There are too many HOLES in Darwinism, literally. Where is the mother-specie between horse and bear or between horse and cow? We should find earlier animal forms that are mother-species; simpler forms that split into specialized, more complex species. Where is the horse-bear that later split into the horse and bear…or the horse-cow that later split into the horse and cow? Earlier mother-species have not been discovered, with only a few exceptions to the rule. They are missing links and the many missing links in various species will probably never be discovered. Primarily because they do not exist, have never existed and history did not happen that way.

Basically, a cat has always been a cat. A dog has always been a dog. The many root-species that should exist in our long past have not been found, except for a very few known cases. For the students that wonder, ‘possibly, the connective links no longer exist or will be found in time?’ Consider the extremely long stretches of time that exist in the world of ‘Darwinism.’ There should have been plenty of time for an accurate, sharp (filled-in) picture of the past to materialize in buried stone. Nowhere are the complete pieces to Darwin’s Puzzle; the proven, finished ‘picture’ is not close to being realized. Why are there no archeological records to support clear change after change after change…as the millennia whipped by like slow sands in an hourglass? Why are the rocks silent?

The truth is the rocks are not silent. They scream with information. We should be prepared for the unique story they reveal. The evidence, such as the ‘animal genealogy’ chart, suggests a different beginning for life on this planet. LIFE EXPLODED AT ONE TIME ON EARTH…geologically speaking, when you consider looking back a million years. What the chart implies is: BOOM...there was Life on Earth! Human life, animal life and plant life in most of their varieties exploded into existence in a relatively short time. What if human/animal and plant life were not natural, but synthetic creations?

The very same can be substantiated or paralleled in the PLANT world. We also have ‘missing links’ to the distant ancestors, the mother-species of plants. Believe it or not, the (essentially) same plant species have only been with us for a matter of tens of thousands of years. Of course, prehistoric plant-types have died out; became extinct exactly like many species of animals. But, the long record of plant life from the far past is largely missing as well. Plants may not be millions of years old, but only a matter of thousands. If so, we have to change our view of life naturally beginning over long expanses of evolutionary time.

The evidence implies an ‘artificial,’ fabricated human/animal and plant genesis rather than natural origins. Were we ‘seeded’ here, as previously mentioned, in a short span of time? Did someone or a group of people ‘plant’ life on Earth just 50,000 years ago? Were we placed in a Garden of Eden? Are we the future descendants of ‘space’ people?

‘No life has been observed that is not carbon-based.’

Why is life on Earth only carbon-based? Another oddity is in the fact that known life, in every physical manifestation, is CARBON-BASED and carbon-based only. What about silicon-based life? Or, there could be life based on other elements? Is life on other planets not based on carbon? After the primordial ball of Earth cooled down (if it happened that way), couldn’t there have been a whole range of proto-life forms in existence based on different elements? Weren’t they all fighting to exist if the ‘naturalists’ are correct? If there is anything to ‘survival of the fittest,’ the question remains; ‘How did carbon-based life and only CB life have won the Nature Wars?’ Not a trace of another basis is present on Earth, yet there should be. What does that signify? It could support the hypothesis that nothing is natural when it comes to life found on this planet. Every mammal, blade of grass, fish or flea could have been manufactured. The only basis is one element and only one: CARBON. The full spectrum of forms that we observe is what can be genetically built using carbon and adding the life spark. Known species, down to the tiniest microbe, could be produced from a single carbon source.

Investigating ancient lore, students may stumble upon a quaint story for the Creation of Life on Earth. Egyptian god RA was responsible for generating the first ‘human’ life on the planet tens of thousands of years ago. With ‘tissue-samples’ from himself, the space traveler copied (cloned) himself and also decorated the New World colony with perfect plants and animals.

The above hypothetical, as fantastic as the idea sounds, is a possibility. Such an origin story accounts for every ‘living’ thing on the old planet being carbon-based. Does the story have a real world foundation? Is the ancient lore Atlantis in a nutshell?

Author’s note: This writer believes in evolution! This writer does not believe in Darwin Evolution.

Things CHANGE; everything ‘evolves’ and nothing ever stays the same. There is always a process of transition. A factor of TIME has been the emphasis of many of the paragraphs in this text. We medium-sized-brained humans find it difficult to really grasp very large tracts of time and its influence. Time has a tremendous almost unseen effect, such as the slow course of a river. In a million years, the water has carved a Grand Canyon.

Environment absolutely physically affects the life forms within it. Conditions of the environment can change the plants, animals and people over great stretches of time. Evolution has correctly pointed to certain animal changes that were results of the natural surroundings. Cave fish, for example, that have never experienced light have lost their eyes. They no longer needed them and are now eyeless. Environments physically changing people have occurred by the fact of different skin colors. Groups of humans lived or were stranded in a variety of temperate regions for long periods. Intense sun darkened the skin of cultures in tropical climates. Areas of hardly any sun have produced fair-skinned people. Our environment changes us over time.

Evolution is right on the money when it scientifically demonstrates and explores species’ transitions to other physical forms as a direct consequence of the surrounding environment. Again, the ‘genealogy’ chart marked a few recent changes because of environment + time. That will be as far as this writer can go on the subject of the accuracy of Evolution. The huge error is…

Students should examine the few ‘real’ charts of evolutionary transitions and not merely accept Evolution charts per se. Yes, actual changes in life forms have occurred, but the question is not the metamorphosis of creature-phylum or slight changes in a few species. THE QUESTION IS THE BIG QUESTION OF CREATION. Here, is Darwin’s error.

We can backtrack a bit on the Chart of Life and notice change, but not ‘creation’ or a materialization; a something from nothing. Nature does not simply and naturally produce life from a vacuum, even if the proper elements are present. No matter how many Amino acids cook up for an eternity…the sparsest hint of ‘intelligent’ life will never happen. We can have a fish tank with only water; add the elements for life and wait forever. Fish are not going to swim from one side to another no matter how much time passes. But, if we ‘breed’ tropical fish in the tank…then, life flourishes in the right conditions.

The same can be said for a virgin planet. During the long (or is it short?) course of planetary creation, life does not ‘just happen.’ Life has to be made to occur on a planet. Intelligent life will never emerge from chemical reactions. Planets can harbor a wide range of life. To contain life, the worlds must be SEEDED. Human life will never naturally appear on a planet’s surface without a little artificial inducement.

Humans have not originated chemically from the inner bellies of solar material. When Carl Sagan made the statement, it was an atheist striking out against Creationism. It is a slogan, a Madison Avenue campaign, a product meant to eliminate any type of ‘intelligent act’ in the creation of humans. Star-stuff erases the possibility of an intelligent-Creator or any type of divine intervention. Star-Stuff, to Sagan, was a beautiful way to describe our Creation scientifically. The concept is as cold as space itself. Readers should be aware that the inspiration for the film ‘Contact’ and host of the ‘Cosmos’ series publicly debated against the idea of intelligent life in the universe ever making ‘contact.’ While Dr. J. Allen Hynek (coined the phrase ‘Close Encounters of the First, Second and Third Kind’) opposed Sagan. Dr. Hynek learned to accept the reality of UFOs and UFO contact.

The problem with Darwin Evolution is not so much the ‘evolution’ (even though more evidence suggests devolution) but the Darwin aspect. We should not dismiss a philosophy of change; evolution is how something changes over time. The problem is when Evolution decides to answer THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. The Creation of all living creatures great and small is not explained in Darwin’s slow-change. Do not perceive reality through the eyes of 19th Century scientists. Views of 20th Century scientists were bad enough. Neither Church nor Science has the answers to the mystery of humankind.

What of the discoveries by Dr. Leakey in Africa? What is the significance of Lucy? Students can certainly find volumes of information discrediting the small ape creature referred to as ‘Lucy’ by the anthropological scientists. Lucy serves as science’s strong desire to unearth the hallowed ‘missing link,’ their Holy Grail. Isn’t this the same error of digging up one bone and presuming an entire dinosaur? Are they not assuming too much with Dr. Leakey?

Africa was not the motherland of human life on Earth. (book excerpt) In later chapters, we will examine the concept that our genesis did not occur in one location. The case will be made for 13, simultaneous, Cradles of Civilization forming a worldwide pattern. People did not emerge out of the dawn of time in one Cradle of Civilization. Human life did not begin only here at the Tigres and Euphrates Rivers, as was taught in schools decades ago. Human life did not begin only there in the jungles of Africa. If the Black Race wants to rally around its prehistoric greatness, do not assume Mother Africa was the beginning of all Homo sapiens. Rather, look to the stonework of Zimbabwe ruins! Zimbabwe (‘House of Stones’) proves that the FIRST AFRICANS were as magnificent stonecutters as the Egyptians or Incans!

On the point of Dr. Leakey’s ‘Lucy,’ what matters more? Should we believe one/tiny ape-thing as our ancestor that could have been any advanced astronaut’s rejected, genetic experiment? Or…do we place credibility in the fantastic, conical, stone towers at Zimbabwe? Prehistoric Africans cut and transported large monoliths? They most certainly did. Zimbabwe’s main complex is the center of a vast system, surrounded by smaller (stone) zimbabwes covering thousands of square miles. We have not been taught to appreciate the significance of such technological advances in prehistoric times. The amazing cut and transported rocks of Zimbabwe trump Lucy.

Did human life on Earth begin in our oceans? The naturalists had to ascribe some beginning point; because what was before so-called primates? Of course, it was the primordial soup that is Earth’s oceans. Fish to amphibians to primates to modern people in millions of years is the belief. How were the fish created? Then, how were the amoebas created? Maybe our very earliest, beginning point was not deep in the oceans. Another ‘alternative’ possibility exists when you consider that high technology played a crucial part in human prehistory. Maybe our very earliest, beginning point was UP above us out in space or on another planet?

There are all these ‘problems’ with a natural view of the world. Another example is how conveniently and easily, scientists now assume a meteor 65,000,000 years ago wiped out the dinosaurs. Why not 60,000,000 years ago? Why not 70,000,000 years ago? How they arrived at 65 million is anyone’s guess. The presumption is because they found a big crater? For one thing, simply, dinosaurs are not that old. That crater is probably many millions of years old. The point is present-day science loves NATURAL solutions; they embrace natural solutions. But, an ‘unnatural,’ artificial (where intelligence existed in the prehistoric past) type of answer is never seriously considered by so-called scholars. We should not be naturalists; we should be ‘unnaturalists.’

Keep in mind that a technique such as CLONING might not have been a mystery to the ancients. Also, the art of genetic engineering may explain a lot. Cloning could provide a real world answer; at least, a good possibility of another way life could appear on a planet.

Consider when Charles Darwin lived, two hundred years ago. It was an era when ol’ time religions dominated and people really were not that intelligent. These were ignorant times, just after the 18th Century. The Church was king. Then, here come the new sciences making breakthroughs in many departments. Science was not going to close its eyes, then. Nineteenth Century educators were not going to allow blinded superstitions and thousand-year old traditions rule the day. Schools had to adopt some of the new sciences. The movement eventually led to the famous Scopes Monkey trial in 1925.

Charles Darwin’s views sounded good for their times, in a ‘modern, more enlightened’ age that desperately struggled to combat the tired/stale teachings of the Church.

See also related:
The Problem With Primates | The Problem With The Stone Age

Doug Yurchey can be reached at dugko@surfside.net