We Are the Children of the Stars (22 page)

The limit in size that can occur through birth restrictions had, quite possibly, been reached among Earth people, and ample evidence is available to support this contention. The principal proof is Aurignacian (Cro-Magnon) Man's brain-case being larger than modern man's by about 100 cubic centimeters or more.
⁴
Many primitive women must have died in childbirth while attempting to give birth to extraordinarily large-headed children.

Today, when there is any question about the mother's ability to deliver a child successfully, the doctor simply orders a Caesarian section. This surgical practice opens the way for the evolutionary development of people on Earth who have larger and larger heads, with comparable intellects.

In connection with the above, why should human women only, never animals, have birth pains? Is it because something is out of line and the baby brain is just too large for the birth canal? But Evolution would certainly not handicap any species this way, requiring the use of Caesarian section never known to nature.

Isn't the answer boomingly clear here?

That our big-brained star-sires, by injecting their cranial genes into the Hominids on Earth, thereby caused big-headed babies to be born, even though the Earth female's reproductive apparatus had not “caught up”? If not, what other answer is there for this anatomical discrepancy, which evolutionary laws would decisively say cannot exist?

The experts have this to say:

It was these twin needs [intellectual capacity and childhood learning] that together were responsible for perhaps the most extraordinary of all the changes which have marked man's evolutionary history. A little reflection will show that, as the human brain grew larger, human females were faced with a peculiarly difficult situation. An infant's skull had to be big enough
to house the enlarged human brain. At the same time, it also had to be small enough to emerge through the mother's birth canal. The obvious solution, one might suppose, would have been for females to acquire a larger birth canal. But they couldn't.
⁵

Why not? Why couldn't Evolution match those two conditions?

The experts give a significant answer: “The characteristics needed for bipedal walking made the enlargement of the birth canal a physical impossibility beyond a certain limit.”

Why is that an impossibility? They really should have explained further. The authors have never yet heard a good explanation for this claim (and would deeply appreciate, as a matter of fact, hearing from any authority who can decisively clear up the point).

As an engineer, one of the authors, Max H. Flindt, can conjecture as to why the female pelvis cannot accommodate a larger birth canal for our too-large-headed babies. Going purely by mechanistic principles, he surmises that as the pelvis would widen, the underneath leg support would be inadequate. But the human female's legs could not become sturdy enough without a radical change in bone structure. The only alternative for nature would be to add pelvic support in the form of internal “padding” or “webbing.” But this would simply defeat its purpose by again restricting the enlargement of the birth canal.

Hence, in pure engineering terms, it seems that natural selection simply could not produce a female with a larger birth canal without practically changing her into a horse in build. But that would change the species too much in the “wrong” direction and natural selection would call a halt.

This probably means, then, that even the starmen's females have always had birth canals too small for big-headed babies, which strongly suggests the possibility that they deliberately used gene techniques to increase brain size, at the same time accepting the penalty of the inadequate birth canal that nothing could correct.

All such rarefied speculation aside, the too-small birth canal of human women remains as a complete puzzle to biologists, gynecologists, anatomists, and all others concerned – especially the evolutionists.

Any tentative explanations we have seen are purely argumentative, obfuscating the issue. We feel it is much less in the nature of obfuscation for us to intimate that this out-of-phase aspect of the big-headed child and too-small birth canal is the result of tampering with normal Evolution.

Tampering with a purpose, done by the starmen.

And in their vast, complex, and difficult program to introduce super-Evolution and produce big-brained humans in record time, they were unable to take care of all contingent factors, particularly enlargement of the female birth canal.

No other animal has this big-headed birth problem. Only Man. Evolution, which is supposed to be “fair” and “impartial” with all species, must obviously be zeroed out as an explanation in relation to this badly askew birth anomaly among humans.

After birth comes the growing child. And again we come up against something that sets Man's offspring entirely apart from those of apes or any lower animal. For the human child goes through an extraordinarily long childhood unmatched by any anthropoid youngling.

First of all, the human baby is utterly helpless at birth and must depend solely on its mother or its parent to survive. A newborn monkey or ape, on the other hand, can cling to its mother's fur from birth onward, already gaining a degree of independent action.
⁶

The human child continues to remain comparatively helpless much longer than any primate offspring. Human babies don't learn to walk until they are about fifteen months of age (average), while primate young are able to scamper around within a month.

Primates are all “adults” at the age of one to three years and become independent of their mothers.
⁷
Humans are still adolescent into the teen years before they become relatively self-sufficient.

In fact, for one-fourth or one-fifth of our lives we are “growing up,” physically and mentally.

In the mental arena, this does not mean a slower rate of learning than primates but an immensely greater amount of learning to be absorbed. Where the anthropoid's learning processes stop with the simple fundamentals of life and survival, human learning goes on into motor skills, speech, writing, schooling, and thoughtdevelopment, all of these forever beyond the reach of apes.

One completely unbridgeable chasm separates ape children from human children the ability to learn to speak. All progress in the ape stops short of this tremendous new step. For the human child, it is the mere beginning of his fully rounded mental capabilities.

But now comes the enigma – just when and why did the human ape turn from brief child-rearing to the lengthy upbringing allowing great mental growth?

Again there is a jump here, a gap, that the Theory of Evolution cannot bridge except by very shaky premises. Human behavior in the child-rearing area is far too different from all other earthly species, primate or otherwise, to be simply a process of “natural selection.”

Natural selection of what?

Because it cannot be named or defined, it blocks every attempt at evolutionary explanation. Man's long childhood simply could not have “followed” in orderly progression from the rapid ape-childhood that ends so soon, not when the two are in the fantastic ratio of five to one.

We must postulate again that only the nonearthly portion of our ancestry seems to fill out the true picture.

In their own life on their home-world (or worlds) the starpeople had long evolutionary periods in which to slowly develop longer and longer periods of childhood, instead of it all being incredibly telescoped into a short million or two years, as on Earth.

There is another possible angle to this – that our outerspace ancestors had lives spanning hundreds of years (perhaps achieved through very advanced medical research). Then their children
would quite naturally require a long childhood-development, and we inherited that trait, though our life spans on Earth are only three score and ten.

Our children at eighteen would seem like “infants” to a race living lives 300 or 500 years long.

This ties in with the rather strange records of the Bible, in which people of B.C. times apparently lived long Methuselahlives measured in centuries. Did mankind then somehow lose his longevity? And is Starman patiently preparing to renew that factor in human lives when the time is ripe?

For we must not lose sight of the possibility that the starmen, working behind the scenes, are still today improving the human race, biologically. This double subject, of longevity and current bio-experiments going on now, will be explored more fully in the final chapter.

At any rate, we can return to our original point and infer that the starmen, in their crossbreeding or genetic program on Earth, imparted to us the physiological and/or cultural heritage of a long and rich childhood in keeping with a great new brain that needed such a lengthy period to achieve its full powers.

For this quantum leap from the fast-growing ape-child to the “slow-motion” growth and development of the human child to occur by hit-or-miss Evolution in a short million years or so, is sheer belief in magic or miracles. Scientifically, it must be rejected as not being a valid explanation.

The slow sweep of natural Evolution, which will take 50 or 100 million years to develop a new species or genus, could not have produced mankind with all his nonape peculiarities in a single million-year tick of the evolutionary clock. That would jar loose all the time consuming laws of natural selection.

The book that “retries Darwin” quotes T. H. Huxley, the famed biologist, as saying that “Large changes [in species] occur over tens of millions of years, while really major ones [macrochanges] take a hundred million or so.”
⁸

Sewall Wright, another big name in biology and evolutionary theory, is also quoted – “nature did not make leaps (Natura non
facit saltum)” – meaning that natural selection did not and could not make a gigantic leap ahead with any species on an “overnight” basis. The inexorable time element required that all changes or series of “adaptations” could only occur through multimillions of years, never in “short” spurts.

If we look at ourselves in this light we are, in a sense, the humanity of the future in earthly terms, a stage of development we might not have reached – without the starmen's biological intervention – for another 10 or 20 million years.

And it was a humanoid race on another world, which did evolve naturally, that came to Earth and “colonized” it, first speeding up Evolution through interbreeding and/or highly advanced bio-techniques, in order to create a rational creature long before its time.

To them, Earth was a huge biological “laboratory,” with a thousand and one experiments to conduct to achieve their great and really noble aim.

Once again, we feel that the Hybrid Man theory has scored decisively.

12

E
VEN MORE THAN physiological clues, even more than sexuality clues, even more than fossil clues or any clues previously given, we now come to the
greatest single clue
to Man's nonearthly origin. Only in keeping with the concept that Man is a hybrid can his possession of a fantastically advanced mental apparatus be explained.

In short, we mean Man's masterful, awesome, overwhelming brain. This problem harries the evolutionists most of all, as witness the following statements.

“The road from A to M [ape to Man] is rough and rocky [for anthropologists]. It includes the development of language, the achievement of an upright posture, and all the other differences of kind or degree between ape and Man.”
¹
This speaker goes on to say that two Jesuit priests queried professional biologists about how this great “transition” occurred. The conclusion: “They had enough material to dispel any feeling that the transition had been explained.”

In short, biologists could not see where Evolution and natural selection had any explanation for why Man the primate rose far above the primate apes, especially in
mental powers.

In an imaginary conversation between scientists, the same writer has a skeptic ask Darwin: “But Mr. Darwin, how can a blind and automatic sifting process like [natural] selection, operating on a blind and undirected process like mutation, produce organs
like the eye or the brain, with their almost incredible complexity and delicacy of adjustment?”
²