Alien Intrusion Read online

  1. They seeded a primordial Earth and let evolution take over (directed panspermia).

  2. They seeded the earth originally and have been overseeing biological, and thus human, evolution along the way.

  New information by mutations?

  We have already mentioned that evolution is undirected, so point 1 above — a fruitful outcome of human beings after billions of years of undirected change — is an incomprehensible long shot. Also, masses of new genetic information are required to turn microbes into microbiologists, and, as we shall see, there is no known natural mechanism that can add this information.

  In much UFOlogy, DNA is supposed to be a proof that aliens could have “gotten us all started” from one common ancestor, and then “hybridization” could occur between aliens and humans, because the aliens used (tinkered with) their own DNA to start this process. Yet it is a fact that different kinds of animals cannot crossbreed, even if their DNA is very close (by “kinds” I refer to higher orders than species). The genetic gulf is too great. So for us to interbreed with aliens, our DNA would need to be almost identical to that of the aliens. This difficulty can only be overcome by accepting point 2, that aliens have been directly engineering biological evolution to bring us to this point. However, no scientific study has examined any alien/human “hybrids,” so this view remains completely speculative.

  Zebras, donkeys, and horses are all from the same original created kind.

  There are more problems with both views of seeding. Explaining a “common ancestry” for life on Earth is not as easy as most people think. Although most organisms on Earth use a similar DNA code, some organisms do not have a conventional DNA code, and therefore these creatures could not have evolved via a common ancestor. Such differences are like two different papers typed out using two different typewriters with the keys switched — the same keystrokes will produce two entirely different messages. While some creatures (that lack conventional DNA) speak against common ancestry, the similarity of the language systems themselves is a strong argument for the common design of all living things.

  One evolutionary argument for common ancestry is the closeness of genetic material between different species, such as humans and apes. (Some UFOlogists have explained this closeness by claiming that aliens genetically engineered both apes and humans in the distant past.) For example, scientists suggested that there was a 98 percent similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA. This figure has been revised down to as low as 93 percent. On the surface, this percentage still sounds very convincing, but remember that human DNA has three billion base pairs or letters. A 2 percent difference represents a difference of 60 million letters of information, while a 7 percent difference equals 210 million letters. How could evolution, through chance random processes and chance selection, keep coming up “trumps” to produce such well-designed and fully functional new lines of information? To even derive humans from the apes (which many believe to be our closest relatives) requires too much of the right information occurring at the right time to be credible.

  Standard evolutionary theory holds that mutations are capable of giving rise to the new information required. But biological observations have not borne this out. Most mutations are harmful or neutral to the survival of their carriers. Although a handful of mutations are beneficial, in every known case the change represents a loss of genetic information. Biophysicist and information theory specialist Dr. Lee Spetner, a former professor at Johns Hopkins University, said this about mutations — dispelling the notion that they help evolution:

  All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.[17]

  All living creatures possess DNA, which functions as a carrier of information. However, each living organism possesses its own unique library of information. It has been estimated that the three billion letters of information in a single human cell of DNA are equivalent to about 1,000 encyclopedia-sized books of information.[18] If a primordial organism had a single encyclopedia’s worth of information (ignoring where this information came from in the first place), to eventually evolve into a human being would require the progressive addition of huge amounts of new information over many steps. This has never been shown to occur through natural processes. Professor Gitt stated the obvious. It takes a greater amount of information to produce information — not less. So how could any other species, like aliens, utilize a method of random chance, like mutations, to create new life forms? It would be like planting a flower seed, and ending up with a forest with all its diversity. There has never been a single documented example of a spontaneous increase in information. Yet, for evolution to take place, it needs to occur constantly. Dr. Spetner says:

  The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain how the information of life has been built up by evolution. The essential biological difference between a human and a bacterium is in the information they contain. All other biological differences follow from that. The human genome has much more information than does the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can’t make money by losing it a little at a time.[19]

  What about changes in living things?

  Mutations cannot produce new information, so what about the idea of aliens tinkering with evolution along the way? Looking at the changes we see in creatures today will help us understand whether this is possible.

  Galaxy M31. Galaxies contain billions of stars similar to our own sun.

  It is true that we do see changes in living things, but the final product is still the same “kind” of creature. For example, there are many breeds of dogs in the world today, but they all came from an original dog that possessed all of the genetic information necessary to produce the variety of dogs we see today. A Chihuahua, now very small, has in fact lost genetic information for “largeness” (e.g., a large head, body, and legs), whereas a Great Dane still possesses that information. Similarly, a population of rabbits might have been stranded on an island and is now separated from the parent population on the mainland. In time, and through natural selection, these rabbits could become so different or specialized (this is called speciation) that they might not be able to interbreed with the original population on the mainland anymore. They may even be classified as a new species, but they have, once again, through selection lost genetic information that was present in the original parent population on the mainland.

  Why dwell on this? This is not evolution because evolution requires uphill changes. It demonstrates yet again that real science shows downhill changes and losses in genetic information. This finding is consistent with the idea that all the original kinds of creatures needed to be made fully formed and functional, and possessed huge amounts of genetic information from the very beginning. Therefore, aliens periodically visiting the earth to create new kinds of animals would be playing a game of snakes (chutes) and ladders. Natural selection causes the information to head in the wrong direction by reducing it. The aliens would occasionally “top-up” the genetic information, only to see mutations and natural selection reduce it yet again. The “topping-up” could be similar to the methods of genetic engineering that we see today, only it would need to be carried out on a massive scale over all the earth’s creatures, repeatedly and near-continually, over millions of years. Wouldn’t it be far simpler to engineer humans directly, if that was their goal?

  The idea of the earth being seeded by aliens with some ancestor organism which then evolved into higher life forms (point 1) contradicts the science of genetics and information theory. A “classic” quote from Sir Fred Hoyle (who did not believe in a supernatural Creator) sums up this dilemma:

  The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials contained therein.[20]

  Evolution overseen by aliens (point 2) would also be a wasteful process. If they are benevo
lent creators, as many people claim them to be, why use this ugly process of death, struggle, and suffering? Why haven’t they revealed themselves openly instead of relying on “middle of the night” kidnappings to interbreed with humans?

  It is fair to say that the majority of Western-educated people believe in evolution. But the beliefs of the majority aren’t always correct. The majority once believed in spontaneous generation. Some people might defend them “because they didn’t know all the facts.” But can we honestly say that we possess all the facts today? Tomorrow, mankind will discover something that we don’t know today. Ongoing genetic discoveries are likely to continually challenge the 150-year-old theory of Darwinian evolution. Dr. Michael Denton has noted that we have only scratched the surface when it comes to understanding the complexity of design in the biological world. He says:

  It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research, ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.[21]

  Do fossils prove evolution in the distant past?

  The majority of people on this planet believe that the fossil record plainly tells the story of evolution, and UFOlogists almost universally accept this view of origins. So this needs to be briefly discussed. Among the many thousands of layers of rocks and sediments deposited all over the globe, people assume that we can see a historical record in stone, of creatures evolving upward from one kind into another. After nearly 150 years of searching this record, however, have we found the “missing links”? What does the actual evidence show?

  Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, a professor at Harvard University (now deceased), who was arguably the world’s most famous paleontologist, as well as an outspoken humanist and evolutionist, noted about the fossil record:

  All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.[22]

  Years later, although an atheist, Gould even added:

  The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.

  All creatures that appear in the fossil record appear abruptly and fully functional — just what is predicted by genetics and information science.

  To show that Gould’s statements are not unique, consider what Dr. Colin Patterson has to say. He was, at the time, the senior paleont-ologist at the world-renowned British Museum of Natural History, replying to a letter regarding a book he wrote on fossils:

  … I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? … Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils… .

  You say I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[23]

  These two leading experts reached the same conclusion, and they are not alone in their assessment. They both believe in evolution, yet the evidence in their own field of expertise does not support the belief that evolution has occurred.

  Gould further admits that we do not see humans evolving today, and there is no evidence that, in the future, we will evolve into some alien-like, and supposedly advanced, design:

  We’re not just evolving slowly. For all practical purposes we’re not evolving. There’s no reason to think we’re going to get bigger brains or smaller toes or whatever — we are what we are.[24]

  L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, in his introduction to the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species — gives a telling commentary on the state of evolutionary theory:

  The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory — is it then a science or a faith?[25]

  The purpose of this chapter was to answer the question “Could aliens have ‘seeded’ the earth to create life?” Here is a summary of the evidence that we have examined so far.

  • Scientists have never observed chemicals forming themselves into complex DNA molecules, the blueprint for life. DNA molecules do not produce new genetic information, they reproduce it. DNA appears to be designed, and information science demonstrates that information must be fully present in the beginning.

  • Mutations and natural selection reduce pre-existing information. There is no evidence of organisms evolving upward (including mankind — technological increase is not biological evolution).

  • All life in the fossil record appears abruptly and fully formed; the chains of transitional series hoped for by evolutionists since Darwin are conspicuous by their general absence.

  Given these facts, then, aliens needed to create a multitude of fully formed living things at the very beginning.

  A third option is that aliens evolved elsewhere and stumbled across our planet with all its life forms. But we have already discussed the related problems of interstellar travel and finding us in the first place. Furthermore, how could DNA have evolved on their world in a form that would enable them to hybridize with humans?

  It appears that scientists and UFOlogists who believe the notion of panspermia taking place billions of years ago have many inconsistencies to overcome. Our discussions have deep philosophical and personal implications for every single human being. Why are most people ignoring the obvious evidence? Michael Behe writes:

  Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don’t want there to be anything beyond nature. They don’t want a supernatural being to affect nature, no matter how brief or constructive the interaction may have been. In other words … they bring an a priori philosophical commitment to their science that restricts what kinds of explanations they will accept about the physical world. Sometimes this leads to rather odd behavior.[26]

  So, who was responsible for life? Was it aliens (that is, physical beings of unimaginable intelligence and technology) or a supernatural being outside of our space and time, possessing unimaginable powers of creation?

  What intelligence could perform such miracles?

  Not just any “mortal” alien could have created complex life on Earth. If the evolution of primordial cells is impossible, then aliens with physical bodies cannot be a product of evolution either. As we discussed in chapter 3, matter cannot arrange itself into complex life of any sort by natural processes, so they would also need to have had a Creator. The origin of life is a deeply religious question. It asks, “How and why are we here?” Since we know of no Creator here on Earth, it is reasonable to presume that someone outside of our dimension — our physical reality — has brought everything into existence.

  In this regard, many UFO believers express deep interest in the Bible, not only because of its historical value and predictive ability, but because they believe that the biblical texts reflect the interaction between ancient astronauts and Earth’s history, and that the Bible provides clues to their “god-like” status. Some believe that alien beings from other, even supernatural, dimensions have been overseeing mankind’s affairs, and that early people inaccurately recorded their activity in the Bible.

  Yet it is reasonable first to consider whether to take the Bible at face value. It claims to be the words of the Creator himself, and many millions of people, including some world-class scientists, subscribe to this view, despite those in
the UFO movement who desire to reinterpret the Bible. If this Creator supernaturally and inter-dimensionally transmitted coded information into DNA molecules, couldn’t He give further information in written documents via mankind, whom He created, too? As we shall see in the coming chapters, aliens are apparently communicating with modern human beings, who in turn are writing down their instructions. Christians claim that a similar method was used by God to inspire the Bible.

  In Genesis, this “God” described the creation of the heavens and the earth, bringing matter, space, and time into existence, and then He described the filling of His creation with a myriad of life forms. Physical chemist and author of some leading books on biblical creation Jonathan Sarfati explains the traditional Christian view of the creation account in Genesis:

  … creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced “after their kinds” (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.[27]