We Are the Children of the Stars

by Otto O. Binder

  9

  Anatomical Clues

  WE HAVE THREE last physiological traits of mankind to inspect, to see if they can be a product of earthly Evolution, or whether they point clearly to an extraterrestrial source. Anatomically, these three human attributes are exceedingly remarkable, as we shall see as we take them up in turn.

  Man's ability to speak.

  No one will deny that this is truly an ability of mankind that no other creature on Earth possesses. Dolphins may be trained in time to communicate with underwater whistles and hoots, but this communication will not even remotely resemble the intricate and highly complex system of speech used by humans.

  And here we meet one of the most amazing of all revelations in anatomy. In an educational magazine, we find this report from research scientists: “. . . human speech did not develop ‘out of’ primate (ape) vocalization, but arose from new tissue.”1

  New tissue? Tissue not found in the throat of any other primate species!

  From where?

  Explanation.

  Need we make the obvious statement that, quite like our facial mobility, the aforementioned new tissue came from the starmen, who probably had speech for geological ages before the first grunt came out of an ape-man on Earth.

  Some gene injected into the Homo line on Earth, by interbreeding or biomanipulation, carried with it the “instructions” for special tissue to form in the Hominid throat to enable him to shape it as a versatile instrument for uttering an incredible variety of sounds. Sounds far beyond the howls of wolves, yowls of cats, barking of dogs, or the grunts and whines of apes.

  The ape may have a primitive “language” with a vocabulary of perhaps a dozen or two “words” (different sounds). Man has twenty-six alphabet sounds making up 250,000 different words in the English language alone. And he has devised some 5,000 living and dead languages, each requiring special lip-and-throat sounds of its own.

  Speech by itself makes Man stand out so starkly from all the other nontalking animals on this planet that it amounts to almost clear proof of our Starman origin.

  And ponder this: True speech in the modern sense did not start with either Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon Man, though they had brain weights greater than ours. They may have had a primitive language, but systematic grammarian language was “invented” suddenly, completely, and wholly unexpectedly only some 10,000 years ago at the most.

  Invented? It sounds very much like language was handed to us on a silver platter! The whole riddle of “instant civilization” that has baffled all archeologists would require a whole new book.

  At any rate, speech is one of the most important signposts pointing to another human ability that was imported to Earth.

  Man swallows slowly.

  In connection with the above, and in the pursuit of facts that may be used as supportive data for the Hybrid theory, we come to another significantly odd one.

  Man swallows very, very slowly in comparison to the other animals.

  Man takes about six seconds to transport food from the mouth (after the act of swallowing) to the stomach.2 All other animals have practically zero transit-time from mouth to stomach. Food in the dog's esophagus is actually shot into the stomach.3

  Can this strange fact be interpreted as being strong support for the theory that Man is a Hybrid with outer-space ancestors? Yes, it is quite easy to do so.

  Man has had the dog as his companion much of the time he has had the tranquility that supposedly would cause him to swallow slowly. But man takes six seconds and the dog takes perhaps a half or a quarter of a second. It seems that something other than tranquility of existence on Earth must be involved in causing Man to have such a phenomenally long transit time from mouth to stomach.

  Explanation.

  Of course, if we accept the theory that Man is a Hybrid, we see at once that many millions of years of peaceful existence on the planets of some other star or stars could produce this slow esophagal transit-time. And so, one more unusual fact is smoothly integrated into our basic theory.

  By the way, to backtrack a bit, we should note that natural selection operates in such a way as to ensure that muscles will operate in the most efficient manner possible. Thus, if the muscles that erect each individual hair in cold weather were powerful enough to produce this stiffness in one-tenth of a second, they would have to be much larger than they are. But such speed is decidedly not necessary, so these muscles are tiny mechanisms that take up virtually no space at all in mammals' skin.

  So it was with the esophagal contractual muscles of Starman, we may assume. He did not live in continuous “flight or fight” as the animals do. He could afford to swallow slowly with no fear of being interrupted or facing a fight to the death. Prior to this, undoubtedly, be had also begun to chew his food slowly, thus extracting every bit of taste pleasure out of it.

  No animal can really “taste” or derive any sort of gourmet appreciation from its food when it is forced to cram that food from mouth to stomach in seconds or split seconds. That is why most omnivorous animals, including the apes (who occasionally do turn to fleshy foods out of necessity) are able to eat what humans consider “revolting” food – carrion and rotted meats, flesh with hair on it, small live animals still kicking, noisome creatures like toads and snakes, bloody intestines, and all other varieties of uncooked, uncleaned, uncut protoplasm.

  It is only man who enjoys his food, savoring every subtle flavor and aroma as he eats in his nonhurried way. And it all goes back to Starman, lacking any threat to his life and having time to swallow leisurely. His esophagal contractural muscles became small, slow-acting affairs – which were then contributed into our earthly gene-pool by the starmen. It must, however, have taken millions and millions of years for gene and chromosome changes to reflect the change in the eating habits of Starman. And we know that truly manlike creatures have roamed the Earth for far shorter periods than the time necessary to effect these chromosome changes by Evolution.

  Ergo: Slow swallowing in mankind, in sharp contrast to other earthly animals, is another physiological gift from the stars.

  Man's extraordinary eyes and full-color vision.

  We have saved this item, the most potent of all the physiological phenomena, for the last.

  We can introduce this subject best by means of an authoritative quote, with our italics added:

  Scientists estimate that some 90% of all the information stored in the brain arrived there through the agency of the eyes. Not surprisingly, Man's eyes are attuned precisely to his needs. For general seeing they are unsurpassed by any in the world.

  A hawk may see more sharply but cannot move its eyes easily and generally moves its head to follow its prey. A dragonfly can follow faster movement than a man but cannot focus a sharp image. A horse can see almost completely behind its head but has difficulty seeing objects straight ahead at close range.

  Most important, among higher animals only Man and his nearest primate relatives have the special combination of full stereoscopic and color vision.

  Man's eyes, placed at the front of his head rather than the sides, can focus together on an object so that it is perceived as a single three-dimensional image in the brain. Within this image his color vision enables him to pick out details by hue as well as by form and brightness.

  Taken together, color and depth perception bring Man enormous advantages over most other animals, the majority of which are color-blind and have a relatively poor capacity to judge visual distances or focus in fine detail upon particular objects.4

  And to top it all off, of course, Man's superb brain interprets the images he sees with much more precision and acumen than even the apes can muster with their second-class brains.

  Therefore, Man's eyes with an assist from his brain are unparalleled instruments for viewing the outside world, head and shoulders above the chimp and other primates as well as above all other creatures alive.

  The same book goes on to specify that the human visual system can disting
uish among some 10 million gradations of color.5 It can also adjust to the 10-billion-fold range between the dimmest thing it can discern (at night) and the brightest object (by day).

  Now, along with Man's astounding brain, his eyes are the next most “impossible” bodily feature that natural selection could have produced. This has been plainly stated by some of the foremost experts on Evolution.

  A critical book about Darwinism declares that “the Evolution of the eye in Man . . . is a major mystery;” and that, small as it is,

  the eye is an enormously complex structure of retina, cornea, rods and cones, visual purple, muscles, nerves, and fluids. Supporters of natural selection tend to play down this complexity, while opponents emphasize it. (Italics added.)6

  Why do they tend to play it down? Because it makes hash out of the laws of natural selection. There is no way to trace the development of the eye from the most primitive forms of life all the way to the fantastically sharp seeing organ of Man.

  But don't take our word for it. Here is what the authorities say.

  Dr. William Paley, Archdeacon of Carlisle, demands to know how chance alone – by the workings of “blind” natural selection – can possibly produce such elaborate designs of organs as displayed by both the human eye and brain.7

  Richard B. Goldschmidt, first-class geneticist of the University of California, calls it the “famous old problem of the eye.”8 He says the development of the human eye depends on one basic premise – photosensitivity. But when you try to explain how one certain portion of human protoplasm should become selectively adapted to seeing by photosensitivity, he says, you bog down when confronted with the great number of biological details of the eye. He concludes by stating his opinion that it is “impossible” to explain the human eye and its workings via the Theory of Evolution, no matter how cleverly you mix up natural selection, mutations, and adaptations.

  But the clincher comes from Professor Hardin, University of California, who stated:

  “That damned eye [his italics] . . . the human eye . . . which Darwin freely conceded to constitute a severe strain on his Theory of Evolution. Is so simple a principle as natural selection equal to explaining so complex a structure as the image-producing eye? Can the step-by-step process of Darwinian Evolution carry adaptation so far?”9

  Our italics follow in his final words: “Competent opinion [among evolutionists and biologists] has wavered on this point.”

  And as the book's author points out, competent opinion has never to this day come up with an acceptable explanation for the human eye.

  To cap it all off, let us hear from the master himself, who quite honestly wrote in his original book on Evolution: “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances . . . could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”10 And he never did come up with any attempt to cover that major black mark against his theory.

  We think we can safely say that next to the human brain (see chapters ahead) the human pair of eyes is another strike-three count against classical Evolution. Its followers cannot explain the phenomenal eyesight of the human race, because it didn't arise on Earth at all.

  Yet, if it came from our starmen sires, just how did they obtain this tremendous visual gift?

  Explanation.

  Actually, since it seems entirely out of range of natural selection on this or any world, we cannot resort to saying that superlong stretches of Evolution produced Starman's eye on his home-world.

  The answer in that case must be genetic control and deliberate improvement of the eye on their part.

  And why not? If they long ago realized, after their evolutionary climb to humanhood, that the eye furnished 90 percent of all outside stimuli to feed data to the brain, then why would they not set about to use advanced biotechniques to develop their eyesight themselves? Geneticists on Earth, who are probably one-thousandth as skilled as the starmen, are already talking excitedly of “improving” the human race by genetic means. Assuming they can isolate the genes that control the formation of the eyes and learn to manipulate them in new ways, even earthly scientists could then proudly display a man with 100-100 (percent) vision.

  But by the time the starmen came to Earth to speed up Evolution for mankind, it was past history how they had endowed themselves with super-eyes. And those super-eyes, or some factor of them, were then inherited by the human race during hybridization procedures.

  Super-eyes, which plagued Darwin from the start and are still plaguing evolutionists today, a century later.

  Our theory of Hybrid Man being a created product of the starmen almost presupposes that their biogenetic doings are, to our limited minds, superscientific “Magic,” nothing less. Hence, our theory does not have to strain to make the assumption that Starman, on his own world, speeded up his own Evolution artificially.

  Along with Hybrid Man on Earth, Starman “created” himself in his new image, vastly superior to anything the blind-chance syndrome of natural selection could ever accomplish for him. If you take the “blind chance” out of Evolution, you can save millions of years and reach your goal without false starts and aborted biological changes consuming ages of time.

  So why not take over the reins from natural Evolution and improve their own breed? The marvelous human eye, the superb brain, and all the other special attributes of man may actually have been achieved by “auto-evolution.” Self-evolution as master geneticists took over the task of changing the human body and its organs into a new and superior kind of “animal species” that nature itself could never produce.

  In that case, Darwinian Evolution and natural selection had no part at all in the ultimate product of the starmen, and never could have. This would account particularly for the human brain, that incredible organ that was an “overendowment” created by Starman himself, step by step, as he learned how the wondrous DNA chain of genes was the key to constant improvement of the breed.

  A startling thought. A shocking thought. We will not pursue it here except to offer it as an alternative explanation to Evolution, which even in its snail-slow march might never have created the powerful brain of thinking humans.

  Incidentally, classical Evolution depends heavily on natural “mutations,” members of species in whom genes randomly produce a “better” animal. By interbreeding, these mutations supposedly multiply and eventually replace the older species that is “inferior.”

  Modern genetics give a resounding “no way!” to that. First of all, science has yet to discover where any species of any creature, from small to large, is presently in the stage of mutating into another type of species. And this happens to be essential to the theory of Evolution, that new species should be constantly arising as they did in the past.

  Furthermore, when mutations are found in nature, they are predominantly abnormalities that are inferior to the main species, not superior. In fact, the evidence of modern experiments in producing even artificial mutants indicates that, by far, they are deleterious to the species. No useful mutations have appeared in the lab, and none are expected. The consensus is that over 99 percent of all mutated genes are harmful.

  In research with humans, geneticists (who are indeed a thorn in the side of evolutionists) believe that a good gene that can reproduce and become effective is a rare event. It occurs only once in a million animals, or once in the lifetime of a million human beings. Mutations are so far apart that it happens only once in 100,000 generations.

  The knock-out blow is that researchers estimate any single human gene may remain stable for 2.5 million years. Evolution's dependence on the mutational straw it grasps is a lost cause.

  On that basis, it would seem only the deliberate production of new and worthwhile genes by the starmen could reasonably have created themselves into a unique form of superbrained species that would never exist under the rules of the far-short strivings of evolution.

  Reviewing all the remarkable physiological anomalies of humanity, we might po
int out that Man is actually a walking museum of anatomical curios from another planet, if scientists would but take note and bury their prejudices against new ideas.

  It is rather ironic to think of researchers laboring in biolabs day and night, archeologists digging industriously around the world, and anthropologists painstakingly patching fossil bones together, in the attempt to solve the mystery of Man – when all it would take is to examine Man himself.

  One man who recognized this is Professor John Tyler Bonner of Harvard, who deplored the lack of answers we had as to the mysteries of Evolution.11 He then said, “The answers may come with further study, but they must be discovered by physiological experiments, not by complacent speculation.”

  Physiological experiments! Sage words, and exactly what we are recommending in this chapter as an untapped gold mine of information about ourselves.

  We might say that Man is the “hardware” (material proof) that pins down his extraterrestrial origin, and the germ of his species was really the first thing brought in from space (by the starmen), not the moon rocks of the Apollo expeditions!

  If the biologists would only look, what fantastic “records” are locked up in our genes and chromosomes that ordered our transformation into a thinking, talking, inventing creature? That elevated us to a majesty and destiny beyond the power of blind evolutionary forces to mold?

  The Bible constantly reiterates that “divine” intervention lifted stumbling mankind into the light. Can it be (is it heresy to seek the truth?) that starmen have been the “angels” and emissaries of God, in an indirect way, with the mission of creating sentient life on Earth? Are we the “Sons of God” by virtue of colonization by a people so highly advanced in morals, ethics, intelligence, and spiritual wisdom that it is part of a Greater Plan than we know?

  10

  Sexuality Clues

  IF MAN IS distinctly different from the apes and all animals in physiological ways, there is a still greater gulf between them in Man's sexual habits and his reproductive cycle. Sexually, the human animal's activities are vastly removed from any resemblance to animal sexuality.