Evolution or Devolution?

The origin of species debate has fascinated me for many years. I have read widely on the subject and until last month each book I read left me with more questions than answers. However after reading a recently reprinted book by author Nigel Kerner called The Song of the Greys the answers finally outweighed the questions.Kerner breathes a breath of fresh air into the stagnancy of the evolution/creationism debate. He offers a third alternative namely — DEVOLUTION.It is his contention that within a universe subject to the second law of thermodynamics (which states that all atomic states become more and more chaotic with time, through a process known as the ‘entropic drift’) the concept that the underbase of living systems is one of evolution to states of betterment is nonsensical: The book cites as contradictions to evolutionary theory the facts that approximately 95% of the human genome is redundant, and that roughly the same percentage of the human brain is also dormant. If evolutionary theory were correct and development were based on adaptations to the present environment why would we have developed such a huge brain for potential use in the future! Could it perhaps be the case that the large brain and the large genome are leftovers from the past, from superior states of humanity that once existed and used the full scope of brain and DNA?Nigel Kerner has some common ground with the creationists and the evolutionists but he also has many disagreements with both. He accepts that evolutionary processes do take place but only within the context of the overall drift of devolution, evolution within devolution. Like the creationists he contends that the only logical origin for the coherence and order of living systems in an environment subject to entropic dismemberment is a source outside of that environment, a source that is not subject to entropy and therefore by definition — not of the physical universe. However, unlike the creationists he does not see that source as a ‘creator God’ who chose to place us in the physical universe. Rather he sees creation as an implicit result of the fact that the infinite potential of the ‘universe of the whole’ to know all options had to also include the only potential that could not be achieved within its whole, altogether state. Namely : The potential to know separation from the state of separation . That potential can only be fulfilled in the context of a physical universe.Kerner discusses inadequacy of evolutionary theory with reference to the following research that he quotes from the New Scientist: Central to Kerner’s thesis in The Song of the Greys is the influence of grey aliens and their tinkering with the human genome as a primary factor in the development of our human species. Again he presents a very convincing case for this albeit too involved to quote at length here. I strongly suggest to anyone with a serious interest in the origins of life to get hold of this book. I have read it and re-read it and cannot fault its logic. Released from Proposed New Topics by Admin.

Perhaps I have unwittingly given the wrong impression about what Kerner says about the redundancy of 95 percent of the human brain. He mentions this point in relation to the work of Professor John Lorber who identified several hundred people some of whom he describes as having 'almost no detectable brain' yet are still able to score up to 120 on IQ tests and in one case graduate with a degree in mathematics. Kerner simply makes the point that if it is possible for some people to manage with all human functions, including abstract thought, with a sliver of brain tissue then why do we have such a large brain capacity? He asks if this might indeed suggest that our large brains are a leftover from the past.The misunderstandings based on this one point presented out of context are I think based on the fact that it is not really possible to understand Kerner's theses from a few extracts or summaries. The book builds up a cohesive, inter-related set of ideas which cannot really be viewed in isolation from eachother. It is for obvious reasons impossible to present all these ideas in this forum. He provides copious evidence for his positions especially his surmise about alien interception of the human genome. I have chosen not to present that evidence here because it is firstly too voluminous and secondly not strictly necessary for the discussion of the topic that I have introduced.

Homo erectus did not have a larger brain capacity than modern humans but Homo neanderthalensis did have a larger brain capacity than us. This is in fact one of the points Kerner makes in the book. He postulates that there are several different devolutionary lines that have run their course on this planet. Some of these have run concurrently and the fossil record may actually be presenting us with artefacts representing specific types of hominid (homo erectus, homo habilis etc) who were examples of the ends of these different lines. However, this is far too complex a discussion to present here and you would have to read the book to really get to grips with it.

It is by no means conclusive that neanderthals are not part of our direct lineage see:NCBI

It is Kerner's position that neanderthal man, who had a larger brain than modern humans, was indeed involved in our ancestry. Here again is the link I gave earlier to illustrate the fact that it is by no means cut and dried that neanderthal genes do not figure in the creation of modern man.--NCBIKerner views modern man as an amalgam of two lines from the past homo erectus and homo neanderthalensis.

If you are talking about chance maybe you should take a look at Fred Hoyle's analysis: Hoyle goes on to point out that even if we were only to assess the likelihood of the spontaneous origin by chance of the 2000 or so special proteins, the enzymes, which are vitally important to life processes, then still the odds would be outlandish. The chance of these vital 2000 enzymes being formed in exactly the correct way, which they must be or else complex living organisms simply could not operate, is: He goes on to examine how those who claim that life originated in an organic soup imagine that complex life developed. They imagine that a clump of two or three very primitive enzymes toured around the primordial soup of amino acids picking up other potential enzymes as and when they happen to arise by chance. Hoyle points out that in effect what this model really describes is

I am of course aware that this paper does cite evidence in favour of the proposition that neanderthal mitochondrial DNA did not contribute to early modern humans. However the crucial point is made that this contribution cannot be ruled out with such a small sample: There are other problems with drawing such definite conclusions about the neanderthal contribution to the human genome. First, the results pertain only to mitochondrial DNA which is only passed from mother to child. So, if there were some interbreeding and it were generally the case that the husband moved to join the race of his wife there would be no trace of Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA in the modern human genome. If Neanderthal nuclear DNA were studied then the results would be more accurate as nuclear DNA is passed on by both parents. However, as yet no examples of Neanderthal nuclear DNA have been successfully extracted so there is no conclusive evidence that Neanderthal nuclear genes have not been passed on to the human gene pool. It is also possible that modern man has, in his gene pool, contributions from lines of Neanderthal man that predate those Neanderthal fossils from whom the samples were taken. Some time in the past, selection for a favourable mitochondrial genotype may have caused that genotype to spread across the globe eliminating much of the earlier mtDNA diversity. If that were the case then Mt DNA sequences from Neanderthal remains predating that change would differ from ours, even if Neanderthals were among our ancestors.

This reply is to all who are waiting for replies from me.I started this discussion because I was so impressed with the comprehensive nature of Nigel Kerner's book and the answers he gives to the existential questions that he poses. This is essentially a holistic book approaching many other important issues, not only the evolution/creationist debate. Looking at the points that have emerged through this debate on EvC forum it is apparent to me that it is very difficult to isolate this one debate from all the others in the book and view it out of context. There is an overall context of the theses contained within this book. That context is based upon an understanding of what might lie before the big bang - before the limits of a physical universe of separated parts. A 'universe of the whole' that is infinite in scope and therefore without limit - this is the logical derivation if events are traced back to the singularity point of the big bang from which the momentum of separation happened. It seems that there are two others who have entered this debate Dr.Silverman and Dr.Biggerstaff who are scientists that have read this book and can perhaps take the discussion further. I myself am not a scientist, and I do not have at my fingertips all the research papers and evidence required to take this further. I also feel that the book itself - 'The Song of the Greys' has to be read to understand any of the theses presented within it. It has prompted great interest both from scientists and 'lesser mortals' like myself and is well worth a read for anyone with the intelligence to understand it especially if they have a deep and abiding interest in answering key existential questions.I apologise to those waiting for replies from me. My commitments to work and family preclude me spending hours and hours on the internet. I am amazed that so many people have so much time to devote to these forums.