One major project, not yet concluded, is the reverse – to teach the dolphins simplified human speech. First to understand it, then to even “speak” it with vocal sounds as close to human speech as possible. If this fully succeeds (there has been some progress), it will give the dolphin a “genius” rating far above the chimp or any other earthly animal.
But still – and let us get this clear – even the least intelligent of human beings (including idiots and morons) will be as far above the dolphin intellectually as the dolphin is above the chimp. The dolphin is not by any stretch of imagination equal in brainpower to humans, and represents the best that Evolution could do in evolving anything approaching a humanlike brain.
In fact, the dolphin, representing the true scope of natural selection on Earth, is a clear sign of the limitations of Evolution in trying to achieve a first-class thinking organ like Man's.
Evolution could never produce the latter, only a very poor (in comparison) second-class dolphin brain.
Since none of the three creatures with brains physically larger and heavier than Man's (dolphin, elephant, whale) shows any degree of real intelligence of the human type, we are forced to develop a rather obvious conclusion to account for what we know about the relative brain-sizes in relationship to intelligence ratings of the various mammals, including Man.
Man's intelligence is obviously independent of his brain size, which indicates that something besides sheer weight or volume is involved. Supporting this latter contention is the knowledge that, in the historical past, some intellectual giants, such as Voltaire, had relatively small cranial capacities.
Indeed, it can now be proven without a doubt that, while Man's brain is only three times as large as the brain of our most intelligent ape, it is about ten times as efficient.
As mentioned before, a chimpanzee's brain contains about a billion nerve cells, while the brain of Man contains some 10 billion neurons. This tends to force the conclusion upon us that the human brain must be a more efficient brain than that possessed by any other animal. It is certainly more efficient than the elephant's or the whale's brain despite the theoretically equal length of time all mammals had on Earth to develop their intellectual capacities.
To repeat our point, something besides mere brain weight makes the difference – namely, the number of neurons and their efficiency.
The large-brained two – elephant and whale – have neurons, too, but fewer in number than the human brain, despite their greater size. Their brain cells (neurons) are comparatively big, so that the total number of neurons is below the human total, despite the animal's huge brain.
The dolphin is again an exception, with an equal number of brain cells to humans, but much of their brain is especially adapted to sonar analysis rather than “thinking” like men.
And therein lies the whole story. With his unmatched quality and quantity of 10 billion tinier neurons, Man's brain is far more powerful. Also it is more efficient because of the rapidity with which nerve impulses are handled by the central “control switchboard” of the brain.
Another factor is how many convolutions (folds) exist around the surface of the brain's cerebrum (80 percent of the total brain weight). In some obscure way, the number of convolutions in the cortex (outer envelope) of the human brain increases its thinking powers to formidable proportions, far above other animals with less-convoluted brains.
To indicate what a supremely superb thinking device our lump of “gray matter” is, neurologists point out that each single brain is more complex in “wiring” (nerve circuits) than all the worldwide networks of radio, television, telephone, telegraph, and orbiting relay-satellites combined. The association of ideas, thoughts generated, memories retained, and the vast storehouse of knowledge piled high in the average human brain is simply unbeatable by any mechanical or electronic system yet known.
In assuming that Man is a Hybrid, the very source of Man's more efficient brain – namely, the starmen – reveals why their more efficient brain was developed in the first place.
It seems evident that Starman, slowly and in good time, evolved the marvelous mental instrument of which our brain, which we all carry around with us, is a hereditary offshoot. Furthermore, that cerebral device of Starman was developed in times gone past to receive and retain much more knowledge than earthman has to deal with today, and thus we inherited excess brainpower. The lives and accomplishments of men like Einstein, Edison, Newton, and Darwin tend to prove this. They simply developed and used the mental abilities that we all latently possess to their maximum powers, or close to it.
No one has ever heard of an elephant doing calculus or of a whale devising a new theory of relativity, and they both have larger brains than Man – but not the immense mental power packed into Man's small skull, thanks to the starmen.
When mathematics is applied to this brain phenomenon, staggering results are obtained. The use of mathematical deduction on the data that was just presented brings the finding that Man is hundreds of times more unique than has heretofore been supposed. He is so incredibly “unearthlike,” that only through hybridization by extraterrestrials could his uniqueness have been realized.
Consider the large animals that roam the world – animals that size for size could have developed a brain of similar weight and the intelligence of Man. Among these animals are the horse, cow, lion, camel, moose, rhinoceros, bear, and hippopotamus. If one assumes that these animals had equal opportunity to develop Man's brain and intelligence, then it is necessary to conclude that Man is nine times more unique than they are.
Taking special human characteristics, each one of these nine animals had equal opportunity to also develop, for example, the valuable characteristic of the burrowing ovum. Thus, on that scale, humans are eighty-one times more unique than any one of our sample animals.
None of these animals can talk either, as Man does, but they had equal time to develop this useful characteristic. So, nine times eighty-one equals seven hundred and twenty-nine.
This by no means exhausts Man's roster of unique qualities, but he is probably many thousand times more unique than these nine man-sized families. The concept of Man as no more than a half-earthly hybrid gives an explanation for the strange and mysterious differences that separate Man and all species of animals in the world, past or present.
Even more specific in the case of the “species race” to achieve intelligence is the popular notion among anthropologists that when Man left the trees and walked upright on the ground, this left his two upper limbs free, as arms and hands, to manipulate objects. This, presumably, then led to fingering many things out of curiosity and to making tools, thereby spurring his brain to grow with great rapidity.
Now let us see if there is a rebuttal to that specious idea.
Our argument is that long ago, in the age of dinosaurs, there appeared in North America a dinosaur of awesome proportions. Some specimens grew to be as long as forty-eight feet, stood twenty feet high, and had a head six feet long. This was the ferocious, carnivorous monster known as Tyrannosaurus rex.
Now we know from studies made of this incredible beast's skeleton that he walked upon his rear legs exclusively and used his front legs for everything but body support.7
Tyrannosaurus rex lived for 20 million years or more as a species. He was not the only one of his general type to roam the Earth, for in North America there existed along with him another similar species, while there were also several related species in Europe.
These reptiles all had one thing in common: They did not use their front legs, or paws, for body support. Consequently, this left their front limbs absolutely free to examine and handle things, just like Man, when he became a creature walking on two legs.
Well, this fearsome beast evolved quite in the opposite direction from Man. Yet, according to highly respected anthropologists, since bipedalism presumably accounts for Man's intelligence, Tyrannosaurus rex also had the necessary prerequisites for developing into a species of largebraine
d intellectuals – but they did not so develop. In fact, they have been described as “the largest creatures with the smallest brains ever to inhabit the Earth.”8
Rex's singular failure to develop a huge brain, with a head almost six feet long, affording plenty of room, is shared by the age-old kangaroo genus and its species.
The kangaroo too does not need his forepaws at all for locomotion, since he moves by use of his powerful hind legs in a series of great hops. Thus, his “hands” were also free, for many millions of years – far longer than the Hominids – without becoming developed into tool-using dexterous appendages.
Why not? The forepaws of a kangaroo may look “ineffective” but are far from it, at least when it comes to delivering blows with them.
The big red kangaroo of a British circus-owner had a remarkable career. Sidney (the kangaroo) was trained to box and thereafter won bouts over dozens of human opponents. It was no fakery or publicity stunt, as Sidney bested both British and German heavyweight champions. In other words, the dexterity of his forepaws was even superior to that of humans, if he could deliver blows and feints and left hooks with boxing gloves to dazzle skilled ring champs.9
Then, if the various kangaroo species possessed these agile and well-coordinated forepaws an age ago, why did natural selection “choose” to not promote them into firstclass tool-making hands? Was it natural for natural selection to skip past the kangaroo and settle on Hominid ape-men as the ones to thereby develop a big brain?
If free hands leading to intelligence is a “rule” of Evolution, why are there more exceptions to the rule than otherwise? Certainly, such a far-from-airtight explanation for Man's mighty brain cannot be defended on that score. It clearly demonstrates that an upright posture does not and cannot on this earth, by itself guarantee surpassing intelligence.
Darwin himself fell into this trap and innocently stated that “Man could not have attained his present dominant position in the world without the use of his hands. But the hands and arms could hardly have become perfect enough to have manufactured weapons – as long as they were used for locomotion.”
Also ignoring the T. rex and kangaroo cases, Dobzhansky says: “The use of the arms for handling objects rather than for walking . . . has . . . stimulated further progress in intelligence.”10
How can that bland statement be true? We can see that at least five extinct dinosaurs and one presently living kangaroo species have, or had, the physical characteristics (upright posture), which eminent anthropologists solemnly claim to be the main prerequisite for higher intelligence.
Yet, those bipedal creatures did not develop Man's intelligence in ten times the length of evolutionary time humans have had.
Why not? Apparently because having their hands free did not make the brains of Hominids suddenly grow abnormally large in a brief million years, or even 10 million years. That is not the answer to human intelligence, yet it is the only poor answer available under earthly conditions and evolutionary rules.
Since earthly conditions cannot apply, we once again put forth our theme – that the big brain was an “import” brought by the starmen. Thus Man, and hybridized Man alone, has this incredible brain, this supreme machine of all organic machines, this ultimate jewel of all Earth nerve-systems that run living organisms.
It is a priceless gift like this from outer space that forever sets men apart from, and ultimately so far above his earthbound relatives – the lower animals.
Another favorite theory of the evolutionists is that the opposable thumb in Man's hand led to his superbrain, by virtue of allowing him to grasp and handle things with great dexterity, which, in turn, presumably led to the use of tools, which stimulated rapid brain growth. Aside from the previous confusion we noted over whether tool-using or upright walking or whatever led to intelligence, we might cite the following inconsistencies in relation to the opposable thumb.
As reported in a science-digest publication:
Hypsilophodon, a small, two-legged herbivorous dinosaur, is generally thought to have been a tree dweller. . . . Its skeletal structure, say the proponents of this view, was ideally suited to life in the trees. . . The toes of the hind feet were long and flexible. The clincher, however, is that . . . the first digit appears to be opposable, like a thumb, so that the foot would be capable of grasping.11
Now, if the opposable thumb was an important factor in the development of Man's big brain, why didn't that small dinosaur – with a head start of perhaps 80 million years – gain intelligence?
Many early primates had an opposable thumb, or at least a thumb that allowed them to grasp things with a firm grip – which was something no other lower animal could do. As an authoritative work reveals, the tree shrew, loris, tarsier, marmoset, and macaque back in antiquity all had grasping hands much like the human hand.12 The macaque ape and chimpanzee both go a big step beyond the other anthropoids with opposable thumbs, giving them the dexterity to pick up fairly small things, like a flintstone chip to use as a tool.
But – they never learned to pick up or use such tools except by sheer accident. And their opposable thumb did not launch them on the road to intelligence, as with Man.
As an escape from this opposable-thumb theory failing to account for intelligence, some experts say that it was a combination of ground-dwelling and a tool-grasping hand that sparked the growth of Man's big brain.
True, the other primates are tree-dwellers and were so in the past – except the baboon. That is, though living mainly in the treetops, baboon tribes will often forage for food on the ground. And they have learned the simple trick of using a handy stick as a sort of “tool” to pry up tasty roots and grubs.
Now, there we have the pregnant situation of another primate who spent much time on the ground and used his hand with the opposable thumb to wield at least a simple nonshaped “tool.”
Just as early Man did.
Why didn't this ground life of baboons first of all lead to upright walking and, second, to intelligence? Baboon species existed up to 20 million years ago, before Ramapithecus, the earliest Hominid, and therefore had more than an even chance to develop an intelligent brain ahead of the Hominids.
It never happened.
According to Evolution and natural selection, it should have happened. That is, if Man's brain in the first place is a result of natural selection. Ergo, natural selection by earthly evolutionary rules and conditions did not produce the sapient brain of Man.
How many “exceptions” can the evolutionists expect to bring forth if humans are an exception to their rules? All the creatures who walked on hind legs and had their forepaws free; the creatures with opposable thumbs; the primates who became part-time ground-dwellers; the primates who were users of basic “tools” or pretools (including the chimp) – a couple of dozen species who, by rights, should have gone on the road to intelligence.
Yet they never did.
They are the “exceptions” to the rule that two-legged, thumbhanded, ground-dwelling, tool-using species “should” gain a big brain. Only Hominid man somehow “fortuitously” sprang ahead of the pack and developed his intelligent brain.
If Evolution works for one, why doesn't it work for all?
The zoologist quoted before typifies the expediency employed by experts in regard to the development of Man's brain. In connection with early Hominids, he says
First, he had to hunt if he was to survive. Second, he had to have a better brain to make up for his poor hunting body. Third, he had to have a longer childhood to grow the bigger brain and to educate it. Fourth, the females had to stay put and mind the babies while the males went hunting. Fifth, the males had to cooperate with one another on the hunt. Sixth, they had to stand up straight and use the weapons for the hunt to succeed.13
He then modifies his “timetable” by saying, “I am not implying that these changes happened in that order; on the contrary they undoubtedly all developed gradually at the same time, each modification helping the others along.”
<
br /> It all sounds quite “logical,” except for the plain fact that species do not change that readily, nor that rapidly – nor that radically – not in a short one or two million years. The opossum, for instance, has changed hardly at all for at least 75 million years. And Man has supposedly evolved from the apes (or a common ancestor) in a fiftieth of that time.
True, the opossum is not to be taken as a standard. To be fair and unbiased, we will quote another authority, who points out: “In the horse, a rather rapidly evolving type, average [time required] in change from one genus to another was . . . well over 5 million years.”14
Now a change of genus is quite a change, whereas the appearance of a new species within a genus happens more often. A change of species occurred in the horse in only 500,000 years.
But the same authority then states “rates of evolutionary [change] . . . vary enormously. . . . And the fastest of them seem very slow to human [changes].” (Italics added.)
No matter how swiftly some animals evolve into new species and then into an entire new genus, Man's seven-league-bootjumps up the evolutionary ladder are unrivaled. No animal can match it.
The horse is still a horse, not a thinking animal. His brain grew larger in jumps, but only because his body grew larger in jumps from tiny dog-sized Eohippus to the modern horse. Brain size merely kept up with increased body sizes and their more elaborate nervous systems, but the animal became no “smarter” than before.
Man's oversized brain, however, completely outgrew his body – which did not grow noticeably bigger. Thus, this brain riddle has utterly confounded anthropologists ever since the Theory of Evolution came in, and one could quote dozens of disturbed skeptics.
As an example, back in 1899 this statement was made:
If we do not admit that latent capacities in the savage brain [of Hominids] were implanted for use at some time in the distant future [namely, today], we can only say that they are the result of a force which we do not know, and of a law we have not guessed.15
We Are the Children of the Stars Page 17
