We Are the Children of the Stars (2 page)

This book might very well be titled
On Tiptoe Beyond Darwin
, for we have in reality “extended” Evolution beyond the limited scope of natural selection on Earth, to an expanded concept that might be called
Astro Evolution
, or Evolution from the stars.

We wish to state at the outset, however, that we do not condemn or recommend casting aside the great Theory of Evolution. We believe, along with any biologist or scientist, that its basic premise apparently explains the whole progression of life on Earth, from its earliest beginnings in primeval times to the amazing proliferation of creatures today – with one notable exception.

That exception, that one damning exception, is the creature called Man.

He, alone of all species, plagues the Theory of Evolution and, in fact, shakes its foundations. For by no stretch of available facts (or even imagination) can human beings be products solely of orthodox Evolution and its classic rules.

Starting with Alfred Wallace, codiscoverer of Evolution with Darwin, many anthropologists, naturalists, and biologists frankly admit that mankind is an
anomaly
, a maddening “misfit,” in the grand sweep of survival of the fittest. His physiological body might have evolved from lower forms of animals, but his amazing brain – never.

Just how large a stumbling block this is to Darwin's theory will be fully explained and explored in this book, resulting in our boldly advancing a new theory – the concept of
Hybrid Man
and the
Earth Colony
.

Yet, we reiterate that Darwin's theory seems to cover adequately all other animate life on Earth. It only fails, and fails dismally, in explaining you and me.

We wish to take up another subject that may bother the reader from the start. How do two nonprofessionals in the field dare to assail Evolution? How can two “amateurs” so crassly defy the welltrained anthropologists, biologists, paleontologists, archeologists, and all the other types of scientists concerned with Man's origin?

In answer to that, let us quote from a recent book titled
Darwin Retried
,
¹
in which the following words appear (with our italics):

“Darwin was an
amateur
. He did not teach in a university or work in a laboratory. He ‘did’ science in his own house with no trained staff and very little [fossil] equipment.”
²

Thus, we see that all the later adherents of Evolution, most of them very eminent scientists, were in truth only following the theory of an
amateur
, an unskilled (in academic terms) nonprofessional with an “untrained” mind in comparison with the later experts and authorities who took up his tremendous basic idea with the fervor of zealots.

We are amateurs and Darwin was an amateur.

That, in a sense, “equates” us as having the same full right as nonprofessional Darwin to exercise our studied viewpoints on Evolution. And to present – as
Darwinlike amateurs
, if you wish – a wholly new theory as to the origin of Man.

We are
not
, however, equating ourselves or our concept with Darwin, but simply pointing out that our “amateurism” should not in any sense be allowed to stand in the way when our theory is being evaluated. We only ask that authorities in Evolution give our theory the same due respect and on-merit-only analysis as all the world's authorities have for a century accorded to the theory of that great amateur – Charles Darwin.

Along with this goes a final thought. “Science today,” writes a female professor of philosophy at the State University of New York,
³
“is divided neatly into compartments and niches (specialties)
quite unlike the real world
. The true universe,” she continues, “is fused in
oneness
and cannot be successfully analyzed or treated in
fragmentary
form.”

“If each science specialty,” she concludes, “restricts itself to its own selected subject matter, with no serious regard for the relevance of other specialties and with no real effort toward synthesis,” what chance is there for any “coherent and integrated master theory” ever emerging?

The key word is
synthesis
, and her plea is for an interdisciplinary approach to all major theorizing. And this is precisely what that controversial figure, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, has done with his small-theory-shattering concepts in order to bring forth a “unified” theory crossing all scientific lines and binding them into a whole that reflects the true oneness of the universe and its phenomena.

Though utterly and savagely refuted, even castigated, by the scientific fraternity in 1950, when his first book came out, Velikovsky today has been vindicated over and over by new scientific discoveries he
predicted
through his Catastrophism Theory. Notably, he predicted the planet Venus to be unbearably hot and was subsequently, and astonishingly, proved right by the Venus space-probes of NASA.

Velikovsky had this to say about the Theory of Evolution:
⁴
“Most controversial is the evolutionary question. I have done a great deal of work on Darwin and can say with some assurance that Darwin did not derive his theory from nature but rather superimposed a certain philosophical world-view on nature and then spent 20 years trying to gather the facts to make it stick.”

It is documented that, to date, Velikovsky's scientific
predictions have never once been proved wrong.
Thus, his disparaging viewpoint on Evolution must be taken seriously. He might also, be it noted, blast our theory in this book, if he saw it, but at least we do not have to make a sacred cow out of Darwin's theory as if fully “established.”

Velikovsky had a telling answer for his success, to the scientific fraternity,
⁵
that when one looks at all the evidence, without restricting oneself to the limited number of so-called “facts” usually considered so by one group of specialists, it becomes possible to make a strong case for catastrophism.
Or any other revolutionary concept.

And we think this would indeed apply to our Hybrid Man theory also, for we have examined a wide range of evidence involving many science disciplines – anthropology, paleontology, biology, genetics, archeology, astronomy, anatomy, physiology (the full list is even longer) – and believe we have found a miraculous “common denominator” in all their phenomena of anomalies. We are thus using the above-recommended “interdisciplinary” system, with the aim of presenting a “coherent” theory that will stand the tests of concerted research by others, and thereby let science take one more step forward – as it always must.

The “oneness” of the universe, and of life everywhere – that is what we have striven to bring to light by our new theory of Hybrid Mankind being part of a colony largely established by extraterrestrial beings of a humanoid type. Perhaps a truly shocking theory, as shocking as when Copernicus wrenched Earth out of the center of the universe.

But has truth, through the ages, ever been less than shocking?

1

I
N 1925, at Dayton, Tennessee, there occurred one of the most dramatic trials in courtroom history. John T. Scopes, a schoolteacher, was charged with teaching Darwin's “new” Theory of Evolution. In fundamentalist Tennessee, this was illegal. Clarence Darrow, his lawyer, was unable to win an acquittal against the fierce oratory of William Jennings Bryan. In essence, the court said – “Man is not descended from the monkeys.”

Nevertheless, the Theory of Evolution eventually became universally accepted around the world. But the battle is not yet over. In November 1969, the California State Board of Education declared that new textbooks must include all other theories of the origin of Man, including that of the Biblical Creation; and children will also be allowed to learn the spontaneous-generation concept of Aristotle, the
panspermia
(spores from space) theory of Svante Arrhenius, and others.

The significant point here is that Darwin's Theory of Evolution has apparently failed, in more than 100 years, to establish itself without question.

Why?

Is it time now for a new theory to replace, or at least significantly modify or expand, Darwin's Evolution theory? Decidedly so, the authors of this book feel. There are various categories of “clues,” which shall constitute the chapters in this book.

Since Evolution's debut, many new discoveries have been made in every field of science. It is now possible, in light of these
discoveries, to develop a new leap forward in Evolutionary Theory – a leap as fantastic as was Darwin's in its time.

But before delving into the new and revolutionary two-part theory presented in this book, let us briefly examine some of the perplexing unknowns about earthly life that today remain unexplained by science, and that we hope to explain through application of this new theory, which “Tiptoes Beyond Darwin.”

1.
The explosive beginnings of life on Earth, 500 million to 600 million years ago.

We do not know how to explain the fact that we have no fossil record of the beginnings of the primary classifications of early marine life (which preceded dry-land life): sponges, sea lilies, starfish, worms, water fleas, brine, shrimp, clams, and others. These genera (groups of related species) appear suddenly in the sedimentary record. We cannot find any fossils that reflect their step-by-step evolutionary development. Why don't these fossils exist?

The following paragraph is from current authoritative literature.
¹

The . . . still deeper mystery concerns the advent of life itself, the initial rung on the evolutionary ladder. Paleontologists still wonder why fossil evidence of life on Earth appears abruptly in rocks of the Cambrian period 500,000,000 [to 600,000,000] years ago. Why are there so few traces of life in the Pre-Cambrian which lasted 1.5 billion years, [almost one-third] of the total age of the Earth? Cambrian life was not merely incipient; it had already evolved into most of the primary classifications known today.

The above deals with early invertebrate life only. The oldest vertebrate fossil found so far is in the form of footprints (pawprints) only, discovered in southeastern Australia.
²
The vertebrate creature who made them existed in Devonian times, some 350 million years ago.

Only two primitive types of floral life that existed in the PreCambrian era have left a fossil record. One is algae, the most primitive of plants, dated as of 1.7 billion years ago, found in 1971 by Preston Cloud of the University of California.
³
The second type is fossil microorganisms located in rocks 2.5 billion years old and, possibly though less certainly, in rocks dating back 3.6 billion years.
⁴

Are they the progenitors of every later earthly species of life? But what happened to all in-between fossil forms, which became progressively more complex during the awesome stretch of multimillions of years in the Pre-Cambrian era? Why are all these evolutionary life-steps missing, until there abruptly appear comparatively highly organized species at the start of the Cambrian era, only a half-billion years ago?

From mere one-celled creatures (including algae) to worms, sponges, starfish, and clams is quite a jump. The latter cannot be a second generation of species, but a thousandth or millionth generation. And all the generations in between are the “missing links” of marine life.

Darwin himself was bedeviled by this baffling riddle: “To question why we do not find rich fossilliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earlier periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
⁵

One hundred years later, a noted newspaper wrote that the “chief puzzle” in the life record of ancient earth is how, 600 million years ago, the basic divisions of species of the plant and animal kingdom had already “suddenly appeared.”
⁶
There being no earlier fossil record, this meant “the first part of evolutionary history is missing.”

Obviously, we have a great biological discrepancy here, one that cuts at the roots of the Theory of Evolution. If no orderly ladder of life can be found through some 3 billion years since the first genesis of primary living cells, all further evolutionary patterns in the Cambrian era and onward tend to be undermined.