they must have been exposed to attacks from predators and, like male baboons, macaques and gorillas, the male Hominids almost certainly possessed [one would think] long canines which they used to defend themselves, their females, and their young.
Had they not done so, the Hominids would surely have been wiped out. 6
Then comes the damaging admission: “Yet, the Australopithecine fossils show these little apelike men possessed canines no longer or sharper than modern Man.”
All of which is pithily highlighted by another quote, “This problem [how Man got from the trees to the ground] has puzzled experts for a long time and many imaginative theories have been put forward.” 7
“Imaginative” is the word!
Which is the trap the authorities fall into, trying to explain that disturbing anomaly, when they fish up this one – that the Australopithecines of about 2 million years ago were not the earliest representatives of the ground-walking Hominids.
But, as we saw before, the great Hominid fossil gap intrudes by furnishing no pre Australopithecus species for a long age, thus giving them not the slightest evidence that their theory is valid. It is not very scientific to predicate a hypothesis on what shouldbe, when the fossil proof is totally lacking. That is little better than unscientific guessing.
Can our theory do any better? We believe so.
First of all, it is part of our concept that whenever Hominid species in the past made inexplicable leaps ahead, in any area, those leaps had one common cause – the biomanipulations of the starmen . We, too, must resort to pure speculation (which at least places us on an equal footing with the anthropologists) and imagine that, as part of their plan to bring out the step-by-step creation of Hybrid Man, our star-sires somehow got early Man down to the ground on two feet.
But how? Here is where we will make another daring proposal – it was done by genetic control. By the deliberate introduction of specialized genes into the systems of the early Hominids.
As we now dimly realize in modern biology, the genes are a complex “ladder” of chromosome trails within each cell that control some memory-pattern or instinct or biochemical process for the whole body. Thus, if the starmen simply incorporated dominant new genes for walking upright, while turning the old treeswinging genes into recessive traits, early Man would, in a few generations, abruptly switch from being an arboreal acrobat into a walking plainsman.
This was vitally necessary, for one cannot build civilization in the tops of trees. The starmen had to get the dawn men down on the ground before their magnificent earth colony could come to fruition.
Read any anthropological work that tries to explain just how the early men did exchange their tree life for prairie life, and you will see a tortuous interweaving of how the need for game, use of tools, seeing further when standing up, and other somewhat irrelevant or farfetched ideas are thrown together, begging the question entirely.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
It forms the forlorn basis for every tautological attempt, under evolutionary theory, to get early mankind out of the trees and down to solid ground.
And the theorizers only leave themselves higher in the air than Man was in the treetops.
If the forests did not decline but grew more lushly as time passed, why in the world should a tree-dwelling species of animal desert his original habitat? It is questions like these that tonguetie the anthropologists.
We do not mean to denigrate them, but their “authority” on such ancient mysteries, when not backed up by any fossils – their basic tool – is certainly far from authoritative.
It is another big “hole” in Evolution, as applied to Man, that neither Darwin nor Wallace could ever cover in the first place.
Where did the Homo family of species come in, according to Evolution? Homo , meaning human or the true men as distinguished from the
Had they not done so, the Hominids would surely have been wiped out. 6
Then comes the damaging admission: “Yet, the Australopithecine fossils show these little apelike men possessed canines no longer or sharper than modern Man.”
All of which is pithily highlighted by another quote, “This problem [how Man got from the trees to the ground] has puzzled experts for a long time and many imaginative theories have been put forward.” 7
“Imaginative” is the word!
Which is the trap the authorities fall into, trying to explain that disturbing anomaly, when they fish up this one – that the Australopithecines of about 2 million years ago were not the earliest representatives of the ground-walking Hominids.
But, as we saw before, the great Hominid fossil gap intrudes by furnishing no pre Australopithecus species for a long age, thus giving them not the slightest evidence that their theory is valid. It is not very scientific to predicate a hypothesis on what shouldbe, when the fossil proof is totally lacking. That is little better than unscientific guessing.
Can our theory do any better? We believe so.
First of all, it is part of our concept that whenever Hominid species in the past made inexplicable leaps ahead, in any area, those leaps had one common cause – the biomanipulations of the starmen . We, too, must resort to pure speculation (which at least places us on an equal footing with the anthropologists) and imagine that, as part of their plan to bring out the step-by-step creation of Hybrid Man, our star-sires somehow got early Man down to the ground on two feet.
But how? Here is where we will make another daring proposal – it was done by genetic control. By the deliberate introduction of specialized genes into the systems of the early Hominids.
As we now dimly realize in modern biology, the genes are a complex “ladder” of chromosome trails within each cell that control some memory-pattern or instinct or biochemical process for the whole body. Thus, if the starmen simply incorporated dominant new genes for walking upright, while turning the old treeswinging genes into recessive traits, early Man would, in a few generations, abruptly switch from being an arboreal acrobat into a walking plainsman.
This was vitally necessary, for one cannot build civilization in the tops of trees. The starmen had to get the dawn men down on the ground before their magnificent earth colony could come to fruition.
Read any anthropological work that tries to explain just how the early men did exchange their tree life for prairie life, and you will see a tortuous interweaving of how the need for game, use of tools, seeing further when standing up, and other somewhat irrelevant or farfetched ideas are thrown together, begging the question entirely.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
It forms the forlorn basis for every tautological attempt, under evolutionary theory, to get early mankind out of the trees and down to solid ground.
And the theorizers only leave themselves higher in the air than Man was in the treetops.
If the forests did not decline but grew more lushly as time passed, why in the world should a tree-dwelling species of animal desert his original habitat? It is questions like these that tonguetie the anthropologists.
We do not mean to denigrate them, but their “authority” on such ancient mysteries, when not backed up by any fossils – their basic tool – is certainly far from authoritative.
It is another big “hole” in Evolution, as applied to Man, that neither Darwin nor Wallace could ever cover in the first place.
Where did the Homo family of species come in, according to Evolution? Homo , meaning human or the true men as distinguished from the
Similar Books
