Follow by Email

Thursday, April 30, 2015

Why Unidentified Submarine Objects Disproves the Existence of Extraterrestrials

     Over the past month or so I've been seeing Unidentified Submarine Objects(USOs) coming up on various Discovery Channel and History Channel programs centered around evidence for extraterrestrial visitors to Earth such as Ancient Aliens, Alien Encounters, and the like.  What strikes me as both amusing and disappointing is that existence of such USOs pretty would be counter to theories involving extraterrestrial visitors.
     Allow me to explain...
  Most of what makes us modern happened within the past 10,000 years.  Contrary to what you might hear on shows like Ancient Aliens, the progress from old stone age to new stone age to iron age (sometimes by way of the copper and bronze ages) followed by the steel age and leading to the industrial age and then the information age follows a linear progression that can be evidenced globally.  Here and there we see advances in technology within isolated populations, and some of them spread to other cultures while others simply fade out and are forgotten, only to be rediscovered elsewhere by some other population at a later date.
  Now, homo sapien sapiens has been around for about 200,000 years. Before that, there were neanderthals and other archaic homo sapiens for an additional 150,000 years...and many of these species or subspecies had bigger brains than modern homo sapien sapiens.
  Additionally, if homo erectus soloensis and the so-called "hobbit" are related and the new dates for soloensis are correct, then a population of homo erectus living in the the now-sunken continent of Sundaland may have had a more developed frontal lobe than the ancestors of homo sapiens had 260,000 years ago or more.
  In fact, since archaic homo sapiens goes back over 500,000 years, we can safely assume that there have been species on the planet capable of complex thought since at least 500,000 years ago. If we were ever to do any underwater archeology in the once fertile coastlines of Sundaland, or if we were  ever able to actually find more fossils of the hominids that we know were in India previous to Narmada Man,  we might even find that advanced frontal lobes go back 750,000 years or more. In fact, the first controversial example of abstract thought shows up around a million years ago, not 40,000, the date that Eurocentrists once claimed.
  Since it only takes 10,000 years to go from Stone age to Industrial age and only 100 years to go from Industrial Age to Information Age, our current level of technology, (or at least that of the late 1800s) could have happened at any time in the history of Homo for the past 500,000 to 750,000 years, provided that the culture which reached that level of technology left no or few traces of its technology.
  Anyone who has seen the recent TV programs showing what would happen if every human being disappeared tomorrow such as "After Us" realizes that there would be no trace of anyone having ever used metallurgy in less than 25,000 years.
  Additionally, the most desirable real estate on earth during the ice age is now underwater (Sundaland), leaving only what would have been uninhabited mountain ranges at the time(Java, Borneo, etc.).
  So what does this have to do with USOs and visiting extraterrestrials, might you ask?
  Well, since we still don't quite know whether light speed itself is even possible, and since we don't yet have any good ideas about how a craft might survive the rigors of deep space travel, and since statititions have shown that finding the planet Earth is highly improbable for aliens at any level of technology, the desire to physically come here even more follows that even theories like the more radical versions of AAH(Aquatic Ape Hypothesis), Atlantis, and even Hollow Earth and Creationism are still infinitely more probable than interplanetary travel having occured in our planet's past!
  In fact, interplanetary travel is no more a possibility than  inter-dimensional travel or time travel as far as our current understandings are concerned.
  Recently, Michio Kaku has proposed that an alien culture might send out mechanized drones to find life on other planets, leaving "trip-wires" on Moons to alert them to a planets ascension to the Space Age. This increases the probability of an extraterrestrial visitation, but not until the least as far as we know!
  Therefore, statistically speaking, the chance of aliens having visited our planet before 1960 are less than the chance for the existence of fairies, elves, and unicorns!
   Even if they did find irrefutable evidence of high tech USOs operating in our ocean and don't reason that the government has reached that  state of technology (after all the US Gov did have a version of google earth 50 years before the public did), then there are still better explanations for the technology than aliens.
  In fact, even if they found a new species of hominid in a submerged USO, it would still be more logical to assume we shared a common terrestrial ancestor with it than to believe that it is from another planet. Maybe the Hollow Earth Theorists, Edgar Allen Poe, and various Native American legends are correct and there is a race of hominids living in the vast unexplored caverns of the earth. Maybe the earliest of the AAH theorists are right and one branch of our semi-aquatic ancestor stayed in the sea, having achieved a civilization far greater than ours on Sundaland in the remote past. Hell, maybe USOs are operated by a form of whales that retained arms for tool making, being that some claim that they are smarter than humans!
  As ludicrous as all of this sounds, it's no more far-fetched than interstellar travel, as far as our current understandings are concerned. Not even 5% of the species that have existed on Earth are represented in the fossil record. Most of our planet's formerly prime real estate is now under water. A fossil of a chimpanzee has never been found in the wild, although we know that they exist. 25% of the US has not even been field surveyed, and there are vast areas of the Earth that will never be explored. There are places on land we cannot get to without destroying because our of lack of fur and our lack of immunities, and there are places under the sea where strange species exists that we will likely never get to. Most of the evidence of man's past is beneath the sea along the former coasts, and we are doing pretty much nothing to explore it.

  Even if we found that a species of hominid found on a USO had DNA different than any other species on earth, and that DNA was equally distant from every species on Earth, it would still not be evidence of interplanetary travel... because inter-dimensional travel is equally impossible according to our current understanding.
  So what's my point? I'm just pointing out that the bias on these popular alien shows borders on journalistic criminality. I understand that the ratings go down when the real scientists appear on their television programs, but at least they could get some other fringe theorists with equally plausible whacky explanations to provide a counterpoint.
  When every mystery is followed by "We can't figure it out ...therefore Ancient Aliens!" and you know that they are talking about "aliens" of the interplanetary, material, travelling variety... it reeks of jumping to conclusions and makes little sense when there are so many other explanations, mainstream and otherwise, that can be found with a simple google search.
  If an alien were to come out of the sea and make contact with the president, appearing on the 6 o'clock news tomorrow with proof that their DNA was different from any DNA on Earth, I wouldn't necessarily be surprised that some species in the vast universe had finally proven that light speed or inter-dimensional travel were possible and had therefore made themselves an engine to get here. I'm just saying that even if the reports of USOs are genuine, It's no more likely that they are extraterrestrial or extra-dimensional than it is that they are perfectly terrestrial and simply unknown to us.
  And my main problem with Ancient Aliens is that man's technological advancement  has proven to be largely linear over the past 10 thousand years at least, right up through the 1800s, and therefore if any aliens visited Earth in the past as anything more than  casual observers we don't seem to have benefited from it as much as Ancient Aliens seems to make out. Even things like the Antykthera Mechanism and megalithic structures, though advanced for their time, would be as primitive to the creators of light speed and extra-dimensional travel as a homo habilis's hand-axe is to modern man. What's more, there are linear technological progressions from human cultures that ultimately result in things like the Antykthera Mechanism and megaliths, despite what Ancient Alien kooks spread about pyramids springing out of a Nile formerly inhabited only by grunting ape-men. there were underground mines along the Nile over 20 thousand years ago, and they aren't mining for Sitchin's gold but for flint and red ochre...the staples of paleolithic culture, not the culture of little green men from Sirius B!!
  Man is not so stupid as to have to have an E.T. come down and teach him to do even the most mundane things, but Ancient Aliens would have you believe that our race wouldn't have ever been able to learn to wipe our own arses or rub two sticks together without alien intervention.
  I'll have them know that I figure out things and try doing things differently with different tools and even invent new things all the time without consulting people from other planets...and since all the parts of my brain have been on this planet for at least 200,000 years I see no reason why my ancestors needed aliens, either. As far as the overall fossiland lithic record are concerned, the linear progression of man's technology has few, if any, missing links. they show that he did not need alien intervention in the least.


Monday, April 13, 2015

If Anthropologists and Archeologists Wanted the World to Take them Seriously

If Anthropologists and Archeologists Wanted the World to Take them Seriously

If anthropologists and archeologists wanted the world to take them more seriously, so that 9 out of 10 college grads didn't put their faith in the History Channel or the Discovery Channel instead, they would do a few things. And they woould stop digging in Oldavai Gorge, stop redating fossils that were redated within the last two decades, stop working on anything in strata younger than say 3000 B.C., and stop debating about human ancestors previous to 4 million B.C. , until the following questions have been adequately answered for the public.

1. What is the origin of the pyramids on the different continents? We heard your answer about all the different cultures coming up with them independently, but we didn't buy it. In fact, it made us wonder why we are paying our taxes and tuition to support your research.

Luckily, amateur scientists have done part of your job for you and adequately explained to us how the pyramids could have been made without the help of high tech machinery. This is a job that you had previously failed to accomplish, but having it done means you've got the rest of your work cut out for chop-chop!

2. What is the origin of tooth avulsion? We heard your answer about all the different cultures coming up with it independently, but we didn't buy it. We would buy it if you had an underlying reason to go along with the assumption, but lock-jaw aint it.

The first fossils with the same teeth knocked out at adolescence are in Australia 50 thousand years ago, the Maghreb in North Africa 20 thousand years ago, and the Jomon in Japan 20 thousand years ago. We need a source area of dispersal and a DNA lineage, or an anatomical explanation. If a hybrid tooth pattern of sinodonts vs sundadonts vs neanderthal vs erectines or any other combinations therein might create a need for such a practice, we need to know that too.

3. What is the homeland of the original practitioners of artifial cranial deformation? Were they a ghost population, and if not please provide us with their haplogroups. We heard your answer about all the different cultures coming up with the practice independently, but we didn't buy it. It makes us think that people who read books too much and spend all day in labs must lose their common sense completely somewhere along the way. If the crania deformers were a ghost population, please provide a few solid theories as to which extinct human haplogroup or archaic hominid lineage they are partially derived from.

The smart ones among us are pretty sure that they weren't alien hybrids, but even that is a better explanation than the little you scientist types have given us. We also need explanations of the absense of certain sutures on some of these skulls, and an explanation or refutation of the claim that there are extra arteries in the back of the Paracas skulls. We've all seen the holes on Youtube with our own eyes, and if they are indicitave of additional trepanations and not extra arteries at all, then we need a real scientists to say so publicly (and not in a nerdy boring article behind a pay-wall). If any archaics had extra holes or if the process of hybridization between any two known hominids might produce these extra arteries, that would be useful to know as well.

The first instances of it are redated to North Australia 20 thousand years ago and the Beijing area at roughly the same date. The next examples are from Korea and Ur around 8000 years ago, and the 45,000 year old Neanderthal at Shanidar has been debinked, so that should be a good start.

4. Are you guys admitting that the Ark of the Covenant was a capacitor, or where is the debunk page? 20 pages deep on a Google search and the only one I've seen looks like it might be showing that any box with gold around it is a capacitor, but I really can't tell since it's written so nerdy and is further complicated with Fundamentalist philosophy.

We try to argue from a scientific viewpoint with our friends and all they have to do is say "Ark of the Covenant" and quote a couple lines from Ancient Aliens and we're lost. We're not all electricians, so we need it given to us simple-like; a simple explanation of each opposing point of view will suffice.

5. What mtDNA and Y Haplogroups, not populations, have the most of each of the following things:

*Microcephaline D


*Mungo Man's Chromosomal Introgression


*Neanderthal (Divided into at least two clusters since it is known that Asians have a different segment of the genome than Europeans do).

*Denisovan (Divided into at least 3 clusters since it has three genomic divurgence points within it and there's some suggestion that some modern people have one or two parts but not all three parts of the greater genome).

Until archeologists, anthropologists, and archeogeneticists complete at least those five challenges, people will continue to turn to programs like The Search for Lost Giants and Ancient Aliens and will continue wondering why they had to take Civilization I and II in college in the first place...and eventually you might even lose funding for your government paid programs.

Then you won't be able to dig for proof that Neanderthal was stupid after all, or that dogs didn't really get domesticated until 5000 B.C. after all, or that Moses didn't exist, or that Hittites were really the Sittites as opposed to the Shittites...because there won't be any money left to dig with!

And remember not to put it only behind a pay wall: less than 1% of us can see it there, but we've all got the History Channel.

Joe Lyon Layden is a prehistoric fiction author and primitive musician. To receive a free copy of this entire novella "The Man from Parkho Khatune Bears Favor," as well as three free songs and monthly updates, freebies, and discounts on Joe's ongoing work, please sign up for the newsletter below.

Sign Up Now


Neanderthals Did Not Go Extinct, Pure Homo Sapien Sapiens Did

Even though we've found widespread Neanderthal and Denisovan introgression in all modern non-subsaharan humans, and sub-saharan Africans have been found to have introgression from a third archaic hominid... people keep coming up with reasons why Neanderthals went extinct. Recently the one about dog domestication being mankind's trump card over Neanderthals has been revived again:

Newsflash: Neanderthals did not go extinct, and neither did Denisovans. We are all hybrids of "archaic homo sapien," it's direct descendent "homo sapien sapient" and at least 3 other archaic populations. It's probably more like 6 archaic populations, since the Denisova hominid is hybrid of eastern Neanderthal, another line that split off from the neanderthal/human line a million years ago, and yet another line that split off as much as 3 million years ago. Plus 90% of people outside of sub-Saharan Africa have assimilated a microcephalin gene from still another mysterious hominid that split off from our line 1.7 million years ago or more.

I assume the reason that this hasn't hit home with scientists who still want to explain the demise of neanderthal in a species vs. species manner is that only 4% to 10% of our nuclear DNA is at present contributed to these other hominids. One has to wonder where they think the other 90% comes from.

You see, nuclear DNA is not the same as mtDNA or yDNA in that it is not so finite. In other words, just because a person has 90% homo sapien sapient nuclear DNA doesn't mean that it all came from descendents of mito Eve or Y-Chromosome Adam.
 Furthermore, mito Eve and Y Adam were not anatomically modern humans. True anatomically modern humans don't show up until around 115,000 years ago in Africa and the Levant, and both of our proposed progenitors are far older than that. Previous to the first anatomically moderns in the fossil record, we had "almost modern" homo sapiens from North, South and East Africa all the way to South China and mito Eve and Y Adam most likely came from separate tribes anywhere within that zone. They may have been on separate continents for all we know for 100% certain. In fact the first undisputably modern HSS was found in Australia and is dated to 50 thousand years ago, but he is not our ancestor: his DNA split off after Neanderthal but before mito Eve or Y Adam.

This specimen, Mungo Man, is more gracile than the anatomically modern humans that came directly after him all over the world. The European version of anatomically modern human from that era, once dubbed "cro-magnon," is much more robust and many of the specimens have neanderthal derived features. Even in Australia, the successors of Mungo Man are more robust and archaic than that 50,000 year old skeleton was. Mungo Man may have been the descendent of a far ranging, endurance running type of HSS because he stood about 6'6 and had such a lithe bone structure.

A piece of Mungo Man's DNA has imbedded itself in a chromosome of some people living today, so although we know that he didn't contribute to our mtDNA or yDNA lines, we are sure that at least one person in his genome was one of our ancestor's paternal grandmas or maternal grandpas. This population of anatomically modern human passed on its nuclear DNA to us as well as the freakish strand in our chromosome, but because it was not the direct maternal or paternal line to any modern humans it does not show up in mtDNA or y Chromosome studies.
If the freakish accident that caused it to embedd something into out cromosome hadn't happened, we wouldn't have even known that it ever mated with us. Evidence of Mungo Man does not show up in our nuclear DNA because his nuclear DNA is pretty much the same as ours. We have no way to discern whether our nuclear makeup comes from y-DNA Adam, Mito Eve, Mungo Man, or any of the other ghost populations of anatomically modern human and near-anatomically modern human. Most likely our nuclear DNA came from all of them, not just Adam and Eve.

What's more, some researchers have found that the MAJORITY of our immune system was inherited from archaic hominids, not HSS.

So if you're only 8% Neanderthal and  2% Denisovan. that doesn't mean that you're 90% human the way we think of human today.
It's more like 8% Neanderthal, 2% Denisovan, 12% African archaic, 8% Levantine archaic, 5% Indian archaic, 5% Indonesian Archaic, 10%  Central Asian Archaic, 10% Mungo Man, 10% extinct y Haplogroup F*, 10% cro-magnon, 10% extinct mtDNA M*, and maybe even 10% late surviving Rhodesian Man, late surviving Idaltu Man, or even Red Deer Cave People (if you believe they're modern humans early OOA like some scientists want you to to).

Plus we have a microcephalin gene from a homo erectus soloensis descendent or a 3 foot furry hobbit.

Incidentally, some of these ancient hominids whose nuclear DNA would be virtually indistinguishable from ours were a lot different looking from us than Shanidar Neanderthal was. Some Neanderthals had chins, and some of our "anatomically modern" ancestors didn't, for instance. Some of their skulls are at least as divergent from ours as neanderthals was, and it is more due to their skeleton  that they are placed  within our ancestral line.

So what am I getting at?

Neanderthal may have contributed as much to your personal genomic make-up as any other of your ancestral ice age populations. Some of your ancestors of about the same era were probably even uglier and alien-looking than your Neanderthal great grand-uncle was.
Also, "pure" homo sapien sapient is extinct: there was 100,000 years of human lineages splitting off from our line between the departure of Neanderthal Man and the birth of Mito Eve and yDNA Adam. Those millions of lineages created millions of populations and most of them have left no modern direct descendents, just like Neanderthal...and though their mtdna and y haplogroups don't survive, they're contributions to our modern genomic make-up are hidden in our nuclear DNA, immune systems, chromosomes. etc.

Since every instance of the mtDNA  and Y lineages that survive contain archaic introgression, isn't it obvious that we are all hybrids and that "pure" homo sapien sapient suffered the same fate as "pure" Neanderthal?

Joe Lyon Layden is a prehistoric fiction author and primitive musician. To receive a free copy of this entire novella "The Man from Parkho Khatune Bears Favor," as well as three free songs and monthly updates, freebies, and discounts on Joe's ongoing work, please sign up for the newsletter below.

Sign Up Now


Saturday, April 11, 2015

Explaining Evolution to Christians, and Genesis to Evolutionists: A Metaphor

Explaining Evolution to Christians, and Genesis to Evolutionists: A Metaphor

Let me tell you what I did recently.

On the first day I cut out some wood.

On the second day I sanded some boards.

On the third day I painted some cabinet parts.

On the fourth day I assembled some cabinets.

On the fifth day I made a delivery to a duplex.

On the sixth day I created a galley kitchen.

On the seventh day I rested.

Now, from what I've said you don't really know whether all of those days I mentioned are consecutive, but you probably assumed I was talking about a week.

You might assume that I know the word "cycle" and can't be using "day" instead of it, but you can't be absolutely sure. You may or may not know that wood turns into boards which turns into cabinet parts which turns into cabinets which turns into a kitchen.

Or you might not.

My guess is that if you lived on this planet around 5,000 B.C, you didn't have a word for cycle, cabinet, OR "galley kitchen."

My guess is that it took the invention of the wheel and possibly a passing knowledge of astronomy for man to grasp the concept of a cycle in any form other than a "day." For the layman to understand the modern definition of a cycle, it probably took the invention of clockwork.

And I know for a fact that the words "evolution," "natural selection," and "genetic drift" hadn't been invented in 5000 B.C.

Just sayin'.


Thursday, April 9, 2015

AAH or AAT: Reconsidering a Few Thing About the Aquatic Ape Theory or Hypothesis

When I first heard of the Aquatic Ape Theory as a teenager, I had a good laugh. By the 1980s, we had alot more fossils to look at than Max Westenhöfer had had in 1942 or Sir Alister Hardy had had in the 1960s, and the perceived gap they sought to close in the human fossil record had by that time been found to be virtually non-existent. In the 80s and 90s, AAT seemed like something made up by people who really wanted to believe in mermaids.

But since then the AAH theorists have become alot less radical in their views, and with all the evidence of marine exploitation and coastal/riverside expansion in our fossil and archeological records, it would probably be unwise to discount any possibility at all that a temporary waterside existence influenced a stage in the evolution of mankind. Most explanations provided by modern AAH thinkers can be explained more logically by other mechanisms, as pointed out by Jim Moore's website "Aquatic Ape Theory: Sink or Swim?" John Hawks points out that most of these theories require terrestrial stressors for hominids to keep the traits they supposedly aquired in a water environment, therefore showing that these stressors could have caused the adaptations that AAH attempts to explain in the first place. However, Phillip V. Tobias , one of the most respected anthropologists of the past century, stated before his death in 2012 that there are certain aspects of AAH that are "that seem more difficult to reason away." He also noted in a 2012 paper that rejection of the AAH has led to stigmatization of a whole spectrum of topics related to the evolution of humans and their interaction with water.

Hominids spread out over the Earth along coasts and river routes, and kitchen middens go back at least 164,000 years, so I wouldn't discount that at least some of the traits we've aquired over that time may have resulted as a result of a coastal existence. It is understood that the traits we've aquired over the past 164,000 years are all pretty minor traits considering the span of hominid evolution, but they are all traits that separate us from some of the other archaic hominids that were around at that time, and they are traits that separate us from one another "racially." But there seems to be one demographic of extant homo sapien sapient that has evolved ever-so slightly more than the rest of us towards a maritime existence. These are the so-called "sea-gypsies" of southeast Asia. Conveniently, they are precisely the people that Oppenheimer, Solheim, and Manansala have identified as remnants of the "Nusantao Maritime Culture" which they theorize is one of the major impetuses of the Neolithic revolution and the spread of civilization around the world.

The ancestors of these people. the proto-Nusantao, are also likely the source of elongated carnial deformation practices, mummification, and circumcision, according to the views of those authors. What's more, the Nusantao or proto-Nusantao are the most likely spreaders of Microcephalin D, which entered our genome 30 thousand years ago from an extinct hominid that is not neanderthal or denisovan, and most likely not "the hobbit" either. We will call this ancestor Hominid X. Hominid X had split off from the ancestor of homo sapien sapient at least 1.7 million years ago before it's genes reunited with us again in the late Pleistocene. We assimilated his Microcephalin D and seem to have bred out all of his other genes since then. The "unknown hominid" component in the Denisova gene is probably a branch of this same unknown hominid's genome that spread from SE Asia into China. Either this hominid lived in South Asia or Sundaland up until at least 30 thousand years ago, or a "sister race" of anatomically modern humans akin to "Mungo Man" which had already assimilated Microcephalin D did, or it wouldn't be present in 90% of non-sub-Saharan Africans today. We had to assimilate it from someone, and the best match for a location of that hybridization is SE Asia with South Asia coming in a close second.

The Nusantao or pre-Nusantao are also the most likely spreaders of ASPM-D, a new allele that arose a mere 11 thousand years ago in populations with Microcephalin D and has since spread to 70% of non-sub-Saharan Africans alive today. Microcephalin D, incidentally, is inherit in 90% of today's population. In a very general sense, wherever you don't find Y Haplogroup F you don't find Microcephalin D....and wherever you don't find F's descended Y Haplogroup K you don't find ASPM D. The highest frequencies and diversities of both these genome sweeping alleles are found in Papua New Guineans, South East Asian Sea Gypsies, and Kalash...basically pointing to a spread from the center of Southeast Asia.

Did the Nusantao bind their heads to emulate their Hominid X/Homo sapien hybrid ancestors who gave them Microcephalin D?
Was Hominid X the descendent of homo erectus soloensis, which has recently been tentatively redated to 260,000 from a previous date of 27 thousand years ago?
How long did Hominid X live a maritime existence in the fluctuating sea levels of SE Asia over the past 1.7 million years, if at all, and how much did it change them?
How long did the proto-Nusantao or proto-Australasians live in this environment before spreading civilization and these sweeping Microcephalin and ASPM genes to the mainland?
Was it long enough to give them other traits that can be associated with a maritime existence, and did any of those traits make a sweep of the human genome as well?
I know hairlessness took a long time in marine mammal evolution, but I still don't quite buy that our lack of hair is all because of sweating. Horses sweat but are still alot hairier than us, and Nusantao y haplogroup O is alot less hairy than I am across the board.
Were my ancestors even hairier before the Neolithic revolution and the influx of Sundalanders into mainland genes?
Is 1.7 million years of seaside existence long enough to contribute to the developement of that kind of adaptive trait, or any of the others mentioned by AAH theorists?

And someone please give us a counter vs. AAH theorists as to why we alone among terrestrial mammals have that nasty gross stuff all over us when we're born, just like the marine mammals.

As Stan Gooch taught us long ago, it is always valuable to wonder, "What if they are all right?" when faced with seeming contradictions from various camps in interdisciplinary studies, especially in human origins.

  So this year I will not be throwing the baby out with the bath water like I did the first time I encountered AAH, but will consider whether parts of the more plausible modern theories of it's supporters might be partially correct or even totally correct for a particular sub-species which contributed to our current genomic make-up. And the questions put forth above will be further explored along with other reconsidered theories, such as partial multi-regionalism, Stan Gooch's "Double Helix" hypothesis, Paul Bahn's paleolithic horse domestication, even aspects of Gene McCarthy's Macroevolution, and many others.

Even the whacky-ass Urantia book predicted that chimps evolved from humans, which seems like it might kinda sorta be the case! Amazingly, the current mainstream is of the notion that the great apes descended from a fully bipedal ancestor which they shared with man!
Sorry we won't be spending much time on Creation or Ancient Aliens, though...gotta draw the line somewhere. Though I believe in God as well as life on other planets, I don't see any evidence in the Earth's record of evolution or technological progression actually needing or receiving the kind of help that those two camps propose. There just aren't that many "missing links" in evolutiuonary or cultural continuum anymore...and alternate explanations can be found with a simple google search for just about anything those camps propose.