The Darwinist creed turned upside down by a pesky Russky
throwing out evolutionist theory of 'slow progression into our two-legged glory'
Today let’s visit a different rabbit-hole in the vast realm of what-it-is-to-be-human, with a bit of paleo-anthropology and paleontology. If you are not beholden to the polarized duality of creationism (we miraculously sprang forth when a god-figure said so) nor to the theory of evolution (because it is full of holes), you’re still left with a large question mark on the forehead of a baffled gorilla.
I am reaching the end of a bombshell of a book by paleontologist Aleksandr Bielov, The Secret of Earth’s Chronicle in Stone, 2017. It’s not available in English. The internet in English doesn’t seem to know a thing about this gentleman (nor about ideas similar to his) although he is easy to find on the internet in Russian (quite a few videos) and has published a number of books.
Might this be an indication that Bielov is onto something? Reason enough for me to give you a snapshot of what he says.
He is not a fringe figure, and clearly knows his stuff - some 500 million years of life-forms on Earth.
It isn’t really surprising that there is no trace of him on the internet in English. He pulls darwinism, evolutionism and natural selection apart with some very strong arguments (as far as I can assess). At the same time, his work doesn’t feed into the opposite western position of religious ‘creationism’ either. In fact, he sees these two polarized positions as rather convergent, pointing out that Darwin’s theory has some pretty blatant religious undertones (the man was rather religious) - Darwin the scientist simply elevates the notion of ‘natural selection’ to the religiously held position of ‘God the Creator’.
Bielov resolves the polarized duality in which we have been marinating for a long while, by turning evolutionism upside down. From the very first pages of his book he states his position: We are not descended from ‘apes’, nor do we share a common ancestor with ‘apes’.
That’s good news for us, isn’t it? What a relief to be reassured that we are not descended from animals themselves descended from some fish itself descended from some primordial slug and so on. But Bielov takes the argument explosively further.
It is the apes and other simian species that are descended from humans. It never was about ‘evolution’. Welcome to ‘involution’.
That’s what he says, as bluntly as possible. No wonder you won’t find him on the internet - the overlords are careful to keep us believing in humanity’s animal origins (it should keep us humble and meek), and our slower than snail-paced ‘evolution’ into two-legged status and big brain endowment.
Remember - evolutionism is no more than a theory, yet it operates as dogma governing the human story. Bielov offers at least a counter-theory, based on what looks like pretty strong evidence and sensible analysis. An open mind - especially a mind aware of the holes and deliberate manipulation in both evolutionism and creationism - should find his assertion worthy of consideration. And since we know that truth has been wrapped in un-truth for a very long time, we have reason enough to be curious - what if Bielov does hold something of the buried truth?
At a mundane anecdotal level, have you ever had a juvenile pet, puppy or kitten, on its back, delighting in a good belly-scratch with all four limbs stretched out, such that a fleeting impression came up - ‘that looks just like a small human’? It has happened to me more than once, and I would leave me with a funny feeling that would linger afterwards. These days, just as I’m reading about their potential human origin, some of my cats display a pretty consistent aspiration to stand on their hind legs and put their little ‘hands’ on my shoulders, their gaze intently fixed on my eyes. Do animals who live with humans have some very ancient cellular memory that offers mute validation of Bielov’s claim?
So many of us have been moved by something remote yet familiar in those animal eyes, the way they gaze at us…
Based on his familiarity with bone remains from remote geological eras, Bielov finds that the emergence of the four-legged out of the two-legged works more ‘easily’ than the other way round - as an adaptation from human to animal, it works faster than the hypothetical, very slow and arduous ‘evolutionary progression’ from horizontal animal to vertical human.
He shows how pertinent changes in bone and muscle structure would flow logically in that direction, in particular as required by adaptations to different ecosystems and opportunities for food, protection, reproduction. This makes sense for individual animal species to be specializations out of the human into a narrow set of perfect skills not available to the erect human as a ‘generalist’ being - their great speed, sharp teeth and claws, effortless tree-climbing, very small or very large size, and so on.
A very considerable proportion of animal beings (all of them, according to Bielov) have four limbs, anatomically placed at the same location as in humans, and a head not growing out of, say, the stomach area, but at the ‘top’ or the front of their bodies - as in us, the head is where their sense organs reside along with the brain. Their brain, being specialized, became smaller and simpler, since they do not have our complex ‘brain-needs’ (whales’ and dolphins’ bigger brains relate to the demands of underwater sound processing). But certain sense organs became considerably more powerful than ours.
It is not possible in a short piece to list all the anatomical animal adaptations that Bielov sees as stemming from original human/humanoid blueprints, but you see the point.
With the evidence he provides, I now observe differently the various animals around me. I can’t help seeing the shared pattern of four limbs, ribcage, sense-organs in the head, long spine, mouth-to-excretory outlets. I can see how the bone structure of the pelvic bowl narrows in animals (no need for the large holding structure of erect humans), how their head flattens (smaller brain), how their noses and ears flatten or elongate depending on specialized abilities, and so on.
On the other hand, I am unconvinced by Bielov’s moralistic notion that humans became animals as a form of de-evolution. He calls them ‘degradant’, for he considers such humans who changed into animals to have taken the path of loss of Reason, of the rational thinking human brain and of the ability to control their emotions, as well as the path of indulging animal proclivities in relation to a favorable ecosystem environment.
But what if ancient humans transformed into animal variations of the human blueprint… for a yet unknown greater and subtler purpose?
That kind of moralizing judgment implicitly ignores a potentially ‘bigger picture’ - it is possibly the ‘calling’ of planet Earth to be the place of greatest biodiversity and life energy in the galaxy or the universe (which, by the way, ties in nicely with the overlords’ obsession with claiming Earth as their own). If diversity is an overarching objective for Earth, then there is no reason to relegate animals moralistically to a ‘degraded’ status. And if their specialization into diverse life-forms is most efficiently implemented through species-specific adaptations of the human morphology as their starting point, such ‘degradation’ makes more sense than for each animal species to individually ‘evolve’ ever so slowly out of some primordial protozoa.
It is today that the idea of ‘degradant’ sounds ominously real for those who fall in with technologically driven human modification, so radically different from naturally driven human-to-animal adaptations, and inimical to true Earth biodiversity too.
After that very brief summary of Bielov’s human/hominid-to-animal argument, there remains the other big question - where did those humans come from in the first place? Here again Bielov is not your usual establishment scientist. Not only does he vociferate against ‘corporate paleontological science’, but also, he fearlessly takes the E.T. origins of humanity as a fact - as does, in the west, Bruce Fenton.
According to him, there is no evidence to prove the futile evolutionary notion of a continuous slow progression from some proto-being all the way to Homo Sapiens via fishes and apes. Indeed this religiously held idea of linear progression constantly frustrates evolutionists with the moving target of determining ‘the missing link’… that is discarded as soon as a new one pops up. He says that there are no missing links because there never was one single long line of progression, but a series of eras interrupted by cosmic events or major climatic changes.
He asserts that human or humanoid beings came here from ‘out there’, a number of times, to seed and re-seed human populations, which would explain the diversity of Homo types in the paleontological record, and their respective adaptations into animals. In this respect, he observes that although each era brings into being animals of the same species (adapted to relevant ecosystems across geological time), the animals adapted from older humans are closer to the human form than the later ones. For instance the earliest crocodile types are less modified away from the human form than the more recent ones, but they’re all crocodiles nevertheless. The earliest fishes did not swim - they walked on all fours on the ocean floor - while fishes that developed out of later Homo types turned their ‘all fours’ into fins for getting off of the floor.
The E.T. connection is, for Bielov, a more sensible and pragmatic approach to our origins ‘out there’ than what some evolutionists have called ‘panspermia’. Since panspermia is no less ‘woo-woo’ than the E.T. hypothesis, the latter should be allowed to exist too (especially now that the famous biblical Elohim who ‘created man’ are found to be best characterized as E.T.).
To conclude on that ‘woo’ note, we should bear in mind that the west has had one proponent of the same notion as Bielov - who most plausibly reached his conclusions independently. I am referring to another Russian, a prominent and controversial author in the spiritual rather than the scientific realm, Elena Blavatskaya (Blavatsky in the west). She too asserted that animals are descended from humans, a point that seems seldom acknowledged by her modern followers. And she speaks of the different ‘root-races’ of humans, which reiterates the notion of seeding and re-seeding Homo several times, instead of a single line of evolution from some proto-organism all the way into Sapiens.
That will be enough of the esoteric aspect for now…
This is so interesting! For the past two months I have been working on a human-to-animal adaptation artwork created from discarded clothing (metaphor for discarded humanity). The impetus for the work in progress had nothing to do with paleo-anthropology and paleontology. I thought I was making work about how humans are being experimented on, trained into obedience, and treated like animals by the overlords.
Hi Enna,
I am hesitant to write to you because I feel I might be wrong or am speaking about something I don't know about but have just read about.
But I am still curious and interested and would love to talk to you.
What you wrote here reminded me of something I read in George Gurdjieff's book Beezlebubs Tales to His Grandson.
Gurdjieff talked about devolution. A few things I remember Gurdjieff talked was about our ability to see colors. He spoke about the Law of Sevenfoldness. We see 7 colors. Gurdjieff said at the time of Babylon we saw 49 colors and in Ancient times we saw more than 5,000,000 with the exception of one.
Gurdjieff also spoke about our diminishing lifespans. Which reminds me of times when I went to India with my parents as a teenager and saw a place in the mountains where a person lived to 900 years if I remember correctly.
Gurdjieff also talked about different changes that were made to our species. I would love to read your thoughts on this :)