Limitations of the Darwin's evolution theory
Charles Darwin is certainly the most important scientist of the last century. He provided the first reinterpretation of man's evolutionary history from the normal classical canons imposed by theology.
Until the 19th century, humans did not take much interest in their "prehistory." Only a few scientists were convinced of the existence of prehistoric man, despite the numerous finds of human fossils and chipped flints in various parts of Europe, despite in the Neander Valley (near Düsseldorf, Germany) in 1856 an unusually shaped skull and some human bones were found, which was later given the name "Neandertal man."
In 1859 Charles Darwin, a famous English naturalist, published The Origin of Species by Natural Selection where he expounded his theory of evolution: species gradually transform, mainly to adapt to changes in their natural environment and thus avoid the risk of extinction. But the burning question of man's animal origin was not being addressed.
In 1871, in another book, The Origin of Man and Sexual Selection, Darwin pointed to Africa as the cradle of mankind.
Darwin, with his first book from 1859, "The Origin of Species", laid the groundwork for enfranchising the origin of all living creatures from divine nature, proposing a more "accidental" thesis, composed of the intervention of changing climatic conditions, habitats and related growing needs, which would have conditioned living species capable of mutating along with these elements and thus winning the struggle for survival. From this point to considering the ape as the ancient progenitor of man the step is rather short and certainly very logical and reassuring.
Of course, Darwin and his theory, immediately endorsed by scientists, had, in the various forums of debate, to suffer more than one refutation and even jeers from theologians, religious and otherwise: Bishop Wilberforce, a convinced evolutionist, replied by asking him whether his kinship with apes was on the maternal or paternal side!!!
But even so, the Darwinian theory, in little more than a decade, took over, and was considered, by orthodox and non-orthodox scholars alike, infallible dogma, on a par with the Galilean theory that sees the Earth orbiting the Sun.
After all, Darwin's theory responded exactly to man's view of himself at that particular time in the Victorian era: unchallenged ruler of the world and being superior to all others.
Darwin argued that species had been able, over the millennia, to evolve through an infinite number of intermediate forms, establishing a close relationship with their surroundings and related issues.
Of course, Darwin himself realized that such imperceptible and continuous changes would also have to give rise, over the centuries to come, to the discovery of numerous fossils that would stand as proof of the actual occurrence of such changes. One example for all: if the giraffe's long neck is due to an evolution of the species apt to procure food placed higher and higher, it would be logical to assume that we would also find fossils that stood to demonstrate these intermediate stages of the transition between a neck of normal length and a disproportionate neck, as is found today in common giraffes.
Instead, none of this ever happened.
Darwin, far from being, like many other scholars and supporters of various theories, intransigent beyond all human displays of stubbornness, was well aware of the actual imperfection of paleontological traces and, indeed, more than once in his studies, wished for the actual discovery of these "intermediate" fossils.
However, beyond Darwin's own doubts, his theories were immediately accepted by the scientific community, which in a short time rewrote the entire chronology of human evolution.
In brief, today's science traces the appearance of the first hominids to about four million years ago, in central Africa, where a species of primates, accustomed until then to living among trees and forest, would have felt, at an unspecified historical moment of their existence, the need to leave the comfortable and, in some ways, much safer environment of the forest and enter the savannah; the need to look beyond the tall grasses of the savanna and to escape predators would have triggered the evolutionary process that led these early hominids to move from the natural four-legged gait to the upright gait, going on to increasingly perfect themselves until they reached our present condition. From Africa, humans would later expand throughout Europe and Asia.
The German scientist Ernst Haeckel believed, however, that the great apes of Southeast Asia (the gibbon and the orangutan) were much closer to man than the African great apes. To his great satisfaction, a young Dutch physician, Eugène Dubois, an avid reader of Darwin's work, discovered in Java in 1891 fossilized human remains that he christened "pitecanthropes" (man-apes).
Other outstanding discoveries were made after World War I: first, the famous remains of synanthropes, whose teeth, called "dragon's teeth," were unearthed near Peking, were sold as elements of alternative medicine, followed by the discovery of the first African specimen, an australopithecus skull whose description was published in London on February 7, 1925 in the journal Nature. These discoveries marked the beginning of an extraordinary paleontological affair, of which Africa was to be the privileged ground.
The discovery in 1974 of the famous hominid, which was given the name Lucy, dating back some 3.5 million years, was welcomed by science as proof of the existence of the so-called link between a being having physical characteristics purely related to an arboreal habitat and the first evolutionary element that would lead to our species.
During an international expedition led by Yves Coppens, Donald Johanson and Maurice Taieb, fifty-two bone fragments, corresponding to 40 percent of the skeleton of an ancestor of man, were discovered in Hadar, Ethiopia. Australopithecus afarensis, named Lucy (after a Beatles song), is the most complete of the australopithecus known to date.
The Ethiopians called her "Denkenesh" ("You are magnificent").
Lucy was still very small: her stature did not exceed 5 feet 10 inches (roughly that of a six-year-old child), and she weighed no more than about 30 kilograms. His brain volume was also modest: at 340 cm³, it was comparable to that of a small adult chimpanzee. A study of the bones of her skeleton shows that Lucy walked upright and could still climb trees. In fact, Lucy has very little in common with human.
Nevertheless, fossil finds give the impression that not only in Africa, but also in various parts of the world, human strains existed not only with physical characteristics already much more evolved than Lucy, but, even with artifact-making abilities, given the large number of stone tools, mortars with pestles, flint weapons, found there. Above all, it appears that these human species are much more remote than Lucy herself. In fact, Elwyn Simons in 1965 discovered in Egypt the almost intact skull of a primate considered the common ancestor of humans and apes, dating back some 30 million years.
How is this possible?
Official science, to deal with this discovery, adopts a line basically based on these elements:
- a) systematic disregard of all those elements, bone fossils and tools, that do not fall within the canons;
- b) wide discrediting of such findings by refuting their veracity or assigning them to an erroneous historical period;
- c) hope of finding the so-called "links" that go to fill the historical gaps and can cancel the indications of these "strange fossils."
Again the same science did not admit, initially, that in Europe, Asia and America, these pre-human strains could have existed independently of the presumed African origins, and in periods far earlier than the historical dates.
Yet those fossils are there in mute testimony of how humans have their origins, not only much earlier, but also in different parts of the globe, at more or less similar times.
How to explain this temporal similarity?
If science accepted the existence of such fossils all over the world it would surely reduce it to the famous theory of "cultural-historical coincidence," a theory that, according to scholars, is sufficient to explain why, in various parts of the world, about 11,000 years ago, agriculture seems to develop in unison; how come cultures with equal architectural and astronomical knowledge emerged in various parts of the world, despite having no possibility of contact; how come cultures of peoples far apart from each other, it must be said, seas and mountains, handed down similar myths, legends and religious beliefs.
The soundness of this theory is like trying to argue the lottery's win without examining the coupon: what are the chances?
Not many surely, and it would take just a mathematical calculation to ascertain that.
Yet precisely mathematics and calculation, the elements underlying scientific conditions, are openly ignored, with this theory, by official science, which, for once, on this issue seems to abandon the rational side of the question, in order to appropriate a purely "coincidental" issue.
Woe to him for indulging in theories that, though not based on flights of fancy, but on facts, do not conform to existing scientific doctrine: his vendettas may have devastating effects.
This is what Thomas Lee, a historiographer at the Museum of Antiquities in Toronto, experienced for himself.
Lee did, in fact, carry out some excavations in Canada, near Lake Ontario, where he found what were, without a shadow of a doubt, traces of an urban settlement, in the form of stone tools, which, given their complexity and excellent workmanship, openly stood to indicate that a society of unsuspected manufacturing skills had lived there.
The problem was that these finds appeared to be datable to a time span of between 65,000 and 125,000 years ago.
This, of course, clashed with existing scientific doctrines that relegate the peopling of the American continent to about 10,000 years ago, when the existence of an ice bridge, where the Bering Strait is today, allowed the influx of a few daredevils from Asia to America.
Consequence of such findings and of upholding the theory of historical misinterpretation of man's presence in America, was the loss of work for Lee himself, while the site of such findings became a tourist complex!!!
Yet, as if they were meant to be a strange twist of fate, here are mysterious fossil finds rising from the depths of the earth every day, creating more and more despair among the supporters of the orthodox scientific cause, so much so that they simply ignore them, as if they were not real. Shall we give some brief examples?
Fossil human footprints have been left imprinted on ancient rock formations; numerous artifacts have been found in "impossible" geological strata that predate the dinosaur era, more than 300 million years ago. There are skeletons of unknown human races, and technological tools of modern workmanship. Absolute silence has fallen over all this, because of the so-called cultural filter, or perhaps because of deliberate cover-up. Let us look at a review of the most important finds.
BONES OF HOMO SAPIENS (ranked according to chronological order of discovery).
- Bones of Homo Sapiens found in Brescia (Italy) by geologist Giuseppe Ragazzoni in Pliocene stratum (3-4 million years old), in 1860.
- Complete skeleton of Homo Sapiens discovered in a carboniferous basin at least 300 million years old near Macoupin, Illinois. (Source: The Geologist, 1862).
- Anatomically modern femur found on Java Island in 1894. It was mistakenly associated with a primitive hominid skull to form a phantom mixture that took the name Homo Erectus, a now indisputable cornerstone of our evolutionary line.
- Human skeleton unearthed accidentally, in an Italian mine (probably tens of millions of years old).
- Complete skeleton of modern Homo Sapiens at Olduval George, Tanzania, fossilized in 1-2 million-year-old layer, found by Dr. Hans Reck in 1913. 2. Homer and femur of present-day man, in Kenya, dated 4 and 2 million years old, respectively (1965, 1972, official records).
- Skull of hominid with controversial features, discovered by anthropologist Richard Leakey in Kenya (1972). It presented an unexpectedly high cranial capacity, with a primitive facial shape, and the age estimate ranged from 2.6 to 1.8 million years. Despite its classification as Homo Habilis, this hominid could not belong to the evolutionary lineage that originated from Australopithecus (Source: Origins, by Leakey and Lewin). Skulls with the same capabilities have been found in Peru, in Merida (see image below).
- Footprints of several Homo Sapiens specimens on fossil volcanic ash, at Laetoli in Tanzania, dating back 3.6 million years. Discovered in 1979 by Mary Leakey, they were mistakenly attributed to Australopithecus.
Even if one does not want to admit the existence of such fossils, one still has to admit that Darwinian theory and its subsequent application in the field of human evolution seems fallacious in some points.
Scientific doctrine explains with the so-called "savanna theory" the beginning of that great evolutionary process that led some primate species to become what we are today: Homo Sapiens.
According to this theory some primates, forced by a reduction of the original forested environment and thus by an effective reduction in food resources, would have pushed into the open savannas, thus leaving a place, the forests, which until then, had not only provided food, but also a fair amount of protection. From here these primates would have evolved to a status vitae that would allow them to dominate their surroundings and assert their superiority.
Well, it is well known how the same scientists affirm that humans (in all its forms, from primates to the modern) could hardly have coexisted with dinosaurs, since some of them, ruthless carnivores and hunters, would certainly have surpassed in size and "armament" even valiant human hunters (let alone primates), forcing the same humans to abject living conditions that would hardly be reconciled with both evolutionary and social development.
Having made this observation, it must be noted that these ancient ancestors of ours, abandoning the forest, had to venture into a hostile world, where large predators such as lions and hyenas, and other carnivorous animals, predominated. These primates, according to science, would, over time, have matured the evolutionary skills to help them against the problems of existence: an upright gait, increased brain mass, and progressive loss of fur.
Now, the questions arising from the above observation are as follows: assuming the veracity of the "savannah theory," would it have taken longer for those brave primates to begin and complete their evolution, or for the beasts of the savannah to provide themselves with a lavish feast?
Why assume an upright gait when, for the purpose of evading a predator attack, running on all fours would surely be more suitable, in terms strictly of speed and expenditure of strength?
Why the loss of fur, which could have sheltered them from the heat of the sun during the day and from the cold at night, savannas, like deserts, being places of strong daily excursions (in terms of temperature)?
When would they, these primates, have begun to evolve? In the presence of the difficulties born in the savannas, or earlier, in their natural habitat, the forest, as a kind of autogenous training?
How come the example of these primates was not followed by all specimens of this race, since a group, whether animal or human, always tends to evolve entirely?
And why this particular race of primates? Were not the issues of hunger, an essential component for the emergence of the evolutionary component, the same for all animals?
Yet, it seems that over the centuries, animal breeds have not undergone any particular evolution; indeed, some of them have come down to the present day without undergoing mutation.
In fact, animal breeds appear to have arisen from nothing, since no fossils are found to testify to evolutionary transitions from much more primitive forms.
Even more important is the analysis of two characteristics that differentiate us from the animals themselves: the way we breathe and the ability to speak. These characteristics differentiate us by far from other land animals, and if we take as true the claim that the evolution of a species is largely due to the habitat in which that species comes to interact, we should, of necessity, look for an environment other than the theoretical savannah as the place of origin of our evolution.
Like all mammals we breathe, this is quite self-evident, but while other mammals are able to drink and breathe together, we can only do one of the things at the same time; unlike other mammals, however, we breathe with nose and mouth, this thanks to an organ called the descending larynx.
Other mammalian races have separate trachea and esophagus, then mouth and nose, which allows them to drink and breathe at the same time. Humans, in contrast, have the trachea placed in the throat, the initial part of which is called the descending larynx. Of course, food must be introduced into the esophagus without passing through the trachea, in order to risk suffocation (we could say we are imperfect in perfection)
The feature of the descending larynx, absent as we have seen in terrestrial animals, is present instead in aquatic animals such as whales, seals, and dugongs, as it allows them to breathe through their mouths, simultaneously expelling or retaining large amounts of air, allowing for longer immersion times.
Thus, the claim that some of our characteristics evolved in a completely different environment, such as the savannah, could be re-read and placed in a different context, the aquatic one, perhaps consisting of a habitat formed by swamps, or lagoons.
In fact, a terrestrial mammal, with characteristics similar to ours, that is, erect and gait at the same time, capacity for an arbicular life, exists and it is the so-called proboscis monkey, found in some parts of Borneo. It behaves like a primate when it is in the trees, but, when it descends from them, it prefers river courses and swamps, where it assumes an erect gait in shallow water, while, in high water, it is capable of swimming.
Now, without wishing to fall into long and tedious anatomical discussions, the author asks you for a simple consideration, by virtue of the discussion addressed in previous articles presented on this site by the same author: is it coincidental that many gods (Oannes, Orejona, the mysterious Kappas and others), procreators of the human race, had not only an extraterrestrial origin, but also aquatic characteristics (they arose and dwelt in lakes, rivers, seas and were clothed in scales and more)?
Breathing control allows us to take advantage of another distinctly human characteristic, absolutely not to be confused with what may be the dog's bark, the owl's cry, the wolf's howl and other characteristic animal noises: the use of speech, of the wide range of phonetic sounds, through which we express ourselves.
Moreover, the human being seems to lack that genetic sequence, called "baboon's," which seems to be present in all African primates, while it is completely absent from Asian and American primates.
In the light of these elements we may well support the hypothesis that the Darwinian theory, if not completely erroneous, is, at least, to be considered fallacious in numerous points and that the savannah theory is absolutely impossible for man, but not for a race of primates (from which Lucy would descend) with which man himself has little to share.
In the past, clumsy attempts have been made to make up for such shortcomings by creating "artfully" the Piltdown man, to whom scientists at first extolled but then recanted when they learned that he was nothing but a fake, while today we read of a generic Homo habilis, of which, however, no traces have actually been found.
Probably man evolved in his various forms to our present form at a time much earlier than the classical one considered, coexisting at some historical periods with forms of primates also evolving, but in a lower hierarchical scale than man himself. By the time these early primates, erroneously traced back to human progeny, were beginning labile forms of evolution, man was already capable of building and using flint tools, thus ensuring that he could survive the natural selection of life.
Comments