"Life started here when these organisms were dropped into the primitive ocean and began to multiply"--Sir Francis Crick

Many years ago I had two lengthy discussions with Nobel Laureate Dr. Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule. Neuroscience was his agenda, but I had something else in mind. In 1973 and 1981, Crick had published a brilliant, thought-provoking article and book about life's origins and during the second conversation I steered the conversation to the origin of life. Like other Nobel Laureates, he still thought it likely life on Earth may have come from another planet and the universe was swarming with life. He was sympathetic to my proposal that these first Earthlings must have contained the genetic information for the "evolution" of all subsequent species--and he didn't object when I pointed out this idea was implicit in his own work and consistent with theories of natural selection.

I postulated that these first arrivals must have contained the actual genes which coded for advanced traits which had not yet evolved. Thus the genes for creating hearts, lungs, brains, etc. must exist in ancestral species without hearts, lungs or brains. These genes were inherited. They did not randomly evolve. Further, I proposed that by identifying and activating these genes we could create advanced traits in primitive species. He interrupted, gruffly stating there was very little evidence to support such a startling and extraordinary idea, and if there were we'd have to toss out the theory of evolution and rewrite all the biology textbooks.

Flash forward 12 years: Its time to begin rewriting.

METAMORPHOSIS: A NEW THEORY OF EVOLUTION

Consider the gene FOXp2 which is involved in human speech but is also found in ancestral and other species including reptiles, albeit in nonactivated form. This gene did not randomly evolve, it was inherited. All it took was one amino acid to activate its contribution to human speech.

Incredibly ancient species including the sponge and "placozoa" (Trichoplax) which first appeared around 635 million years ago, have no brain, no neurons, and no nervous system, yet their genomes contain the silent genes necessary for creating neurons, neurotransmitters, and brains. These brain-producing genes existed in unrelated brainless species and were then passed on for a hundred million years through subsequent generations and species and then became activated giving rise to the nervous system and brain.

How did different brainless species who diverged from a common ancestor over 650 million years ago somehow "evolve" in parallel, the same genes responsible for the nervous system? Evolutionary biologists tell us this is just nature arriving, by chance, at the same solution. A solution to what? These species never evolved a nervous system.

Then there is the SEP gene which is responsible for producing petals in flowering plants. The SEP gene was inherited from ancient, leafless, nonflowering plants. However, this silent gene can be activated and will produce flowers in non-flowering plants.

These are numerous examples of identical genes coding for advanced traits appearing in diverse, unrelated species who lack these traits and never develop these traits, and who instead pass on these "silent" genes to subsequent species which then become activated.

Evolutionary biologists have been forced to resort to mind-bending intellectual contortions and mental gymnastics to make these and other "paradoxical" findings compatible with Darwinism. Traumatized by the specter of "Intelligent Design" these "experts" have closed their eyes and their minds, and claim these genes and the same genes evolved in multiple diverse unrelated species by chance, through random mutations.

Why would a flowerless plant or a brainless eukaryotic cell randomly evolve the genes for flowers or brains and then not activate them? How could multiple, diverse species randomly evolve the same genes and not use them? And the answer is: Because these genes did not randomly evolve, they were inherited from some of the first creatures to appear on this planet and were then passed down from species to species until activated.

Yet other genes were inserted into the genomes of ancestral species by microbes and viruses. Thus identical copies of the same genes appeared in numerous species and were then inherited by offspring.

How is this possible? Microbes and Viruses copy and transfer genes and act as interplanetary genetic messengers. Bacteria and viruses can make copies of genes belonging to a third species and transfer these genes from species to species--which is why they are employed as vectors by genetic engineers to create various products.

The human genome contains genes found in bacteria, bacteria contain "human" genes, and an endogenous retrovirus inserted its genome into the human genome 5 million years ago where it remains today. If these microbes and viral particles were transported to another world, their intergalactic luggage might include vast genetic libraries and the DNA instructions for creating all manner of species, including woman and man.

Just as an apple seed contains the genetic instructions for the creation of an apple tree, the first and subsequent microbes which appeared on this planet contained the genetic instructions for the tree of life, and for every species which has walked, crawled, swam or slithered across the Earth. This startling discovery resolves innumerable paradoxes in biology.

Most scientists agree that all modern day species can be traced backward in time to the first microbes to appear on Earth. Where did the first arrivals get these genes and where did they come from? Random mutation? An organic soup? Ridiculous. Only life gives rise to life. These first Earthlings arrived here from other planets and they contained the genetic potential for the metamorphosis of all subsequent species.

This explains why the genes for flowers, hearts, lungs, and brains, appear in ancestral species devoid of these attributes. These genes did not randomly evolve, they were inherited--and similar genetic seeds flow throughout the cosmos and have taken root on worlds much older than our own.

THE MYTH OF THE ORGANIC SOUP

Life on Earth came from other planets.

"Only life gives rise to life" is a well established law of biology which is supported by an overwhelming body of scientific evidence. By contrast, there is absolutely no evidence to support the theory of "abiogenesis" which has been repeatedly tested and disproved. Life has never been created from non-life--at least not on Earth. The organic soup is a myth.

Most modern scientists do not believe it possible for a human, monkey, dog, cat, reptile or fish to be randomly created in a bubbling brew of organic chemicals or to arise fully formed, molded from the clay of the Earth. Although consisting of individual cells, these animals are much too complex.

And yet, even a single celled organism is incredibly complex, with a host of enzymes, amino acids, nucleotides, proteins, DNA and RNA macromolecules, and other biological components engaged in a highly choreographed dance of life within a biological membrain consisting of thousands of interacting micro molecules precisely jig sawed together. What is the likelihood a mixture of inert chemicals can randomly organize themselves into a living, viable, consuming, excreting, information gathering, self-reproducing organism and its DNA?

Even when guided by teams of well funded scientists who employ all the tactics of "intelligent design" and every conceivable recipe, including tossing in biologically produced substances, the result is always the same. Life has never been produced from non-life. Abiogenesis has been repeatedly disproved.

Unfortunately, the myth of the organic soup has been shamelessly and falsely propagated as established fact by the scientific community and the media. Some actually believe this deified myth which they've been taught should never be challenged or questioned. Others engage in these deceptions to combat what they is fear is the only alternative, religion and "creation science" when in fact, abiogenesis is creation science. The belief that life can arise from non-life has been part of Church dogma from as early as the 3rd century.

"Very tiny animals result from the corruption of mortal things, arise from defects of dead bodies, or from excrements, or from putrefaction of dead bodies..." -St. Augustine, Catholic Bishop, Church Father, and Catholic Saint.

According to the Catholic Church, "god" created the Earth, and the Earth retains these supernatural god-like generative powers. Therefore, life can be produced from non-life--a view that had been adopted by numerous branches of the Christian religion and most scientists.

Religion is a powerful and pervasive sociological and cultural force, influencing scientists, teachers, parents, children, and even the most liberal and progressive of thinkers, some of whom expend considerable effort fighting against it. In consequence, religious beliefs and faith in supernatural forces are often repackaged in the language of science.

Darwin trained to be a theologian, believed in abiogenesis, attributed everything to the "stamp" placed on matter by a "Creator," and his text, The Origin of Species, is replete with supernatural, animistic references: "Natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing throughout the world, the slightest variations, rejecting those which are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good, silently and sensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life."

By claiming that life on Earth came from non-life, the scientific establishment has embraced animism and merely substituted terms such as "nature," "organic soup," "natural selection," and "random chance" in place of god and the supernatural.

Whereas the Catholic Church preached the Earth was the center of creation around which revolved the sun, planets and stars, the scientific community would have us believe the Earth is the center of life's creation, around which revolves the non-living universe. Both views are incredibly arrogant and childishly egocentric.

The belief in abiogenesis, that life on Earth was created from non-life is religion masquerading as science and an indication of intellectual immaturity and magical thinking--the cognitive residue of early childhood, where inanimate objects such as toys, shadows, rocks, and so on, can be endowed with life. Piaget referred to this egocentric stage of intellectual development as "Preoperational. " It dominates during the ages of 2-4, when children think the world revolves around them, and where they assign living attributes to inanimate objects. It is difficult to completely escape these influences, for the child is father to the man.

Given the incredible vastness and age of the universe, and the little blue dot we call Earth, isn't it reasonable to assume life would have emerged somewhere in the cosmos long before it appeared on this insignificant spec of dust? Certainly, the world does not revolve around us, the Earth is not the center of the solar system, and our planet is not at the center of the biological universe.

Only life can produce life. Thus the first life forms to appear on this planet were produced by living creatures whose ancestry leads to other, more ancient worlds.

Many species of microbe and bacteria have evolved the ability to survive a violent impact and ejection into space; the frigid temperatures and vacuum of an interstellar environment; the UV rays, cosmic rays, gamma rays, and ionizing radiation they would encounter; and the crash landing onto the surface of a planet (G Horneck, et al. Incarius 2001, 149, 285; G. Horneck et al., Adances in Space Reserach, 1994, 14, 41; Weber & J, M. Greenberg, Nature 1985, 316, 403; W. L Nicholson et al. Microbiology, Molecular Biolgoy, Review, 2000, 64, 548). Obviously, they would not have evolved these capabilities if their entire ancestral and genetic history had been confined to Earth and the conditions of this world.

Life did not originate on this planet but instead fell to Earth encased in dust, ice, and stellar debris.

Microfossils have been found in Eighteen different meteors including 3 from Mars. Lunar fossils have been found by Russian scientists and a single dormant microbe was recovered by NASA from the surface of the moon. There is considerable evidence, detailed in this text, demonstrating that life on Earth originated on other planets.

Skeptics dismiss these discoveries by claiming "contamination." Yet, contamination is the only logical, scientific explanation for how life appeared on this planet. Life on Earth was not randomly assembled in an organic stew.

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein. I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny the obvious." --Sir Fred Hoyle

There was no "organic soup"--at least not on Earth. Life on Earth came from other planets.

This text is based on a synthesis of overwhelming scientific evidence published by hundreds of independent investigators in esteemed scientific journals. As summed up by those familiar with my work: This text advances a completely novel, original, and revolutionary new theory which has the potential to create a scientific revolution and paradigm shift in our understanding of the origin, evolution, and nature of life on Earth and the Universe.

Naturally, the leaders of the status quo and the defenders of the faith will not be pleased.

"New truths go through three stages. First they are ridiculed, second they are violently opposed, and then, finally, they are accepted as self-evident." --Arthur Schopenhauer