Is Darwin infallible?
(under construction)
At the dawn of the 21st century, which is marked by religious fanatism, it quite controversial to consider any form of "intelligent design" as a guiding force of the evolutionary process. From the limited perspective of our cultural prejudices, it can only be explained as a supernatural, divine force -- or as a natural phenomenon that would be dismissed as a science fiction. Either way, it is an interesting subject that connects to our grail theories.
Had Darwin known what we know today, he would have never proposed "natural selection" as an explanation for our origins, and perhaps only as a sub-category that he would have named "specialization". No one knew two hundred years ago that our species evolved in Africa with black skins, that all races in the different parts of the globe continued to evolve mentally at the same speed, and that our entire Solar system moves in cycles of 854 years.
Anyone who enjoys scuba diving or snorkeling has seen millions of fish move in perfect synchronicity, even large flocks of birds in the sky, and may have considered some kind of mental connection, that some sort of ESP is involved. It is highly probable that our ancestors, monkey-like creatures in the African jungles, still had that mental connection, which is probably the part of their brain that separated into the "subconscious" and "conscious". It seems that the partial loss of our ESP gave us the ability to think rationally and become materialistic.
When our black African ancestors were hunters and gatherers, many hunters left the jungle and had greater success in the plains. Those with shorter tails could run faster and survived, which is one of the rare occasions when Darwin's "natural selection" played an important role. But it is here, where "choice" enters the evolution as well, because some returned to the jungle where flat noses were more practical for "tree-climbing". They returned to gather some fruits or because of a major drought. The long noses developed with the reduction of the nostrils to make breathing safer during dust- and sandstorms in the plains and deserts. There may have also been social reasons that the long-nosed hunters from the plains considered the flat-nosed jungle inhabitants more attractive, which would explain why both shapes have survived in Africa to this day. (One of the most sophisticated representatives of the flat-nosed "tree-climbers" is these days the great American actor Morgan Freeman). This interaction between the hunters and gatherers, and lack thereof, may also explain the diverse African peoples and tribes, from the Pygmies to the Watussi.
It is here, where a flat-nosed African and a white supremacist may share a similar disregard for our theory, because ignorance is always the cause of prejudice. Darwin attempted to socialize a few "savages" himself, yet it never entered his mind that there could be another evolutionary force that caused the parallel development of all humans, and all races that descend from African ancestors. But before we interject the "lapsit exillis" as a likely explanation of this phenomenon, back to our imaginative scenario:
The old Greeks were ahead of Darwin in many ways, not only in time, which includes Plato who celebrates Berossus of Babylonia. Not only was there more than the one flood that the Bible mentions, there were also many conflagrations when only the peoples in moist valleys survived. As the human species evolved in Africa during many hundreds of thousand years, hunting in the plains in wet years and retreating to the mountains during droughts, others groups followed the animals (their food) to the North and survived as Nomads.
Perhaps before the Mediterranean existed, the first groups crossed into fertile Northern regions and when they first experienced winters had to become cave-dwellers. While some continued to live in caves for a hundred thousand years, until about thirty thousand years ago according to the cave paintings, other tribes continued farther North in the summer and were trapped by little ice ages. They had to build Igloos and survived on a diet of Arctic animals and fish.
This is the basic concept of how our different races developed, without much Darwinism. Our African ancestors lived in the caves of Europe for a hundred thousand years, lost their pigmentation and turned pink. Those caught in the bright white of the icy North had to squint all day and their eyes adapted over time. Because it was dark half of the year, they also lost part of their pigmentation, which is mutation and not "selection". During rare periods of "global warming", some of these Polar tribes migrated South-East and became Asians, and others went to the North-West and settled the Americas, followed by others on the European continent.
That's the simplified concept, because it is human nature that much more was going on, including tribal warfare and intermarriage. Some of the "bleached" cave-dwellers returned to Africa, others crossed with the Arctic tribes to the Americas, or migrated East to join the Asians. Soon, the islanders of South-East Asia used floats, rafts and sails to settle other islands, and some made it as far as the Americas. A major aspect of their mutations is the diet, which affected their size and skin color. Stationary tribes that lived in jungles or mountains remained short, while the fast-moving hunters in the plains grew taller with longer legs. A hundred thousand years of Asian spices like turmeric will turn any skin yellowish, and something like bison meat and sage will probably turn it reddish. In time, many of the pink cave-dwellers regained some pigmentation when the weather got better and they discovered farming and warfare. An Encyclopedia Britannica had a full page of American Indian chiefs in the 1950s, and if you spend some serious time with their faces you'll recognize all the peoples from around the globe.
Which leads us to the greatest flaw of Darwin's "natural selection": Why are all those flat-nosed Africans, pink-skinned Europeans, red American Indians, and slit-eyed Asians in their intellectual development on an identical evolutionary level, in spite of the social differences? After a dark period of racism, this is probably the most important "discovery" of the 20th century, thanks to African-Americans, because they provide living proof in the media that our physical mutations are much slower than our mental and emotional development. The first scholar to take Darwin's experiment with "savages" to a higher level is the acclaimed French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, who studied the natives of the Brazilian jungles. He attributes this parallel development to imagination and mythology, which is certainly an important argument, but not not the only cause.
It may take us another few thousand years to fully appreciate this phenomenon, when different races no longer exist and all humans have turned into the same Middle-Eastern medium brown. By that time, the mystery of ESP and the parallel mental development of our species is long solved and taught in grammar school. The solution will probably be about two unrecognized, natural phenomena that our religions attribute to a divine being. Apparently, there is a communication between all life forms, which has slowly become subconscious in humans, and which is caused by the 854-year planetary cycles of our Solar system. It is an intelligent "cosmic force" that guides our evolution, regardless of our location -- be in Africa, at the Polar icecap, or in the Andes of Peru. The various options of explaining this phenomenon cannot fully exclude at this time that we may be connected to a highly evolved civilization somewhere out there, real-live extraterrestrials...
(to be revised and continued)
Grailgate Library 854-year cycles
Copyright (C) 2009 by GrailGate