sex act among us, usually expected and often taken for granted. The passion and body response of the female during coitus make her an
equal
partner to the always-eager male, a situation that is obtained with no other animal on Earth, apes included.

They do not “enjoy” sex in the sense that humans do. It is more a “reproductive duty” instilled instinctively in them to ensure the survival of the species.

Again it is pointed out that:

If the human male continues to copulate for a longer period of time (than the briefest time required), the female also eventually reaches a consummatory moment, an explosive orgasmic experience, as violent and tension-releasing as the male's. . . . Some females may reach this point very quickly (and enjoy repetitions). . . . But on the average it is attained between ten and twenty minutes after the start of copulation.
³