We Are the Children of the Stars (24 page)

But further than that, scientists have conducted extensive tests in which the dolphin was taught many acts to perform and also to understand “messages.” These messages were delivered in the dolphin's own underwater “language” of whistles, hoots, and various grunts, painstakingly pieced together by researchers so they could reproduce the “talking” with mechanical instruments.

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 largebrained 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.