Figure 3.8. Filipino Zambals. (A) A pure-blood Zambal. (B) Taken in 1904, the photo shows the relative heightsof an American, a mixed blood, and a pure Zambal Negrito. (C) Five mixed-blood Negritos of Zambal. There are also white natives on these islands: on Suuna Rii are people with reddish hair. There are also red-headed women in the Malay Peninsula, among the Semang and Pangan.
Bearing a remarkable resemblance to today’s Australian Aborigine skull, Wadjak Man of Java, quite modern in type, had a brain volume around 1,600 cc—although the Australian has only 1,300 cc on average. Despite this, some still see an evolutionary line leading from Wadjak man to the Australian Aboriginal. Concerning this decrease in cranial capacity from the earlier Wadjak and Talgai type to contemporary Australian Aborigines, Hooton could only conclude that it was “by hybridization [e.a.] of proto-Australoids with the pygmoid Tasmanians.”40 (See figure 3.9.)
In South America along the Orinoco River, crania show that two quite different types of humans once used the same caves.41 Judging from Peru (Mochica) burials, Caucasoids coexisted with non-Caucasoid indigenous groups.42 Here in Peru, each face depicted on ancient pots is strikingly different, and skins are of different shades—white, yellow, brown, copper, black, and with “such dissimilar physiognomies.”43 In Bolivia, too, the famous Tiahuanaco carvings show a conglomeration of types—people with high, low, or broad foreheads and with eyes that are narrow, slit, slanted, popped, and deep set. Noses vary from flat to hooked, snubbed, and fleshy. Every shape of face and profile is seen. (See figure 3.10.)
Figure 3.9. Artist’s rendition of a Tasmanian. Drawing by Karen Barry.
Figure 3.10. This Guarani (Bolivia) man is of mixed type.
The hybrid theme was noted again by the point man for the Heye Museum, Alpheus H. Verrill, who, in the 1920s, observed Quichua and Aymara blends in the Andes. The Quichua, a docile and peaceful people, are short and light with tall foreheads (traces of Ihin genes). More yellow than brown, the Quichua have full lips, straggling beards, and high cheekbones—almost like Mongolians. In other localities, though, such as along the Pacific coast, Quichua groups have dark skins, round heads and broad noses. Yet others in this tribal family have thin lips and aquiline noses. Then again the Huancas are often pale olive with finely chiseled features, though their noses may be enormously hooked (Ihuan and Druk genes). The Aymara people on the other hand are more Ihuan than Ihin—bronze, tall, and slender, with sharp noses and more receding foreheads than the Quichua; but they vary almost as much as the Quichua—many possessing full beards, Polynesian faces, and hazel eyes! There is no end to the mixture of bloodlines here—and just about everywhere.
THE LONG AND THE SHORT OF IT
Some anthropologists (analyzing Flores’s hobbit) suppose that evolutionary forces (involving limited resources) may have pushed some inhabitants toward dwarfism, while others were selected for gigantism. I don’t think that is what happened. The early races varied greatly in size and stature depending on the amount of Ihin (short) or Druk and Ihuan (tall) genes, great size appearing as a feature of “hybrid vigor.”
There were giants [Druks] in those days and in time after that; and my chosen [Ihin] came unto them and they bare children to them.
OAHSPE, THE LORDS’ FIRST BOOK 1:29
If women, via mtDNA, pass on their shortness to daughters only, and if the Y chromosome is passed down from fathers to sons, it would only be the male children of a (female) Ihin and (male) Druk match that would be tall and robust. Hence the sexual dimorphism in so many of the early races, the men being much larger than the women: Au. afarensis, Au. Laetoli, Zinj, Dmanisi, Chancelade, Grimaldi, Tabun, Choukoutien, Palau, and so on.
No, “giants and dwarfs” is not just a myth; large Ihuans (and Druks) coexisted with little people all over the world. Even in today’s world, giants and dwarfs coexist in certain remote spots. In Africa, the tiny Bushmen and the tallest race of the country, the Kaffirs, are close neighbors, just as the Mutua pygmies live side by side with the tall Watusi in Uganda. Likewise in Mongolia, the world’s tallest man, Bao Xishun, seven feet nine inches (see photo), shakes hands with He Pingping, the world’s shortest at two feet four inches. In Yunnan, Hubei, and Shaanxi provinces in China, there exist four-foot-high hairy people and seven-foot-high hairy people. In Europe, the tallest people are the Norwegians; yet the Lapps of Norway are the shortest Europeans. The tallest Indians in the New World are found in Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego, which regions are also inhabited by the shortest peoples in the Americas. (See figure 3.11)
In writing about the different-size races, Hooton, evidently without meaning to deal a blow to evolution’s cherished natural selection (chapter 9), did just that: “The geographical distribution of stature groups is not at all in accordance with the supposition that climate and altitude have anything to do with bodily height. Among the very shortest peoples in the New World are the Yaghan and Alakaluf of Tierra del Fuego. . . . Adjacent to the Yaghan live the Ona . . . [with] prodigious average height. . . . Both these Indian tribes subsist largely by hunting and fishing. . . . The gigantic Ona are [even] said to have a somewhat less abundant food supply than the stunted Yaghan. . . . In Scandinavia are the Lapps with [short] stature. . . . Just to the south of them are the Finns, Norwegians and Swedes . . . of [high] mean stature. . . . Instances of very tall and very short peoples living in the same regions and under substantially dietary similar conditions might be multiplied. I know of no example of such juxtaposition of very short and very tall peoples in which the differences in size can be explained by invoking any environmental factor.”44
TABLE 3.2. GIANTS AND DWARFS IN THE SAME LOCATIONS
Where Small Ones Tall Ones
Australia Extant pygmies Giants: 23-inch footprint*43
Brazil bearded white dwarfs Tahuamanu, 6 feet, 5 inches; 7-foot, 7-inch skeletons
China 4-foot-tall wild men Gigantopithecus; “the great giant race of Ihuans in Jaffeth”†44
China Han-Dropa Sinanthropus, 10 feet tall‡45
Denmark Little Danes of Stone Age Mounds Tall Danes of today
Ecuador “Laron” little people of Loja Tarija giants,§46 10 feet tall
France, Basque Laminaks Giant Tartaros; enormous skeleton at Chaumont castle (found in 1613)
France Chancelade Men, four feet nine inches 8-foot, 6-inch bones, Field of Giants¶47
India Veddas, Bhils Daityas Hiranyakashapa; 2-footlong footprints; 11-foot-tall skeleton, Assam\48
Italy Neolithic little men 10-foot, 3-inch skeleton, Valley of Mazara
Italy, Pompei Dwarfs Eleven-foot skeleton in mine shaft (1856)
Java region Flores hobbit and Rampasas Meganthropus at Trinil: “enormous,” twice size of male gorilla**49
Libya Little people (Herodotus) Giant Antaeus (who fought Hercules)
Mexico Alux; small Lacandon (Mayan) Cholula “deformed giants”; Aztec
New Zealand Maori legends of little people Giants, 10 feet tall
Norway Mound folk; the Edda’s elves Giants of Norwegian caves
Patagonia and Chile Short Chonos and Yaghans “Horse Indians” of the sixteenth century, 7 to 8 feet tall; Ona people
Persia Kermanshah dwarfs Zarathustra, 9 feet tall*50
Philippines Aetas, Zambal Seventeen-foot skeleton at Gargayan†51
Scandinavia
(Norse epics) Dvergar (dwarfs) Loki, Jotunns; “race of giants side by side with dwarfs”‡52
South Africa Bushmen Swartkrans Man,§53 nine feet tall
Turkey Laron cases Legendary giants of Troy
UK Little Picts enslaved by Giant Fians (Figda)/Book of Lecan
UK Cornwall brownies Giants of Cornwall, up to the time of King Arthur
U.S., Cascades, Alaska, Arctic “Chancelade” type Giants in the region¶54
U.S., Dakotas Mountain of the little people The Tall Ones\55
U.S., Hawaii Menehune Tall Polynesians
U.S., Oklahoma Prehistoric small men Enormous footpri
nts**56
U.S., Pennsylvania Basket Makers 7-foot, 2-inch skeleton at Gasterville††57 and Bradford County
U.S., Tennessee Extensive pygmy graveyards 7-foot skeleton; 16-inch tracks‡‡58
Figure 3.11. These two men hail from the same region of Inner Mongolia.
Figure 3.12. Basque drawing of the long and short men of yore.
Germany’s little people (such as the four-foot eight-inch skeletons unearthed near Bonn) are answered by her giants tombs, Hunengraben. There was a tradition among the peasantry of the German states that God had created the giants to slay the wild beasts and great dragons to ensure the safety of the (sacred?) dwarfs. This curious legend is echoed in the Oahspe, which records that the large Ihuans (mighty men) were tasked with slaying all dangerous beasts, thus acting as defenders (“shield”45) of the Ihins and their followers, the faithists; for “My chosen on earth . . . are a harmless and defenseless people. Therefore. . . the barbarian [huge Ihuans] shall destroy all evil beasts and serpents; and the forests shall fall down before him”46 (this last phrase referring to the planned extinction of the dangerous and outsized megafauna of the Paleolithic). Thus did the strapping Ihuans become the official guardians of the Ihins, the sacred people.47
But in a few years these giants, as various old legends recount, would themselves come to oppress the dwarfs, for they, the giants, had become “altogether wicked and faithless”—so wicked as to be the cause, in many traditions, of the flood. In my view, this “wickedness” reflects the retrogressive tendency of the Ihuans who repeatedly mixed with the lower races, losing all holiness.
In America, among the Arikara Indians, it is said that the Creator caused a flood to get rid of these unruly giants, but saved the little people by “storing them in a cave.” Likewise does the Pima creation myth involve the salvation of the Elect from a great flood; just as the Skokomish (of Mt. Rainier) relate that the Great Spirit was displeased with the evil in the world, and secluded the good people before causing a universal deluge.48
AND CAIN SLEW ABEL
Thou killest my prophets.
OAHSPE, BOOK OF GOD’S WORD 1:9
Before the flood, in four great divisions of the earth, Vohu (Africa), Jud (Asia), Thouri (Americas) and Dis (Europe), they did not leave one alive of the Ihin race.
OAHSPE, THE LORDS’ FIRST BOOK 1:25
The myths of Apollo slain by Python, Osiris slain by Typhon, and Bacchus slain by Titans may all personify the slaughter of the Old World’s priests and sacred tribes (the little people), more than 24,000 years ago, at the hands of the degenerate hordes of Ihuans and Druks. Genesis 6 recalls such infidel giants, as does the Book of Enoch, the latter declaring that they, the giants, were at their worst in the (antediluvian) time of Jared.
As tradition has it, after Cain slew his brother Abel, “he went forth . . . with an impious race, forgetters and defiers of the true God. . . . All nations preserved the remembrance of that division of the human family into the righteous and impious.”49
The depraved and godless are descended from Cain.
LOUIS GINZBURG, LEGENDS OF THE JEWS
Abel, as prototype of the sacred people, was “able” to understand spiritual things and was capable of hearing the voice of God. But Cain slew Abel: meaning, the huge Druks wiped out the holy Ihins, which scenario portrays the extermination of the sacred people by the large, warlike H. erectus and barbaric Ihuans, those “ancient warriors that destroyed the chosen, before the flood.”50 If “the earth rose up against My chosen and sought to destroy them,” this was later dramatized as the death of Abel: “the Druks fell upon the Lords’ chosen and slew them, right and left.”51 Hence Cain’s “mark of blood”—demonized in the Persian and Hindu word druj, the equivalent of Druk, referring to low spiritual rank.
“Those of the lesser light were called Cain, the Druk, because their trust was more in corporeal than in spiritual things.”52 The family of Cain, says Levantine tradition, resided in the field of Damascus; they were “towering giants.” By biblical times, a few of those giants remained and are known to us as the enormous war chiefs of the Canaanites, fearsome and formidable, next to whom the invading Hebrews (of the Exodus) were as “grasshoppers.”
But the story of warring brothers, Cain and Abel, is not limited to the Levant, for it was in all divisions of Earth that the Druks rose up against the prophets of God. In New Guinea mythology, for example, Abel, named Kulabob, is the peaceful and enlightened brother, an inventor of ocean-going navigation, planting, pottery, carving, and all the useful arts. He was also responsible for ritual and spiritual matters, while his brother Manup was a stocky man of the land, a hunter. As the legend unfolds, Manup goes after Kulabob whom he suspects of violating his wife. “We pause in this saga . . . to count up the shared motifs with . . . the Cain/Abel story-type,” says Stephen Oppenheimer, who recorded these New Guinea myths in Eden of the East. “Kulabob and Manup were very different men. . . . The two brothers clearly belong to different cultures.”*59
CHILDREN OF ABEL
Without really meaning to, scientists gave the (hybrid) Homo habilis the same name, Abel—able man; for H. habilis was thought to be the first toolmaker—a handy man. H. habilis (possessing more Ihin genes than did Au) was clearly an improvement on Au in a number of ways: narrower cheek teeth, improved femur, more modern feet, increased brain capacity, higher forehead. H. habilis, standing as an improved Au, was upgraded by the infusion of little people genes. And this is why H. habilis was so short (shorter than Lucy) and had a more gracile skull than the later Neanderthal.
For the early Ihins, the little people, contrary to their own law did mix with the authochthonous Asuans (Ardi), their offspring showing various combinations, the most progressive of these offspring being H. habilis. Christened by Louis Leakey in the early 1960s, H. habilis’s actual stature was not discovered until 1986. Before then, in 1973, Louis’s son Richard, lamented: “Unfortunately, we cannot be sure of his body size: A 650 cc brain might actually be large for an individual of extremely short, light stature”53 (yet we noted in chapter 2 that little people are seen to possess relatively larger brains). But then the 1986 find, OH 62 (OH stands for Olduvai Hominid) proved just how small H. habilis was: some three feet tall, others taller at three feet five inches. OH 62, being the first find of postcranial H. habilis, turned out to be actually smaller than tiny Au. afarensis, his femur smaller than Lucy’s, indicating more Ihin genes. Here in H. habilis was a creature upgraded from Au by AMH genes: bigger brain, thinner skull, more human in teeth, feet, and face. But his more humble genes gave him an apelike torso, curved hands, long arms, and short legs: his limb bones were actually more primitive than Au. afarensis! But so slender. Hence the fruitless but eternal debate: Was H. habilis the first Homo? Or just a big-brained Au? The evolutionary mind-set never once considered that this mishmash of fossils could be understood as the product of crossbreeding—with its fantastic kaleidoscope of traits.
But let us move on now to chapter 4 where we will test the idea that environmental pressures can cause creatures to evolve into different species—the subject being Darwinism’s premier concept: speciation.
4
“I DO NOT BELIEVE I EVER WAS A FISH”*60
Debunking Evolution
Not one thing of all the living mergeth into another, but every one bringeth forth after its own kind. . . . Each and every living thing [is] created new upon the earth and not one living thing created out of another.
OAHSPE, BOOK OF COSMOGONY 4:19
SPECIATION
Charles Darwin’s great brainchild was this: that with “favorable variations preserved . . . the result would be the formation of new species,” and this is based on “the tendency in organic beings descended from the same stock to diverge in character. . . . That they have diverged greatly is obvious [e.a.], from the manner in which species of all kinds can be classed under genera . . . families . . . suborders, and so forth.”1 This leap of faith (that anything diverged fro
m anything) is hardly scientific. “That one species could turn into a completely different species,” is, said England’s Richard Milton, “an intoxicating draft from the tankard of speculation.”2
Figure 4.1. Frontispiece to Thomas Henry Huxley’s Man’s Place in Nature. “Parade” showing the similarity of structure among gibbon, orangutan, chimp, gorilla, and man, suggesting that the latter differs from the former (the anthropoid apes) in degree only.
The question then is: Has evolution (which is the same as speciation) actually taken place? Loren Eiseley, chairman of University of Pennsylvania’s Department of Anthropology after Carleton Coon, once marveled at how “a Devonian fish managed to end as a two-legged character with a straw hat.”3 And he believes this; it is not just one of his poems. Some zoologists, though, along with dear Benjamin Disraeli, can’t see it: “[T]he archerfish is a very successful construction that has always [e.a.] existed in its present form. . . . This Intelligent Designer appears to have an endless number of novel ideas. . . . His creatures can adapt to their environments to a certain extent, but they did not evolve from other species and will never develop into new species.”4
In the year 2000, the National Science Board found that roughly half of Americans reject the concept that humans developed from earlier species of animals. Some scientists doubt that the world is old enough for an organ like the human brain to have evolved from protozoa. How, then, does evolution (based on the concept of speciation, also know as transmutation) manage to remain the prevailing theory? Here, then, is a hypothetical debate between POE (professor of evolution) and A (adversary) on the question of speciation, the doctrine of one kind of animal, over time, turning into another kind of animal, the overall process known as phylogenesis.
WALKING WHALES AND OTHER CHIMERAS
Mysterious Origins of Hybrid Man Page 13