Five! I'm a little bit touched that people would want my opinion on something or even assume that I have one.
Because it turns out I do. I very much do.
If you have missed the 'news', a single sample from a single Paracas skull has been examined by a single anonymous geneticist at a single, unknown facility.
The results currently indicate an mtDNA sequence not found in any other hominid or animal.
Now... as mentioned in the last post, I was in Oxford last week, talking with some of the geneticists behind the Mitochondrial Eve/Out-Of-Africa research (for a project to be discussed at a later date). So mtDNA research is still top of mind for me.
Just as it seems almost impossible to have a rational discussion about the preposterous, gaping holes in the mainstream academic fantasy of human history without someone leaping in and calling flying saucers on it, any new hominid DNA research is met with gleeful shrieks of "nephilim! Annunaki!"
Listen to the difference between the very leading questions and Brian Foerster's actually quite measured responses in the interview below.
Foerster has clearly made a call here. He's used donated money to get a partial DNA sequence done, found the first glimmers of interesting results, and then figured he'd release them so as to generate sufficient interest to hopefully get more donations. Because genetic research is expensive. It's a judgement call that appears to be working, at least as far as generating interest is concerned.
Would I have done the same? Ugh. In all honesty, I probably would have, knowing full well that most of the money is going to come from what we could call 'Sitchin literalists'.
But there is good news here. Good, slow news, we may hear more about in ten years or so. It even appears the geneticist they hired is adhering to commendable standards of professionalism by refusing to speculate without additional data examined in multiple labs.
In that same spirit of commendable standards... step back. We're going to science this a bit. Science it good and deep.
The full extent of what DNA actually does and doesn't do is not even close to being solved. Nevertheless, like finding an Audi wrapped in a big ribbon in your driveway, we can still use it for things.
Mitochondrial DNA, passed along by the laydeez, is the cornerstone of tracking population movements. It has a very high mutation rate, which is helpful if you are trying to calibrate when and where certain mutations occur, because it provides so many options for sequences to look for and then match with existing databases... and then see where these mutations show up next.
However, it's high mutation rate is also something of a hindrance when it comes to finding hominids we may or may not have interacted with.
Let me explain. The questions I had for the geneticists were quite simple, but simple questions are often the most difficult ones to have answered competently, so I thought I should start at the top.
I was looking for ways to reconcile some of the archaeological evidence we find outside Africa with the highly credible genetic research that indicates all humans alive today descend from a single group sometime between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago in central Africa. (Some recent Y chromosome data traces us back to a male ancestor 300,000 years ago, but our female ancestor was 200,000 years ago. Apparently this is within a reasonable range of each other as mtDNA's high mutation means it often results in under-reporting age. Y chromosome research, whilst more chronologically precise, is also significantly more expensive per sample, so it is used less.)
My main question was dangerously unsophisticated:
If an earlier group or groups left Africa, and then died out completely, then by definition, they would not show up in our blood because they didn't pass their genetic material onto anyone. Would we be able to see these failed colonists who may have left footprints in Norfolk or fireplaces in Palestine in our mtDNA?
The answer is yeah, kinda... but not without millions and millions of dollars.
There may be evidence of them in the jumble of mtDNA mutations in our blood, indicating a common ancestor older than mitochondrial Eve (some of the descendants of whom would have left Africa and died out completely), but without a sample to match with out there in the world... by the Palestinian fireplace, for instance, you wouldn't know which mutation to look for in our blood.
So the earliest evidence for humanity's last common ancestor is by no means the first evidence. My beleaguered Oxford science victim agreed with the statement and added that it is becoming increasingly clear that humans weren't the only game in town. Why can't Neanderthal build boats? Why can't Denisovians hunt with spears? No reason. They could and probably did.
The hominid story is becoming extremely interesting, to be sure. But there's no need to call David Icke just yet.
It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that some of the Watchers/Nephilim story might be a cultural memory of real events. We humans never met a hominid we didn't vigorously bang. I have no doubt that some perverts even tried it on with homo fiorensis. Evidence of non-humans "lying with the daughters of man" is beyond doubt. These non-humans were Denisovians, Neanderthals, and so on.
But I guess what is annoying me most about the Nephilim claims when it comes to this one sample from the Paracas skull is that it doesn't even fit within the literalist interpretation of mythology:
- Just based on one sample, the anonymous geneticist has said that this hominid would not have been able to breed with humans. That's like the whole point of the Nephilim story.
- The skulls are two thousand years old. The Nephilim/Watchers story is four thousand at the earliest.
To be clear, if these initial data are confirmed, there is a really exciting tale unfolding in Paracas. It may be an entirely separate hominid species that developed a culture demonstrating tremendous complexity.
If that's the case, then we are one step closer to calibrating some of the earliest archaeological evidence in the Americas with our existing understanding of ancient human migrations. Perhaps more tantalisingly, we may be moving closer to a mechanism for how and why some cultures achieved increased complexity faster than others... they may have learned it, been taught it, or simply inhabited it.
As an aside, we may also be able to haul the hundreds and hundreds of giant bones hoovered up by the Smithsonian out into the open and start sequencing those bastards. There's quite a good new book out on that subject, for any interested parties. And here's a very worthwhile interview with the author, if you're on the fence. (Did you know that Abe Lincoln mentioned them in a speech? Learned that in the interview. His exact words were "The eyes of that species of extinct giants, whose bones fill the mounds of America, have gazed on Niagara, as ours do now.")
In defence of interventionism
As you know, I am actually a proponent of interventionism, but it would take the genetic equivalent of saucers landing on the White House lawn for me to swallow the idea it happened two thousand years ago, and that ginger coneheads from space are our leaders.
Directed panspermia, on the other hand, remains overwhelmingly the most credible hypothesis for how life began here on earth. It is the entire book that is weird, not one jumbled word on one page of one new book... however interesting that may turn out to be.
I will even say that the hypothesis of interventionism around seven million years ago is strengthened by the possibility of a homo Paracasis. Assuming -like other modern hominids- they have the same morphological aberrations that appear to be half chimp and half pig, then we can't rule out the possibility that someone stirred the genetic pot back then. (Why make only one hominid, after all?)
The saucers haven't landed in Paracas, kids, and it's vanishingly unlikely they ever did. Relax. I watch this stuff with all the zeal of the NSA spying on the leaders of America's most trusted allies. There is a story here, but it's not quite a space opera.