This one intrigued me for a number of reasons, but the bottom line here is that a recent study of the Y chromosome in African-American males has led to a rather interesting conclusion:

Study of African-American Chromosome Poke Holes In Evolutionary Theory

Now, while I would urge the reader to adopt a heady dose of caution before endorsing the headline's conclusion - "Study of African-American Chromosome Poke(s) Holes in Evolutionary Theory," it is interesting to ponder some of the implications of these particular paragraphs:

"The study focuses on the analysis of a DNA sample that was obtained from an African-American living in South Carolina and submitted to the Genographic Project, a National Geographic effort aimed at mapping human origins and migration. The funny thing about this sample is that it didn’t match up with any of the previously known genetic signatures for the Y chromosome, which is passed down from father to son.

“'Nobody expected to find anything like this,' Hammer said in a news release.

"A team led by Fernando Mendez, a researcher in Hammer’s lab, analyzed more than 240,000 DNA base pairs on the African-American’s Y chromosome. A comparison of the differences between the mystery genetic signature and previously known signatures led the team to conclude that the most recent common ancestor for the entire group lived about 338,000 years ago.

"That goes further back than the fossil record goes for anatomically modern humans, Hammer said. “The fossil record speaks to 195,000 years or 200,000 years,” he said. It also goes further back than the previous date for the most recent common ancestor based on Y-chromosome analysis, which is in the range of 142,000 years."

Now, at best such a finding, if eventually adopted as a chronological benchmark by paleontologists, biologists, and anthropologists, will not be acknowledged as "holes in evolutionary theory" but rather as a chronological modification to the existing historical model, albeit, a very significant one, for as the article itself discloses, a date of modern human males hanging around some 338,000 years ago is more than twice as far back as originally thought.

I suspect for most of the readers of this site, the significance of this study, if indeed it is eventually born out by further research and confirmation, will be not so much in terms of modifications to evolutionary theory, but rather for alternative research, for as I have pointed out in my The Cosmic War: Interplanetary Warfare, Modern Physics, and Ancient Texts, such a date would be commensurate with those suggestive Mesopotamian texts and kings' lists that indicate some genetic "tinkering" occurred with humanity around 225,000-242,000 years ago, if one accepts their dates at face value (and let it be noted, most scholars do not).

What interests me here is that in those legends and stories, the chimerical creation of mankind was the result of a mixture between "the gods" or Annunaki, and some humanoid creature on earth. The interesting thing is, in those stories, the donor of the "gods'" part of the equation is male. Now, I have long argued that for such a project to have worked, it would have been easiest and most practical for "the gods" to have been, so to speak, "genetic cousins" of humans to begin with. In other words, the implication of those Mesopotamian texts, if taken at face value, is that the genus homo is not restricted to planet Earth; we have, or at least, had, "cousins" somewhere "out there."

Time will tell of course, but on one score, at least, this recent finding vindicates the current standard model, in that in that model humanity does indeed originate in Africa, and spread outward from there.

See you on the flip side.

Posted in

Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".


  1. Enlil's a Dog on March 21, 2013 at 8:43 pm

    All they will do is just ‘move the goal posts’ (as we say here) and nothing will change! Darwinism will still be a FACT and anyone that says otherwise will not be a REAL scientist!

    I remember attending a seminar sponsored by New College in Oxford when I was living in the UK. The seminar was being presented by none other than tricky dicky dawkins himself on the origins of man.

    At the end of the seminar he was asked a question about the primordial soup theory to which he evaded brilliantly – “ah, that will take an entire seminar in itself to answer, we don’t have time to get onto that” – or words to that effect. Funnily enough though, he had plenty of time to get into answers that involved the debunking of any creator lol………What a wanker he is!! lol

    Everytime these people are confronted by the question of Abiogenesis they turn tail and run and he did it superbly that afternoon! It’s despicable that this darwinian model (in its present form) can be called a science imo!!

    • paul de gagne on March 22, 2013 at 2:33 am

      Telling it Like It Is — Enlil,

      Dog the DOGMATISTS to death, ha, ha! (I like that.)

      To me there’s two ways of asking a Question that tend to make a speaker want to run out of the room.

      One is the very tricky kind that makes speakers look foolish which I think we should avoid if a speaker is being really honest with themselves. The other are the ‘leading questions. Leading to what? Leading to OPEN(ended)-ness!

      I found if you want to get anywhere in this Society then I warn you not to ask those second kind of questions for if you do you can kiss your ‘up the ladder of SUCCESS’ hopes goodbye for good! (you will be branded with an invisible iron and at the very least called names, for example – Not a Team Player).

      So much for Group-Think. The Masters don’t always need the thought-police for we often do their jobs (self-censure) for them if you know what I mean? (this is very difficult psychologically because it is right and very human to want to feel like we belong SOMEWHERE. I find Ostrich-izing is very difficult in the long run! I imagine Farrell suffered a bit of this in his past like you may have asking a BIG SHOT that question. I say the word SUFFER when ‘anger’ is probably more accurate but to be angry for too long a period is a form of ‘pain?’. If your not careful — guess who gets the blunt of your anger? )

      I tend to like those kind of questions the most. (leading questions — aren’t they all?) Even if very often than not they are really the kinds of questions that are Un-answerable? (Basically Existential) We just pretend their not. Again, as Robert often mentions in here – self-deceit)

      Enough of this — About 4 yrs. ago I had the opportunity to go back to College in Chicago to get another undergraduate degree. I really wanted to backtrack in my life and major in Anthropology but after long thought about the formal aspects of learning and did something like a GED in Anthropology by applying the DO-IT-YOURSELF-METHOD, for about 9 long inspired months. It was fun, ha, ha?

      In 1972, mind you, Professional Anthropologists were asking themselves as well — Must We Re-Invent Anthropology’ in response to a forum or book called by Dell H. Hymes titled “Reinventing Anthropology> This was in response to all the changes going on in that Field of Inquiry? (it was being blown-apart by other specialized disciplines such as Linguistics and Genetics) Or in other words— ‘Is it Worth it?”—

      I guess my answer is as others have put it —DECOLONIZE IT! rather than the really radical view of lets just start all over and call it another name. (as I believe Farrell is doing in his studies of Mythology)

      To cut this short concerning his above article and the responses to it, I see Paul Feyerabend and Vine Deloria ALL OVER IT in the sense of being a few of the most prominent questioneers, ha, ha, (pain-in-the-asses, ha, ha!) who just may have opened a few doors for other people like biologists to do the work for them.

      I guess it is a reasonable desire to want some ‘rest for the weary’ in this mad post-modern scramble I call the Modernity and an UPDATED version of Moses’s “fourty years in the desert routine” The search for information never stops. (my point is the examination of what is actually discovered or the ends of thought is the exact opposite of this never ending mad-house quest.

      I didn’t put this last paragraph quite right. I should have said, “The never ending quest for more knowledge is matched only by the desire to NOT discover(examine) ‘exactly what it is being Discovered?)

      Have a good day you all. ((((This is a great article reference from an Afrocentric Model – Everybody deserves the right to feel a little bit superior now and then. It sure is an ‘artifical’ way to help morale and builds up that oh-how-illusive Self-Esteem!))))

      • paul de gagne on March 22, 2013 at 3:23 am

        I may be a bore but I know at least one person might appreciate this extra post.

        I forgot to mention this chance/opportunity would have cost me absolutely zero or nothing financially. (which was a great deal because that’s about what I have to live on, ha, ha! As impossible as that may seem to others in here, I also live beneath my means, ha, ha! (try not to overspend hence my no paid-membership in here but that may change once I view all the freebies on the Net that Farrell offers. Phew, there’s a ton of them!!!!!!!)

        This opportunity to go back to College was another one of these FREEBIES that Mit Romey talks about and HATES. (something for nothing that he’s not in on for the ‘GRABS!)

        Yeah, all the tuition and expenses related to attending would have been paid for by some liberal state-program. Believe me it was tempting but I had to pass because I knew the way they teach Anthropology in the, as Farrell puts it, “Fraudulent Universities” is really a MISDIRECTION.

        Don’t get me wrong, do attend if it doesn’t cost you an arm and a leg. ( there’s ways to do so for free for there’s still reminants of the Good Society left but you really have to be UNCONVENTIONAL about it and I would guess most people aren’t aware of them until ‘after-the-fact?”

        DO attend but with a jaundiced eye. Try being a PROFESSIONAL STUDENT. It’s a fine way of life You just may find people all of suddenly starting to call you a SCHOLAR when all you were doing was avoiding the DRAFT/UNEMPLOYMENT( in other words a J-O-B! I got quite a few home-town buddies (the ones still alive) who did just that but woe-is-me or alas I didn’t follow thr and dropped out for a while.)

        And if you cant, go to the ‘people’s university’ called a library. (and what — find out there’s no books about alternate theories or even worst the kind of books that claim this and that by the DIRTY-TRICKS-departmental authors who changed the ‘one way sign’ to the other direction.”

        I’m ranting but I do like the articles in here as a counterbalance just in case some very young people come in here. I don’t believe the Giza Death Star Web-Site is ‘R’ rated. At least not yet?

        I just finished CWRC. I can honestly say it was worth the price. I liked it better than BB. Probably because it didn’t have as much Physics in it?

      • Robert Barricklow on March 22, 2013 at 8:36 am

        Yes Paul,
        I’am often reminded of Francis Bacon’s description of self-censorship as the arrow that flies in the night, because no one sees it but it achieves it’s deadly aim.
        As does the mickey-mouse golden patented handcuffs preventing to openness of informationbeing shared in their respective communities; many times vital, as in life & death vital(breast cancer’s coded sequence[&10,000 fee])

        • Robert Barricklow on March 22, 2013 at 9:25 am

          Explorer or some entity’s been whaching posts in the Open vs cosed systems vein. I got here in a sereptitious manner & am just trying to get a few words in.
          May not be able to get back
          (to Arizonia, to where I once belonged)

    • paul de gagne on March 22, 2013 at 5:14 am

      I noticed in this last post I put too many ha, ha(s) in it. “Why’s that,” I asked myself? Could it be I am unconsciously imitating Joe? (He’s got this odd kind of laugh that comes out often enough between sentences in the interviews?)

      Anyway — imitation as flattery, maybe? I am going to have to do something about that? ( I would like to imitate his ability to ‘synthesize’ for I do need that kind of COHERENCE!

  2. bdw000 on March 21, 2013 at 6:17 pm

    The lesson for me is that, whenever large distances into the past are concerned, geology, astronomy, and biology NEVER follow the strict rules of science. Their lab tests might be “scientific,” but there is never any verification of the final result: you just cannot go back into the past to VERIFY if your pet hypothesis is actually correct or not.

    This is the key: there is never any ACTUAL scientific verification of any claims about the distant past. It simply cannot be done (with current technology).

    It is certainly possible that many, if not most, scientific claims about the distant past are correct for the most part. However, as a matter of epistemology, it is absolutely crucial to realize the vast gulf between ALL scientific claims about the distant past, and any claims to “KNOW” that “X” happened in the distant past. Technically speaking, the knowledge level is ZERO, and therefore I say it should not be called science. “Educated guesses” do not equal science, if they cannot be verified.

    Just because you wear a lab coat and carry a clipboard around, and do a bunch of scientific “tests” in some “lab” does not mean that any COMPLETELY UNVERIFIABLE claim is “science.” It just isn’t.

    • bdw000 on March 21, 2013 at 6:21 pm

      It is my opinion that the word “time” is the great stumbling block of modern science.

      And no, Einstein did not solve that riddle, but simply prevented any understanding of what time REALLY is from ever happening.

      to this day there is still no generally accepted definition of what the word “time” means in a scientific sense. Amazing.

      • Joseph P. Farrell on March 21, 2013 at 6:34 pm

        Agreed on the time thing in physics, though Einstein was not alone or unique in that respect. I think, however, to give physicists their due, there WAS a lot of interesting speculation that didn’t make it into general awareness. Hermann Weyl’s thoughts in Space, Time, and Matter come to mind, as do, of course, Kozyrev’s, and some other people.

  3. Frankie Calcutta on March 21, 2013 at 5:25 pm

    I finally watched the Ridley Scott movie Prometheus. It was touted by somebody on this website and I expected in the least it would have some interesting illuminati clues as to their belief on the origin of our species and who created us. What a disappointment. Ridley Scott must have fried his brain on cocaine since he made Blade Runner. I felt like the movie was a homage to awful B movies of the last couple decades it was so poorly made. Worst Hollywood blockbuster script and acting I’ve seen in a long time. I think every screenwriter in hollywood is in a state of arrested development. It was really a movie made by the equivalent of sixth graders. Shoddy as can be. I felt like the homeowner who has his door bell rung and discovers a small fire on his front step which he immediately stomps on only to discover it is a paper bag filled with dog crap. That’s how I felt after watching this movie. Two hours of my life I wish I had back.

    • DaphneO on March 21, 2013 at 6:09 pm

      I agree. I watched it for the same reason and was not impressed. I certainly learned nothing and felt it was a waste of my time.

    • Joseph P. Farrell on March 21, 2013 at 6:38 pm

      I tend to agree though not quite as harsh as others. I thought the BEGINNING of the movie was interesting, but the ending rather disappointing. But as for the state of Hollyweird sci-fi (or, for that matter, the so-called sci-fi channel and its new spate of “reality” shows), it is childish and immature. The results of our edgycayshun system coming home to roost: it’s all special effects, no plot, no characters, and above all, no engaging “concept” or theme or information.

    • Robert Barricklow on March 23, 2013 at 11:33 am

      As Dr. Farrell says, the beginning was it.

      Although, I did like the action that transpired throughout the movie.

      The foreign movies are where it’s at.
      One recently was a version of Jo Nesbo’s Headhunters. Both the book & movie(which stayed true to the author’s story) were an engaging full frontal assault.

  4. marcos toledo on March 21, 2013 at 2:03 pm

    By the way Mr.Farrell have you come across the two newest theories of why the Neanderthals went extinct. First there is they couldn’t catch rabbits second they needed more brain power to see in the dim light of the ice ages. I am not joking and I read this story about the 338000 year old Y chromosomal from Africa. I remember a episode of Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea staring Robert Dauval about a star fish looking creature that was a 300 to 400 million year old equivalent to humans and that in the fall future the intelligent species would look like us.. It was one of the better written stories of that series It amazes me what cock eye theories so called scientist will come up with to show their ignorance.The idea of pre mammal creatures looking like modern animals I offer up the ichthyosaur and the bottle nose dolphin they look alike but one a marine reptile and the other a marine mammal. What do you think of the idea of intelligent prehuman arising from different branchs of the evolutionary tree.

Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events