Survival: The Ultimate Mission. Robert M.D. Skaf

continue to evolve. In that respect, as a pioneer, Darwin must command our highest respect and deserve our deepest gratitude for his research and discoveries. However, when living things started to evolve and why is the issue here.

      Ever since Darwin had published his book on the origin and survival of the species, scientists have been treating his theory as a modern gospel. This total and absolute acceptance of this theory becomes less convincing once we open the door for the possibility that the origin of intelligent life may have preceded the planet earth. In this case one can argue that animals could be the descendants of an intelligent species, which means that intelligent life has been in existence long before many unintelligent life forms had evolved on earth -including mammals. Once we raise the possibility of the existence of other universes, of other live planets, one may even venture to speculate that intelligent life may have been around even before our universe was formed. This is why I strongly believe that everything in existence must be connected to some sort of a Continuous Creation and must have its root at the beginning of time. But in the infinite universe it would be impossible to have a beginning or an end. Basically, one could argue that life, including intelligent life, predates our current universe and has been around forever. Granted, the earth has been around for billions of years, there are evidence showing life to have existed both in water and on land only for a couple billion years, yet according to my observation, it is very possible that intelligent life has made its way before our species appeared on its surface, the shape of that intelligent species did not have to be in any way or form similar to ours, the reasons it didn’t’t leave any evidence of its existence vary. For instance, this intelligent life form could have ended up in the sea. We know whales originally lived on land. Another possibility could be the fact that it devolved into a non-intelligent species after discovering the beauty of a simple biological life that does not involve the complex rigors of an intelligent society. In fact, only an evolution as such or devolution may explain how a species like lions or chimps is less able to survive in the face of any extreme conditions - let alone an interplanetary journey - whereas a tiny insect might. We as human beings could one day, if everything is offered to us on a silver platter to the point where we no longer need the use of our brain, devolve into non thinking beings as well. In fact, some people in different countries walk on four and they are known as hand walkers. Sure, the reason may be medical, but scientists have not been able to determine the real cause behind this behaviour. This notwithstanding, the point I am trying to make is that intelligent beings or close relatives of ours could be the species that gave rise to chimps not the other way around. This is a possibility that Darwin would be excused not to examine. In his time, space traveling was a fantasy that only existed in the imagination of science fiction writers. Today, we know how real such traveling is, particularly, when there are plans to make a human landing on Mars within a few decades. If our civilization was able to achieve so much in less than a century, it would be reasonable to suggest that other older more advanced alien civilizations could have visited our planet. One of them could have settled millions of years before the first primate appeared on earth. It is very possible that this intelligent species is the one that had decided to devolve into an unintelligent species in the shape of apes. For example, the Neanderthals could have been the species we are talking about. According to experts they were intelligent with large brains; yet, nothing shows they were as creative and inventive as our species. Devolution could be the only reason for them to stop inventing. Anyone who believes in evolution must accept the fact that the brain is no different than any other organ or body parts that get developed or adjusted. Use it or lose it is not just an adage. This evolutionary principle applies to one and all - chimps, gorillas, other primates, Neanderthal and humans. The Neanderthal and perhaps other species - the ancestors of apes in particular - must have found out that it does not take a big brain to survive on planet earth and this is why they must have had decided not to make full use of it. This theory is not only based on mere speculation, just compare the evolution of animals in places like Australia and Madagascar where there was no need for animals to evolve and others in different environment. Furthermore, observe how some of our own species tend to behave. As many of us would attest, intelligent life is not always easy. A complex brain as ours has too many connections and circuits which makes us susceptible to all kinds of trouble every time any one of them breaks down. An intelligent being requires more than food to survive. Without any intellectual interaction, he or she would definitely suffer emotionally and psychologically and in turn becomes disenchanted with life. It takes more than food to satisfy us. This is why, despite a rich materialistic life style, many of us grow tired of being aware and intelligent. Sometime this awareness becomes such a heavy burden which may drive a person to alcohol or drugs and may lead to suicide in extreme cases. This is how our civilization has been dealing with the stress of an intelligent life. A distant civilization could have dealt with stress by trading its brain power for happiness and contentment. Anthropologists have been studying a human like species called the Neanderthal whom they also believe co-existed with our species for some time. If there is evidence of one species, there could be more. The question is: could the Neanderthal be the devolutionary species we are talking about? Let’s face it; our life is much more complicated and demanding than any other living form known to us. It turns out that the adage no brain no pain might have an alien origin. Long time ago a Greek philosopher made an observation that a human has a choice to lead a sad life sad as an intelligent being or happy one as a pig. Watching how much fun rodents, birds, mammals and predators seem to be having just by being alive, brings me to conclude that if they were to experience any suffering at all, it would be the result of biological hardship, such as hunger or illness; whereas in our case, mental anguish, emotional suffering, psychological depression and many other conditions can be triggered by any event. Let’s face it: in purely biological terms, most mammals are more advanced than us. Actually, one may compare the other species to a digital watch and ours to an old mechanical one. We have too many parts and baggage, the fact that other mammals don’t must tell us something. To my thinking, they are the more evolved, more sophisticated version; theoretically, the newer versions are - at least in biological terms. As one can clearly see, it is very possible that we happen to be the older version whereas; they have emerged to be the advanced one. They evolved to live in peace and harmony with nature for a simple reason: this planet is their origin. We never learned to follow in their footsteps because earth happened to be an alien environment to us, because living in harmony with our surrounding was never an option, we come from a back ground where everything around us was artificial and man-made, where a physiological evolution would have been useless. Having evolved such a delicate thin skin is a good indication that we have had experienced living in a controlled atmosphere environment for a long period. This is another proof that the gift of an earth was not provided to us. When we settled on this planet, we were so deeply and irrevocably set in our own ways that we were and still are incapable of becoming more in-tuned with nature. How else can anyone explain our reckless disregard to the environment? How else can anyone justify our abusive treatment of all things natural? Not only did we fail to develop any physiological or biological mechanisms such as hibernation or rumination but our technological and scientific discoveries are all distancing us further from nature. From the beginning we never felt at home in nature. We still have to make an effort to enjoy the outdoors. There is a big difference between our species and all others. In all cases one would find all other living beings adapting to natural conditions. For instance many mammals hibernate. On the other hand, we happen to be the only species that goes to great length in changing the environment to suit our needs. We are the only species that makes use of fire - the most destructive element in the universe. There must be a reason for us to follow this path. The only explanation one can come up with is that we have realized through previous experience that this benign environment does not last forever, that we have no choice but to behave in this way. We evolved to be inventive and creative by necessity not by choice. For that to have had happen, certain conditions would have had to exist. Since none of them could be associated with the planet earth we know, we must have had experienced them on a different dying planet. For many reasons - the least of which is the fear of being ridiculed by other peers - I do not expect this theory to win approval among the scientific community. In fact I do anticipate that most people would discard my views as being the fantasy of a delusional person. However, even a delusional person has the right to ask questions. Firstly I would like the scientific community to explain to me how of all species we happen to be the only one that found a need for fire? Secondly, why would nature or