We Are the Children of the Stars (23 page)

Darwin's halting (if fictitious) answer: “Natural selection is a mechanism for generating an exceedingly high degree of improbability.”

Improbability?

Yes, this was the studied conclusion (not fictional) of an authoritative professor after he had minutely examined the supposed progression of fossils from a primitive to an advanced form. On the basis of the scientific principle of causality, he could only declare that the results were not impossible – but highly unlikely.

The most devastating blow came from none other than Alfred Russell Wallace, codiscoverer of Evolution with Darwin but later one of its most outspoken critics. Perceiving that the gap between the brain of the ape and that of the lowest savage was too big, Wallace unloaded this gasping heresy: “An instrument [the human brain] has been developed in advance of the needs of its possessor.”
³

This, of course, violated the law against overendowment in any species.

Wallace acted like a bull in a china shop by expressing himself even more forthrightly. “He challenged the whole Darwinian position,” says the author, “by insisting that artistic, mathematical, and musical abilities could not be explained on the basis of natural selection and the struggle for existence [among species]. Something else, he contended . . . must have been at work in the elaboration of the human brain.”
⁴

Wallace named that factor as “some unknown
spiritual element.
” (Italics added.)

Or was it the starmen?

Punching home his point, Wallace went on to state that “Natural selection could only have endowed the savages with a brain a
little
superior to that of the ape [our italics], whereas he actually possesses one very little inferior to that of the average member of our learned societies.”

Darwin was so distressed at Wallace's speech that he wrote him in anguish, “I hope you have not murdered too completely your own and my child.”

Darwin himself fully realized that the tremendously advanced brain of mankind had no place at all in the scale of Evolution. It was an insurmountable obstacle that to this day makes all biologists and anthropologists hastily change the subject if you bring it up.

Darwin must have been ready to toss out his theory of natural selection at times. In his
Origin Of Species
in 1859, he let his hair down. “Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered.”

A British scientist of the time analyzed Darwin's book with an eagle eye and said, “It has been estimated [by me] that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood – such as ‘Let us assume,’ or ‘We may well suppose,’ etc. – are to be found between the covers.”
⁵

Eight hundred
assumptions
by Darwin, none of them a fact but mere conjecture on his part! We doubt if our book has that many pure assumptions. At least it shows that the Theory of Evolution is not an unassailable monolith of hard fact, but is more like a leaning tower with falsities constantly undermining its already shaky foundations.

It would seem as if the authors of this book have a more ironclad answer to most of Darwin's assumptions, in the theory of Hybrid Man and the starmen.

Getting back to the brain, it is apparent that if Man's celestial ancestors evolved on distant planets through a long period of millions of years (or if they used “autoevolution”), their brains would indubitably have developed beyond anything known on Earth (a relatively young planet).

Very probably, these same planet-hopping ancestors we have postulated (who came to Earth, where they successfully bred with the highest forms of Earth life – the apemen or Hominids – by
virtue of their highly advanced medical knowledge) brought the “radar-TV-screen mind.” It was this supermind that transformed this Earth, in a few short millennia, from the abode of slaves of nature to the masters of nature.

One superlatively strong argument in favor of our concept is the time factor for the human brain's development. Roughly, the length of the age of the dinosaurs is known – 150 million years – during which time they developed and flowered before final decline.

Each major revolutionary step in Evolution has taken many
millions
of years to complete.

But this is paradoxically not so in the case of Man's brain, which is an organ far more complex in itself than all the total brains of the dinosaurs. We are confident that we can show why the human brain is
impossible
under evolutionary laws and processes in the earthly time-span.

Assume that the great apes of Earth represented the best that nature could do to develop a high-grade brain. Now, the following claim is based upon the fact that a particularly successful line of evolutionary development always shows up in many different species.

For instance, there is the condition of four legs, which came into being when ancient amphibian species first climbed onto land from the sea and launched all the diverse creatures using four legs. But what about an efficient brain? Only two land mammals developed such a brain – apes and men (and possibly, in the sea domain, the dolphin). This is evidence that nature found a superefficient brain to be a most
difficult
construction project, so to speak. Except for Man, the best that nature could do was to develop the brains of the three great-ape families.

This means that it took nature 500 million years
(from the earliest Cambrian life forms)
to develop the 1 billion neurons
that make up an anthropoid's brain. At this rate, one neuron (brain cell) was developed every six months – two neurons a year. That was the
fastest
rate nature could achieve – with all the land animals to play with.

Man is the bombshell exception.

For Man, with his
10 billion neurons
, should have taken
ten times as long
as the great apes in order to develop his incomparable brain. By simple arithmetic, ten times 500 million years is
5 billion years.

But Earth has not been habitable for 5 billion years. It was barely formed then out of primordial matter. Since a
little
time has to be allowed for the Earth to cool down, it's easy to see that something is very, very wrong somewhere. Thus, about 4 billion years ago, when Man
should
have had 2 billion neurons, this old Earth did not even have one single drop of liquid water on it, nor one speck of life. It was all steam.

Would you have liked to live on Earth then? Probably not – everyone likes to be warm, but not at molten lava temperatures. Man's outer-space ancestors very likely felt that way, too. They stayed away for many ages and waited until this steaming orb cooled down to a point where some semblance of life could exist in the seas, and the first vestiges of land began to show dimly through the mists of the oceans. That was about 500-600 million B.C.

That the mind of Man could not have developed on this Earth will seem even more incontrovertible in a moment. That brainpower must have developed elsewhere, upon a series of planets, and it took literally billions of years to reach its peak from the earliest life-forms. Let us envision how this incredible development may have taken place in the dim and distant past on other worlds.

Somewhere and sometime – no one knows how far back in time this may have happened – extraterrestrial Man evolved on some distant planet, as we must reiterate to keep the record clear. But, and this is the main point, before his planet became old, cold, and worn out, Man had time to develop sufficient intelligence to enable him to conquer space and begin planet-hopping. (He may, of course, have used “auto-evolution” to speed it all up: That alternative is always there.)

When Starman had successfully planet-hopped many times and had become established on other planets that were new, fresh, young, and ready to support him for further eons, he continued to develop mentally.

This process had proceeded at a tumultuous pace on his former home-planet – it was the process of developing his science, his social orders, his ethics, and all that goes with the mental level of life. It probably required more time than could be lived on one planet to develop that magnificent brain possessed by Man's outerspace ancestors. Who can say for certain? So many factors enter into this speculation that there can be no hard and fast conclusions.

Perhaps the moves to dozens of planets – different homes – were needed to bring the marvelous brain of our forebears to fruition. Perhaps many more were required, maybe in the hundreds.

At any rate, it is certain that tremendous progress did occur and that incredible lengths of time were required. Only the concept of a planet-hopping,
ever-evolving
race that traveled through space for millions of years fits the surmise of an ancestral race as well developed as we – the resulting Hybrids give testimony to.

But to return to the main point: that Man
must
be a Hybrid, because there has not been
enough time
on Earth to permit his marvelous mind to develop.

To illustrate this point, imagine taking a baby ape or chimpanzee into our homes (as many researchers have attempted to do) to “humanize” the primate by bringing it up in a home atmosphere. If Evolution is correct and we are not hybrids but have evolved from
common stock
along with the ape, it naturally follows that baby apes would show, when raised in a human family, a real and measurable increase in IQ, or at least learning ability.

But this does
not
happen! The ape's IQ remains the same.

Something is obviously wrong. Somehow, the notion that Man evolved from common stock with the apes (the famed “missing link”) has error in it. Otherwise, apes would respond and would show real improvements in their ability to cope with their environment. They would climb a rung or two up the evolutionary ladder when they are raised in one of our homes, for they would then possess
learning
brains like ours.

Thus the IQ gap between apes and men is far too great to be covered by any miracle of “quickie” evolution that produced the human mind.

This fallacy has been condemned over and over by others. In another book reviewing evolution, the author puts it that Man would have to be a “special case of a highly improbable acceleration of evolution.”
⁶
The human brain, he goes on, could have reached its present peak only if “given enough time.” Further on: “The accepted idea of an evolution that dragged along for half a million years [with Hominids] and then suddenly spurted forward [for mankind] rests on countless ‘justifications’ that are totally outdated.” It is all likened to the many cunning Ptolemic “proofs” that the sun revolved about the Earth, prior to Copernicus.

There is yet another point perhaps of even greater importance than the above item. What we have learned of the human brain leads us to believe that it is so much more highly developed, so much more complex, involved and complicated than an ape's brain, that not only great stretches of time but also
quality
separate the two types of brain – anthropoid and humanoid.

By rough analogy, we can assume that the average ape's brain is comparable to a radio set in complexity while the average human brain is like a television set. Actually, the example is not too strained, for: “The chimpanzee cannot retain an image long enough to reflect upon it.” Thus, comparing an ape's brain to a radio is more appropriate.

Now consider Man's brain. He is able to project a picture – any picture he wishes – on his mental screen. At last we begin to see why the human brain is so comparatively great, so awesome in its complexity and sheer power to create, to reason, and to visualize, as contrasted to any ape brain.

In electronic terms, the marvelous television set that is our brain must also have the functions of a radar screen and a taperecorder, and a switching facility so complex that it truly staggers the imagination.

To illustrate: Recall or remember, with a picture in your mind, the last walk you took just before sitting down to read this page. Even the process of remembering or imagining any short walk is very complicated. If an attempt were made to construct an electrical device or computer that could reproduce the functions of
the human brain, it would take all the workingmen in industry
all over the world
one year to wire up the circuits. Neurologists estimate that some single brain-cells are connected to 11,000 other cells, creating a network of electroneural contacts that the electronics industry could never duplicate.

This gives us some idea of the fantastic intricacy of the human brain. It is by far supreme on Earth in thinking capacity, even if not in size or bulk, among the tenth-rate brains of all other earthly creatures.

Other mammals with larger brains than Man do not show anywhere near the intelligence that Man possesses with his threepound brain. There are three such animals – dolphin, elephant, and whale. The elephant, which has a brain weight of about 5,000 grams (11 pounds), and the whale, with a weight of about 10,000 grams (22 pounds), were subjected to intensive investigation by many competent investigators.

So far, no one has claimed that the intelligence of either animal is equal to Man's. The thinking power of these animals was tested in every way, with the aim of possibly discovering some specific area in which their intelligence was greater than that of Man.

These experiments have not been successful. In no way did the big-brained but small-IQ animals come close to humans.

The dolphin is a slightly different case. This animal's gross brain-weight is somewhat greater than the human's, averaging almost four pounds in the various species. And its brain comprises a good 1.2 percent of its body weight, comparing favorably with Man's 2 percent. Scientific tests have proved it is perhaps the most intelligent of all animals on Earth, next to Man. This playful and amiable aquatic creature is well known for its antics before crowds.