CHAPTER THREE

MECHANICS OF HUMANIZATION

If time were collapsed into a short span, cultural traces now deemed hominidal would appear human. Since footprints and bones that are deviously connected with the artifacts are also now considered close to modern man's, we may suspect that homo erectus and australopithecus, if not human themselves, of having had some human cousin living up North, say. This homo schizo would send his relatives fleeing east and south from the common ancestral home, which might be at the junction of Europe and Africa. After consolidating his position -- mainly defining his proto-mind and proto-organization -- he would reach out to contact them.

Then he would extirpate or interbreed with them, and come to dominate the homo line and promptly diffuse to the geographical limits of the world. Only the docile and miscegenable would be spared. Even today, several strains of homo schizo are in danger of extermination -- the pygmies, negritos, numerous Amazonian tribes as well as other Amer-Indians, and the Eskimos, for example.

If homo erectus and australopithecus were human, which we deem likely, then we should look for a hominid (X) as our ancestor. This 'X' might be much like man or a surprisingly different type. Granted that the probability is low, because he still has to appear alongside the fossil australopithecines, even modern man -- to all physical appearances -- might be his own ancestor. But, too, 'X' might be an unseemly anthropoid. Eugenics cannot say how great a change of type can occur under special conditions nor whether certain species are more capable of quantavolution than others. We note how often in the fossil record, some species change while others remain the same. And we have already been startled into the realization that the change from hominid to human may have been anatomically slight. Since we have little evidence to suggest who 'X' might be, we might leave the search for him in more knowledgeable hands, and assign ourselves the task of determining theoretically how such a hominid could become human.

We have already ruled out most of the traits that scholars have joined to the ladder of evolution -- skeletal, muscular, sensory, alimentary, sexual and lingualpharyngal mutations -- as the crux of humanization. We have ruled out as well the growth of the cranium. We should also rule out the piling up of reinforced primate experience in a growing storage-box brain that would eventually begin to expel human products.

One need only contrast the races of mankind to see how little difference so many changes do make in psychology and behavior. With skin color from black to pink, hairiness from hirsute to hairless bodies, height from the very tall Watusi to the neighboring Pygmy, nose from flat to hooked, head from broad to long, cranial capacity from 830 to 2000° cc., differences of dentition, of blood groups, and so on, homo schizo has nevertheless come to possess a similar array of psychological qualities whatever his outward appearances.

We should look most closely for signs of self-awareness, of a split ego, for from this, we believe, and only from this, would come the flood of fear, the insatiable demand for self-control, and the outward movement of this need to control, taking the form of showers of displacements that would be transformable into human conduct. Symbolism would be the necessary external manifestation of the inward symbolizing needed to tie together the ego that had been split asunder. We would expect our newly quantavoluted person to behave recognizably as an imaginary Hominid 'X', close to the chimpanzee, in that his basic needs would be the same. Much of his behavior, too, might appear instinctive.

What would become quickly a critical difference would be an unending stream of delayed and unrecognizable stimuli in great numbers. He could be interpreted as an animal trying in amazing ways to consummate a new kind of stimulus-response, where the responses were delayed, as much as he might try to speed them up. He would be an action-delayed, hence decision-craving creature.

Whatever its cause, the character of the mutation may have been quite simple, confounding high-flown speculations that have adorned debate about human nature over the centuries. It may have been what Dobzhansky called a polygene mutation, carried over into many chromosomes, providing a slight quantitative, not 'qualitative' change, but yet a change with great effects. A systemic delay of microseconds in overall signal transmission in the brain might act as a suppressant of instinctual response, set up an echo of the self, and excite perennial hyperendocrinalism. The gestalt of creation (treated in the next chapter) would promptly take effect.

Besides mutation, it is conceivable that an environmental constant may have changed, provoking a human response that must continue as long as the constant remains unchanged. Further the human mind may have quantavoluted culturally because of experiences so intense and memorable that a new kind of creature emerged from them. We must look into these possibilities more closely. But before we do so, I ought to stress the importance of natural catastrophes as a background and source of quantavolutions in biology.

Legends everywhere carry stories of great numbers of people reduced to a few survivors. They are obsessive tales, repeated continuously over thousands of years. Psychiatrists will readily deem them to be founded upon strong memories, a possibility that most historical scholars are loath to admit. The English prehistorian Childe says that the population of England in paleolithic times numbered only in the hundreds, during neolithic times in some thousands. Were then all the people of England mustered to drag the neolithic megaliths of Stonehenge into position, and then reassembled in Ireland and Brittany for the same tasks?

Mircea Eliade, whose research on myths worldwide is justly renowned, is most impressed by the obsession of all peoples with the earliest times of creation, by the permeation of the totality of their cultures with the same obsession that great and terrible events occurred; yet he has not ventured to say that anything at all happened then. Are the legends mere fantasies of primeval poets, primordial Dante's, whose plots no later poet could ever improve upon?

Dobzhansky, of whom we have spoken, takes one sentence in a large book on human evolution to dismiss obsessions of creation as a 'natural' reluctance of people to conceive of infinity. Are peoples, (using his own perspective) supposed to recall their lives as apes? He and many others arrogate to an illuminated modern mind the right to conjecture and endorse ideologically the concept that humans long were few and became many with extreme gradualness. For all the other people who have ever lived, and who claim by a kind of culturally transmitted history that their ancestors arose in large numbers and were wiped out in cycles of catastrophes and revival, no place is to be reserved in science.

The Holocene period itself embraces many more fundamental natural events than were once accredited to it, as the latest edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica points out. A start has been made in assigning quantavolutions to it, but the major allocations cannot occur until chronological methods are criticized and reformed. Even though their character as ages is not yet defined, the occurrences of catastrophes of continental, if not global, scope may have occurred in half a dozen sections of the Holocene period -- approximately 2700, 3400, 4400, 5700, 11500, and 14000 years ago. I have attempted to order and designate these epochs in the book, Chaos and Creation, Chapter Four. Intervening catastrophes of less global scope were common. Plato, Boulanger, Carli-Rubbi, Cuvier, Velikovsky, Schaeffer, Hapgood, Kugler, Schindewolf, M. Cook, Kondratov, Patten, Bass, Juergens, and other scholars of times past and present have exposed the revolutionary character of natural events in such ages.

For the moment, and so that argument may proceed along its main line, the extent of catastrophism of the past fourteen thousand years can be barely sketched. It would help conceptually to regard all expressions of natural forces of a destructive character witnessed by modern humanity as but the flattened tails of negatively exponential curves of catastrophism. These natural forces of the past worked through explosions of the legendary elements of "earth, air, fire and water."

Catastrophic action and effects were manifested over the whole globe. Their intensity was such that the potential destructive force of deviations in the motions of celestial bodies must be introduced into the equation. Legends (oral history, amnesiac fragments, and sublimated tales) assert abundantly the priority of heavenly forces as destroyers of the world on successive occasions. The locations of large meteoritic explosions are discovered in increasing numbers. Increasingly, geologists such as Ager slip from the grasp of earth-bound uniformitarianism, and astrophysicists such as John A. Simpson conceive of their realm as explosive and disorderly.

It can be asserted and defended that in the past fourteen thousand years, a disorder befell the solar system that terrorized and transmutated the sensible biosphere, changed the atmosphere, cleaved and ravaged the crust of the earth, altered drastically the sky and surface waters and destroyed or severely damaged every civilization up to the seventh century before the present era. During these fourteen thousand years, it can be argued, human groups spent one-third of their time in an environment of natural and social chaos and suffered intense physical and mental stress. Again I refer to the book, Chaos and Creation.

Continents were fractured; mountain ranges rose; crustal material was exploded into space; cataclysms of water, ashes, oils, gases, and fire rained from the skies; ice ages came quickly and avalanched, not melted, into oblivion. Oceans were created; seas were drained; floods raged in every direction up to the very mouths of highly placed caves; climate altered in a day and the atmosphere was deprived, enriched, and poisoned on numerous occasions.

No single mile of the surface of the world can be bored for its actual stratigraphic column without discovering it to be at some points a catastrophic column. No matter what part of the destruction can be assigned to the ages before man, some part of it has to be attributed to the ages of man. Settlements and civilizations everywhere, from the Arctic Sea to the Tropics, from Spitzbergen to Tiahuanacu, are now, upon exhumation, shown to have been the victims of such events [1] . Beginning with the larger part of its surface that is below the oceans, the earth is a scene of global disaster, punctuated by habitable oases. Scientists have known so all along but, in good conscience, have refused obsessively to reveal the fact. Whether one observes the ash and debris of hundreds of ancient settlements which, as C. Schaeffer has said, are studiously ignored or whether one reports on the ashes of primeval human sites, where, comments H. T. Lewis critically, ash lenses in places like Shanidar are offhandedly treated as "ash middens" or hearths, the 'conspiracy of silence' governs the authorities. The Sahara, the Great Salt Lake (Bonneville) area, the Gobi desert, the arctic tundra, the sub-glacial Arctic and Antarctic regions, East Africa, Southwest Africa, and so on to many smaller locales are signs that what happened to Mars almost happened to Earth. Practically all species that became extinct, and whose careers might be followed by fossil evidence, became extinct suddenly, as for example, some three-quarters of all large animals at the end of the Pleistocene, fully within the time of man's cultural flowering.

It appears, therefore, that every hypothesis trying to explain the means of humanization must be developed within the historical bounds of natural catastrophe.

The closest that we can come to distinguishing a key factor in humanization is an instinct-delay system operating in the brain but serviced by the body's electrical and hormonal system. This could be called the humanizing factor. In baseball language, the animal in us has been forced to touch base several times before completing the circuit and scoring, and so the human ball game is on. A close investigation of instinct-delay (see Homo schizo II) emerged with the theory that it is an effect of the specialization of the brain, with consequent transmission delays in coordination of the total brain and organism, and that there is an overcrowding of consciousness because of a spillover of repeatedly insistent messages taking alternative routes for delivery or ending up in functional cul de sac.

I shall try to formulate the process of instinct delay here in a manner that will assist in seeking the mechanism of humanization. Instinct-delay (D) is a function or ratio of the product of the mass of the brain tissue requiring service (M), and the specialization thereof (S), to the product of access facilities (the number of receptors or docks and the number of routes pursued by messages) (A), the input of electro-chemical signals (E), and the velocity of the work of transmission (V). That is, D = f( MS/ AEV). When all other variables are held constant:

1. If the mass of the brain increases, instinct-delay (D) will usually increase.

2. If specialization of the brain increases, D will usually increase.

3. If the number of message docks and the number of routes to them increase, D will usually decrease.

4. If the input of electro-chemical signals increases, D will usually decrease.

5. If the signals move faster, with less impedence, D will usually decrease.

However, the variables are not entirely independent, although we do not know the extend of their interdependence. Thus, an increase in brain tissue may not bring a proportional increase in docks and routes available to supply the tissue. Nor will the larger brain necessarily be supplied by an increased input of hormones, which come from several places, or electrical charges, to transport messages. Nor do we know whether the electric and chemical signals will carry on with their former speed or will move less rapidly, unless some other factor increases their speed (which may, for example, be an electromagnetic change in the state of the environment).

That is, we cannot identify precisely the agents, nor the cause of their behavior. All that we can feel confident of, at this point, is that there are here the rudiments of an explanation for instinct-delay, hence self-awareness, hence humanization. We believe, too, that such a system is capable of empirical verification and modification. Further, it seems to answer a need in science for a concept that will go along with most of what is known of human development and human nature, and will not lead us astray as we seek to understand how mutation and other mechanisms could have occurred. Finally the concept will pay a large profit when it correlates with the mental and cultural behavior of the human during and after humanization.

We return to the contention that mentation and culture have developed by small increments over millions of years. We find in it a subtle ideological attempt at cutting change into such fine bits that it will simply blow away and nothing will be left to explain. Let us address it nonetheless.

The human is compelled to behave humanly in both mind and culture. Once granted that self-awareness was a quantavolution rather than very slow evolution, mentation and culture must originate at once. So one should ask whether self-awareness came at once.

Self-awareness is a trait that varies quantitatively among humans; some people are apparently unselfconscious, until closely observed -- then time, space, gods, rituals, discipline, and anxiety appear, until it is obvious that their 'unawareness of self' is a catatonic suppression. In any human group, we invariably discover a capacity to be taught self-awareness among practically everyone. Even the hominids among us, if there are such, know how to 'put on a good act. '

But let us speak of the past. Could the self-awareness of the human species as a whole, regardless of whether homo schizo ultimately emerged, and granting that he did, be a matter of slow accretion, slightly self-aware four million years ago, more so three million years ago, even more so two million years ago, practically modern a half million years ago, modern 30,000 years ago? Whereupon, would not developments that require less self-awareness take less time, and inventions demanding more self-awareness take more time? The use of the right hand, for instance, might long precede the invention of tools for the right hand, and then another long period would be allowed for language and even this divided into words for sensible things, and later words for abstractions, then drawings, then domestication of animals, and so on. All of this is not impossible. It is widely believed that some hundreds of physical and cultural changes were laid upon Hominid 'X' gradually over millions of years, and that the "flowering" of culture occurred among Upper Paleolithic man and then again in neolithic times, and then again in the iron age, and once more in the recent centuries of science -- these "flowerings" being expected as accumulative, branching effects.

However, the external environment and the internal tensions of homo schizo, the ones who were fully self-aware, would immediately have stressed the whole community to maximize self-awareness. The drive is socially contagious, and irresistible. It comes from the fear of itself and the need to control itself. It is not dealt out by a third party. It is excited by itself. Therefore it cannot emerge piecemeal. It must emerge for all it is worth as soon as it exists. A homo schizo in a group of Hominid 'X' would dominate or die.

But might the self-aware have been precisely those who gradually became such? No. Unless a guiding hand to physical evolution were present, we cannot expect this trait to have emerged in ever-increasing quantities by successive mentations, like a turning of the screw, each turn producing a higher level of self-awareness with a consequent output of new ideas, fabrication, and social inventions. Indeed, evolutionists teach us to avoid such pathetic notions. Who advocates such a guiding hand? The psychosomatic Lamarckians probably, and I may sympathize with them. But why should a beast will for himself a small increment of self-awareness, and then another and another, especially when the psychological effects of self-awareness are not at all comfortable, not even tolerable, so that, if man had the ability to choose, he would, like a volunteer soldier caught in a battle, renounce his original enlistment gladly. Neurotics are notoriously fond of dumb animals.

Conventional evolutionary theory does not provide for an intelligence that would direct mutations toward every-increasing self-consciousness. Isolation and inbreeding among a slightly more schizoid band would be counted upon to produce a type that would, given the chance, venture forth and shove aside less able hominids, or, later on, humans. But this cannot go on for long, unless there is a mutated element present in the germ plasm allowing ultimately the full exercise of self-awareness.

Here is an area where evolutionary thought is especially self-contradictory and, consequently, slippery and evasive. It can only get from one small change to the next but cannot get from the beginning to the end; it can explain some intra-species changes, like horse-breeding and the Beltsville turkey, but it cannot explain a major development. No known mechanism directs a long string of slight modifications in the germ plasm. Even if we were to concede that the jump from hominid to human were only apparently large but was biologically small, human genesis would admittedly be a hologenetic occurrence; when it occurred, hominid life changed drastically; it speciated.

Nor can humanization wait upon a slowly evolving culture, no more than the bee was anatomically created and then evolved the basic elements of its social system over millions of years. Even though he does not draw the consequences -- hologenesis -- we can agree with Robin Fox when he writes: "The nature of order is part of the order of nature. It is not that man is as culture does but that culture does as man is." [2]

Recent researches into the differing behaviors prompted by the separate hemispheres of the brain can also be considered. Hominid 'X' may or may not have had a large brain before he was humanized, that is, before he became schizotypical. The fibrous conjunction (corpus callosum) bridging the left and right hemispheres of the brain may be playing an effective role in conditioning humans for schizotypical behavior, even if it is not indeed the physical location of the genetic factor that so many are searching for.

In his treatise on The Ghost in the Machine [3] , Arthur Koestler has placed the origins of human 'mis-behavior' in a malfunctioning relation of the limbic system to the cerebral region. The basic reptilian and mammalian control and response systems are located below and behind the cerebrum, which is grossly 'over-developed' in man. The rational and constructive inclinations of the uniquely human cerebrum, he thinks, may be frustrated all too often by the more instinctive, unconscious, and irrational animal systems. Human behavior, as a result, is prone to contradictions, rage and aggressiveness, destructiveness, and madness.

Even while admitting that a specialization is occurring here in the human central nervous system that can bring about schizoid behavior from a lack of perfect coordination, we must say that the problem is incorrectly stated and may explain why Koestler did not arrive at the focal center of human nature. The problem is not one of 'mis-behavior' but simply of behavior, both 'bad' and 'good, ' 'normal' and 'abnormal. ' Pari passu, there is no 'malfunctioning, ' but only 'functioning. ' We do not turn off a spigot marked 'rational' and turn on the spigot labeled 'irrational. '

Once we brush aside this specious and decrepit Aristotelianism and scholasticism, Koestler's work becomes valuable. For now it becomes possible to seek a mechanism of delayed instinct between the automatic and cognitive specialization of the brain, which, in conjunction with other sources of delayed, diffused, and over-loaded responses, may explain the self-awareness, existential fear, and profuse displacements of the human being.

The bilateral structure of the brain, providing two hemispheres, had been fashioned long before the advent of humans, probably one some quantavolutionary occasion between two ages. A division of functions between the hemispheres may have come only with the origination of mankind. The skullcase tends to warp to conform to the concentration of functions in the brain; and external asymmetry conforms to the internal asymmetry. Such asymmetry, implying human specialization, may characterize most or all hominids. Ornstein asserts that hemispheric specialization (asymmetry, that is) appears to be unique to humans [4] . Handedness in favor of the right hand, and language, are dominated by the left hemisphere. Asymmetry in the language region is, for instance, discoverable on the skull of "Arago XXII" coming from Tautavel, France. This specimen is classified as homo erectus and assigned an age of 450,000 years by uranium-thorium and electron-spin-resonance tests. (Source: Musée de l'Homme, Paris.)

Besides governing right hand and body movements and language, the left hemisphere is specialized in analysis and mathematical functions. It is also assertive and, in observed behavior and experiments, tends to dominate decision-making. The right hemisphere of the cerebrum initiates and supports activities of the left side of the body, and pursues non-verbal and holistic forms of thought and appraisals of experience. It is described as artistic and analogical in its ways of processing the external world for internal consumption and action. Thomas Parry has surmised that a relation exists between ancient catastrophism and a take-over of internal and external behavioral leadership by the right hemisphere of the brain on the occasion of traumatic experiences [5] .

Each hemisphere alone can convey to the whole person the possibility of physical and mental survival. Each is in constant touch with the other through the medium of the corpus callosum which carries millions of connecting links between them. The severance of this membrane has permitted direct observation of the individuality of the two hemispheres. It leaves a still "normal" person "with two separate minds, that is, with two separate spheres of consciousness."

If the key to humanization is a general delay of instinctive response with a consequent choice-factor introduced into a wide range of behavioral decisions, then a possible source of the delay lies in the corpus callosum and/ or any drug that can inhibit the full and complete communication or near-identity of action of the two hemispheres. If, for example, fatigue and exhilaration both produce schizoid symptoms, some quantitative measure of interaction between the cerebral hemispheres may define the normal schizotypical state of the hemispheric relationship; the norm itself would be genetically and/ or socially induced on a continuing basis, providing typical human behavior. The recent association of high or uncompensated adrenalin secretion with schizophrenic symptoms suggests offering this drug as a candidate for a humanizing auxiliary.

One is inclined to distrust so simple a solution to so fundamental a problem, even after posting the usual warning signs: that the process is more complicated than it appears; that we know next to nothing about the circulation of adrenalin and other drugs with which it interacts in process; and that historical proofs of such an evolution are probably impossible. One might as well suppose, while offering the same type of warnings, that an electrical change has brought about human behavior. If the Earth has gained charge in recent millennia, the human body may be operating in a hyper-electrical mode relative to the environment in which it evolved. This would be the case with the biosphere generally; insects, birds, and mammals are all sensitive to electromagnetic fields and changes in them. The hominid might then become the 'nervous human' who turns upon the not-quite-quantavoluted hominids and trains them to be human, meanwhile through adaptations and interbreeding creating a new race, whose, members are quantitatively distributed about the genetic norm of the 'nervous human. '

As with every significant element in the quantavolutionary theory of homo sapiens schizotypus, the hypothesis of the physiological source of humanization is put forward to orient thought and method. The theory as a whole serves to show where we can go when deprived of the assumptions of a uniformitarian external force-field of evolution and of the free, long expanses of evolutionary time.

A logical candidate for mutation and environmental transformation in the chaotic period is the endocrinal system. It is an anciently derived collection of glands, separate from but connected with the brain, the nervous system, blood pressure, metabolism, growth, sex, fear, and stress. It discharges numerous hormones that stimulate and regulate these systems. Its main components are the pituitary gland, the pancreas, and the adrenal cortex and medulla. Lionel Tiger places "phyletically prescribed environmental boundaries" around "sociogenic processes," treating mainly of endocrinology [6] . The bio-social movement may help quantavolution much, because of the intense scrutiny it gives to the logically necessary biological and social interface where the great change of humanization had to occur.

The endocrinal system, especially the adrenal cortex, is stimulated by stress and establishes counter-stresses in the organism. For example, rats bred in the laboratory have smaller adrenal glands and less resistance to stress, fatigue, and disease than wild rats. Their thyroid glands are less active and their sex glands develop earlier and permit greater fertility. They have smaller brains, are tamer, and are more tractable.

In humans, similar differences occur between people who are stressed by the environment and those who are not. New Yorkers usually have enlarged adrenal medullas, compared with the American population at large. Paranoid and obsessive traits, involving distortions of reality, are commonly observed among persons who suffer from an excess of adrenalin either as a result of great fear and anxiety or in consequence of inadequate suppressive and discharging chemicals and mechanisms.

Schizophrenia involves at least some separation of the 'primary' self from a second self, which includes part of the self and engages in profuse identifications with the outer world. Frequently observed in mind-workers, it evidences heavy pituitary stimulation of the brain as well as insulin and adrenalin 'excesses. ' The brain often becomes ungovernable owing to endocrinal disturbances. Notable, too, is the association of fear, aggressiveness, and sexuality in variations of the endocrinal system. It is then reasonable to suppose, for instance, that sexuality is determined more by the stresses of the quantavolutionary period than by the aboriginal oedipal complex or simple sexual drives.

Other modes of mutation or transformation also point to the importance of the endocrinal system in developing humanness. Solar radiation stimulates the adrenal system, both directly and indirectly. Hence, abruptly changed levels of solar and other types of extraterrestrial radiation may have prompted humanizing behavior. The types of social imprinting imposed upon the first generations of mankind and all generations since then were, so far as we can tell, the same; delusory, symbolic, obsessional, and aggressive; these are typical products of endocrinal excesses.

Finally, the obsessive will to mutate, to change one's corebeing down to the egg and sperm themselves, has been proposed by Freud as an evolutionary example of "the omnipotence of thought;" so strong a will would be more probably and capably generated in individuals who are endocrinally excited. More than by growth of the brain, therefore, the accelerated development and passover of hominid to human in a quantavolutionary period may be owed to the endocrinal system.

The hypophysis or pituitary gland excretes hormones that can arrest growth and cause dwarfism by reduced excretion, or giantism by increased excretion. An increase also probably increases the rate of insulin secretion by the pancreas. Growth hormone "directly enhances transport of at least some and perhaps all amino acids through the cell membrane to the interior of the cells." [7] It also depresses glucose utilization by the cell. The growth hormone is secreted continually from birth to death.

If the hormone reduces or perhaps delays growth, and at the same time can deprive the cell, including the brain cells, of nutrient amino-acids, and can also diminish insulin output, can it then contribute to the delay and dispersion of signals through the brain? It is conceivable; experiments can be designed to test the hypothesis.

Dubrow has correlated growth and size of humans and many other life forms with changes in the intensity of the earth's magnetic field. We may wonder then whether an endocrinal change produced by a change in the GMF might stimulate pituitaryism and expand australopithecus to modern human proportions.

Since the left brain hemisphere is asymmetric with the right hemisphere, being larger occipitally, and this area is close to the calculating and speech centers, then a growth of the total cranium implies an important proportionate growth of this area and its special functions. That it may be more than proportionate is indicated by Dubrow's finding that the length of the skull geographically varies inversely with the intensity of the GMF [9] . Thus humanization would accelerate. The quantavolution that split man's mind and freed it to displace copiously upon the world may thus have been influenced by a declining GMF. This 'freedom' would then take the form of the multiple selves, or poly-ego.

I have noted on occasion that drugs which are used to treat diabetes of the pituitary variety, and are intended to reduce blood glucose concentration, occasion paranoid suspiciousness as a side effect. But this and these other workings of the endocrines are puzzles within riddles: as F. Dunbar said, "There are no disorders of single endocrine glands." [10]

Let me consider now mutation, asking the ethologist and expert upon instinct, Tinbergen, to describe the situation:

A gene is a large molecule of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) wound on a double helix, along which are strung in fixed order some simple chemical structures called nucleotides. Only 4 types of nucleotides are ordinarily found in one and all chromosomes but their varied arrangements establish by code the behavior to be followed by any given gene. Hence each of the supposed 50,000 genes that carry the full hereditary code of instructions has its unique code that determines its unique job.

A gene mutates, that is, changes its code and hence its 'building plan' by a disarrangement or loss or destruction of one or more nucleotides of the helix. This accident occurs when a foreign chemical or particle or charge or wave or organism enters the chromosome and its gene, with especial effects when the gene is in the process of duplicating itself. Once the gene is altered, it transmits new instructions and whatever aspect of the organism is under its command will accordingly change. Mutations may also affect the organization of genes within the chromosome, rearranging them or even rearranging chromosomes.

It can be estimated (following calculations by Wallace and Dobzhansky) that in the case of man, the number of 'spontaneous' ('natural, ' 'background') mutations that would occur for a world population of four billion people in 350 generations amounting to 10,000 years would be only around two hundred (200). Since practically all mutations are 'cosmetic, ' harmful, or lethal changes, it is embarrassing to place one's faith in mutation (at least as here construed) as the factor bringing about speciation from hominid to man. Indeed, Wallace and Dobzhansky, after presenting the negative and positive effects conclude that mutation is something to be avoided. More-over, "Lack of genetic variability for further evolution of the human species is something we need not worry about." [12] . Like the last man to squeeze aboard a crowded bus, they don't want the driver to stop anymore to pick up someone else.

Here, however, we are concerned with the point of origin of the bus: presumably the change from hominid to man must be applauded. Somewhere along the way this genetic event occurred. But we can understand the plight of uniformitarian evolutionists. How many mutations are represented in the differences between hominid and homo schizo -- one, ten, fifty, one hundred, one thousand? Geneticists cannot say, because, excepting a very few cases, they do not know yet what genes control what changes to what degree. (Anthropologists, such as Washburn and Moore, in their book From Ape to Man, can brave the statistical jungle to extrapolate, but fail.) If we retrocalculate the figures given above, we would have, say, a single viable mutation per ten million years. For, if the humanizing population is set at four millions instead of four billions over whatever time period is involved, a generous estimate by conventional reckoning, then we multiply the time required for 200 mutations one thousand times, giving 10,000,000 years. If one in 200 mutations is viable, then we get a viable mutation every ten million years. But the difference between viability and the ape-to-man difference is still to be bridged. Would then 500 viable mutations be required in order to bet upon the critical change occurring? If so, this would appear to require five billion years. Fortunately, we can dispense with further arithmetic, since authorities have pronounced this to be the age of the Earth itself.

To explain the creation of man by mutation under a uniformitarian theory is thus impossible. To call in natural selection, as is usually done, does not help. For natural selection, unless it is sheerly ad hoc or post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, must have some genetic possibility to work with. It must depend upon mutation to begin with. One cannot assume that homo sapiens resides in 'Hominid X' like a homunculus, awaiting only isolation and inbreeding, or a shift in moisture-carrying winds, or a new supply of protein-rich alligator meat to give the creature sustenance.

If we are to use mutation theory at all, we must associate it with radionic turbulence of the most violent kind, extended over many centuries. And it is even more plausible if, to such catastrophic mutators, we add a permanent change in some atmospheric constants. And, then, too, we must continue to belabor mutation theory, for there is some deep mystery in it -- a kind of genie in the bottle, something of Lamarck's environmentalism, of Freudian psychosomatism, perhaps even of the monads with miniature universes within them, which is to say, something of a Great Intelligence. At this point in time, then, we still need mutation theory and catastrophe theory, with an open door to whatever other theory comes bearing fruit. We receive a hint that the merger of gene theory of mutation into macro-evolution or quantavolution is possible with recent studies showing that much DNA (like much brain tissue) is surplus, seemingly unnecessary [13] . Is this material that is in readiness for recombination? Is it potentiated for organizing a general response in the event of a mutation that would otherwise be too specialized to survive in the species?

Some important areas of agreement exist concerning mutations. Genetic mutation is a change in the formation-instruction code contained in the DNA component of one or more genes of the sperm or egg. Of the estimated 50,000 genes, a mere 210 have been assigned loci in specific chromosomes [14] . The gene map is practically useless, then, in plotting the route of humanization.

New genetic instructions are carried into the fecundation of the egg, thenceforth into the embryo, the newborn, and the adult. This happens provided that survival is possible under the changed rules of growth. "Mutation" of non-genetic material whether adult or embryonic, affects only the individual and is not reproducible. Many chemicals and particles can bring mutation in this sense; but they affect individuals, not species, through cancers and abnormalities.

George Gaylord Simpson laid down a few years ago several principles that are pertinent to humanization.

The whole genetic system falls into line with the mutation, so to speak. This is certainly a hologenetic effect; one wonders why "no generally accepted term for that important concept" exists. A great many features of the organism (hence species) are systematically calibrated. Still, individuals of the species, already unique, alter in unique ways as a result of the mutation. Whether the human 'big brain' evolved in one or several steps, the process was individualized so that, for instance, one person could have only half of the cranial matter of another person; further there are ethnic and sex differences in cranial size.

Simpson hesitantly comments on the likelihood of quantavolution of species:

No new species has been proven to form, through mutation, breeding, or otherwise, in human history. First mutations occur rarely; perhaps one in 25,000 spermatozoa or eggs possesses a gene that has been mutated. Still, with a large population over a long period of time the number of mutations will be high. Since women carry their eggs from birth, some 200 of them, an egg mutated on one occasion may be represented in a birth as much as forty years later; male sperm is wasted and renewed, millions per ejaculation, so that a mutated sperm has very little chance of being partner to a conception.

The chances for a successful mutation are so slight, and the process typically visualized by biologists for evolution of a species is so long, that many scholars have offered calculations showing the high improbability of the origin and development of species by mutation. Yet other theories have not been acceptable, except for the enlargement of the mutation-referral, or calibration process that Simpson spoke of above. Natural selection has to work only with the gene pool already available to a species and is questionable on the grounds already stated in the preceding chapters. MAJOR FEATURES OF EVOLUTION G. G. Simpson declares that "Mutation rate can rarely be an effectively determining factor in rate or direction of evolutionary change; this is also the conclusion of Muller..., leading student of mutation rates." [17] Mutation offers plenty of possible changes but natural selection is more important: once more we face the frustrations of evolutionary ping-pong between mutation and natural selection.

An effort was made by the geneticist Richard Goldschmidt, in 1940 to provide a new material basis for evolution [18] . He said that his lectures at Yale ought to have been called "the genetical and developmental potentialities of the organism which nature may use as materials with which to accomplish evolution." Evolution and natural selection, including the survival of the fittest, were accepted by him as facts. But, he said, selection and adaptation required "necessary hereditary variations" to work with.

So he strove to discover evidences of "macro-evolution." He showed how hereditary differences, that might have fateful consequences in appearance and behavior among species, might be attributable to certain mutations. He conceived the idea that "hopeful monsters" would be frequently generated, from among which some rare type might accomplish an evolutionary saltation. Although he could not demonstrate such directly, he conceived that novel patterning of chromosomes might instantly achieve the same effect as an accumulation of mutations, producing a new chemical system that would substantially alter an organism's appearance and behavior. So he could speak of "systemic mutation" as a complete change of the primary pattern or reaction system into a new system.

He might have added the term "hopeful scientist," to describe himself and others who were products of the "hopeful monster," homo schizo. The phrase: "To illustrate the presence and wisdom of God in the natural and moral world" meant to the naturalist, he declared, "the demonstration of law and order in his chosen field." This view is a common amnesiac sublimation of the characters of the gods Yahweh, Shiva, Zeus, and Jupiter, spreaders of chaos and lightning-like destroyers of the order of Mother Earth and Mother Nature. Perhaps if he had investigated the character of his gods, he might have truly found the means by which nature accomplished changes -- by catastrophes multiplying infinitely the mutating forces and adaptative opportunities of the world. He then would agree even more with another authority whom he supports, O. H. Schindewolf, the German paleontologist, who not only surmised macroevolution but adjudged the causes to be catastrophic and extraterrestrial, in a set of studies published between 1936 and 1963.

The earliest men were in fact "hopeful monsters" who had to believe that the gods were responsible for their sorrows, as well as their welfare, but sublimated many of the sorrows. Perhaps this is why Mircea Eliade, the hopeful scientist, must wonder why the first Greek god Ouranos was believed to have bred so many hateful monsters, his own children, whom he cast down and buried in the bowels of the Earth; Eliade may be avoiding his own ambivalence in not answering the question that perhaps he of all scholars is best equipped to answer.

Coming closer to the key to quantavolution and macroevolution are scientists such as Dubrow, who credits sharp changes in the geomagnetic field with mass mutations leading to sudden increases in populations and systemic mutations leading to new species and genera [19] .

That genes instruct organisms via chemo-electric code is well-known. That genes mutate occasionally has long been known. The mutation as an electro-chemical event with functional consequences is also appreciated. Puzzles remain: how, if at all, do mutating genes provide the non-random set of instructions needed to accommodate the rest of the organism to the new structure/ function of the changed part? The problem is made all the more poignant by the observation that nearly all mutations are relatively "meaningless" and mostly trivial; yet a given species is integrated functionally, and differs "significantly" from another species. No gift of time, no matter how generous, nor even the bonanza of radiant catastrophes, can displace our feeling that mutations may generate "hopeful monsters," some of which survive.

A new metaphor is therefore suggested. We assume that the mutation is a changed chemical message sent by one gene to all other genes as well as to all other genes as well as to the operations which itself commands. Every gene (hence chromosome) receives, upon mutation, not only a capability to provide a new instruction but also a capability for leadership. Every gene, like Napoleon's soldiers, "carries a marshal's baton in his knapsack." When it mutates, all other genes become dedicated followers. The gene, as befits the ideal field marshal, conveys to them instructions concerning the behavior newly expected of them. They do their limited best to conform to the new order.

The gene that gives the limbs of my cat a surprising six digits orders all other genes to whom the change is relevant to provide the necessary services. Muscles, brain, blood vessels, and many other structures and functions swing into line. The cat survives and breeds its kind.

The instructions given out by the other genes that control the cat's features are contained in their programs, for apparently they have not been mutated. We see at least two levels or types of changed instructions passed from a leader gene to all other genes: a) a new proportionality of structure and function which provide 'normal' individuation within limits of an ongoing species, and b) ad hoc accommodations in the presence of hitherto inexperienced demands. The ad hoc accommodations may be presumed to be quantitative or extreme deviations of the individuation code. Both types of change will persist so long as the mutated gene gives off the same signal, practically "forever." The mutation may be "deleterious," or "harmful," if the pre-existing capabilities are not flexible enough to provide holistic means of survival; on the other hand, the ad hoc instructions may be accommodated, and the organism survives.

Is it conceivable that the genes carry design accommodations for every successful macromutation? If so, where do they originate? Suppose that, in the beginning of life forms, each gene is possessed of designs that can cope with every form from an amoebae to a whale (this is, of course, not a new idea). Given a certain chemical stimulus, it will produce its part of the structure and function of any species known up to the present and many more. There is no logical reason why an individual

gene capability of a bacterium of 2 2000 combinations cannot foreshadow all life forms that have developed. The gene's speciated repertoire of designs presumably has limits. Indeed, such limits are commonly defined in the course of reciting the similarities among all living forms. They are further defined in the course of classifying phyla, orders, and families. Then, should a changing gene stretch the führerprinzip too far, asking, for example, that feathers be provided for a whale, the followers, the other genes, cannot find the requisite function among their repertoire of attainable specifications, and the animal will usually die.

But suppose that my cat bears kittens with flipper-like limbs. The mutated gene passes its changed chemical messages to its cohorts and the necessary changes are made, well within limits, except that the little beasts cannot walk very well. They might swim and, if introduced to a body of water, do so. The cohorts work hard now to accommodate: eye muscles tighten; muscles bulge at the flipper joints; oil gathers heavily at the skin pores; the body becomes rotund for insulation and floating; the taste buds are alerted to watery savors; the lungs expand for searching and diving underwater; and so on.

The young cats are not equally flexible and they lack parental instruction, but perhaps one or two survive and go ashore, mainly to procreate and give birth, cautious and suspicious of land forms, abandoning their unmutated kittens and carrying their mutants back into the water. Since my cat is a mixture of Siamese, Persian and Mediterranean alley-cat, its kittens and their kittens will afford numerous possibilities for immediate "natural selection." They will compete adequately with beaver, muskrats, otters, duck-billed platypus, seals, and sea-lions, and will supply prey for the few large carnivores of the sea and food for smaller marine animals with their carcasses. They may live and hunt in gangs. If my cat had given birth to all of this in secret, I would be surprised by a new order of beasts when, a few years later, I would be swimming. Should, in the course of events, a member of the new species be mutated, a new gene would probably become the leader. Now gigantism is the order of the day, from among the dead-born emerge two double-sized kittens, which grow to quadruple-sized adulthood. A new instruction would have been dispatched to all its genes, which would have been received and interpreted on the basis of previously existing instructions, not for "Cat" but "Cat I."

The process of fixing the next species, "Cat II," would be analogous to the earlier one. Cat II genes would be centered around the Cat plus Cat I chemical norm. Their limits of deviation presumably would remain those of Cat plus Cat I. That is, they had inherited Cat I's new instruction. The new chemical instruction would build upon it; it would only order research of the repertoire to its limits to abide the new order. So, in swimming around a decade later, I might receive an even greater surprise.

Examining the gene structure of Cat II progeny, one would find all of the instructions implanted in the primordial form of life, Amoebae I (or even, in fact, its predecessors, that were locked into it), together with every mutation (or new command) ever imparted to Cat II ancestors. Missing would be only the changed genetic capabilities afforded species that have branched off of its line since the beginning of life. The whale would be denied feathers. In this sense, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." Under such conditions, the number of successful mutations from the primordial form might have been far fewer than is generally believed, perhaps less than a hundred for the generally of species, and under a dozen for the particular species.

Consequently, mutations can be conceived to cause very little or very great changes in the structure and functions of a species. Further, mutations are considered statistical, that is, indeterminate increments contained in a limited number of commands. They are, of course, not models of the form-to-be. Their "intelligence" consists in their primordial ability to induce coordinated shifts of behavior in non-mutated genes.

By implication, "important" changes occur by saltations, as quantavolutions. In environments that provide mutational possibilities, radically different forms can emerge quickly, propagate abundantly, and branch quickly again. Long-time durations are of little importance; whether they occur or not is immaterial.

The theory here is so simple that it may be merely a metaphor. It need not be justified by elaborate mathematical calculations. It preserves most of the general observations of Lamarck, C. Darwin, St. Hilaire, Mendel, Dobzhansky, Watson and many another geneticist, it can cope with paleontology and genetic engineering without strain. It suggests, among other things, that, in principle but against great odds, preexisting ancestral species can be recreated, and that the creation of future "major" life forms is within sight, perhaps at the level of probability of controlled nuclear fusion.

The prevailing evolutionary theory, "The Modern Synthesis," has looked to point mutation within structural genes as causing individual variability, which is ultimately carried into a population where it comes to be a dominant trait. A species change is thought to occur by gradual accumulation of small differences. Isolation and small numbers promote the change. Subsequently, the new species diffuses. Long time intervals are admittedly required. Transitional forms, which should be abundant among fossils, are rarely discoverable, and never incontrovertibly accepted a such. The fossil record appears to be a representation of quantavolutions, not incrementalism. It is suppressed, however, by an ideology of uniformitarian evolution.

Even when "the Modern Synthesis" is attacked, as it was recently in a conference of geneticists and paleontologists, the challengers, advocates of 'macroevolution' or 'punctuated equilibrium, ' (our 'quantavolution') appear to stay within the boxing ring outlined by an assumed speciation: 'what happens in speciation? ', not 'what causes speciation? ' A rapid speciation, even to the challengers, is one "taking place over, say, 50,000 years, but that is an instant compared with the 5 or 10 million years that most species exist." [20] Even so, it would be far longer than necessary to change Hominid 'X' into homo sapiens schizotypus, if the modifications which I suggested above were sufficient to make the main differences between the two species. Once the viable combination is struck, the speciation occurs instantly.

Furthermore, with normally prevailing rates of mutation, speciation is unlikely under either the Modern Synthesis or the 'punctuated equilibrium' theory. It is striking that the aforesaid conference did not take up the question of the possible role of cosmic or space environmental change. Writing in 1980, a group of scientists claimed that a major extraterrestrial impact on Earth ended the Cretaceous 'reptilian' period and inaugurated the Tertiary mammalian period at which time, quoting D. A. Russell, "no terrestrial vertebrate heavier than about 25 kg is known to have survived," and the food chain was completely disrupted for many years by other biosphere extinctions and reductions. Further, "there have been five such extinctions since the end of the Precambrian," bringing us back to the beginning of life [21] .

Schindewolf, Salop, and a number of other scholars, whether in the close fields of genetics, geology and paleontology, or in the general field of catastrophism, have brought forward volumes of material to support the likelihood of mutation-causing disasters. Probably the 'earth-bound' specialists are waiting for a green light from the astronomical establishment. Meanwhile pressure mounts from the earthlings and the general catastrophists. Nature magazine, for example, carried in one issue (May 22, 1980, Vol. 285) three articles on catastrophes at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary.

Not only mutations, but all other factors in speed-up of genetic change are provided by natural catastrophes -- isolation, adaptation, and extinction of competing species. Thus we hear Simpson say that "The chance of fixation of a favorable mutation may be considerably larger by accident of sampling in a small population than by selection in a large population..." [22] Catastrophes therefore simulate in quick time the supposed effects of natural selection. If man has been humanized within the past 100,000 years, or even within the past million years, actually at any age boundary, even granting the dubious long-time reckoning, he probably was humanized by catastrophe. Here the quantavolutionary model diverges from the evolutionary model most emphatically. In order to enhance the chances of a viable speciation by mutation, a heavy bombardment of particles is required such as has not been experienced in history; a radiation storm is called for. Such storms must have existed on numerous occasions in recent prehistory, if the evidence assembled in my Chaos and Creation is accepted. They ionized thoroughly the environment by interrupting, deflecting, and reversing the electromagnetic field of the Earth, by mega-lightning electrical discharges upon the near encounter of bodies in space, upon the occurrence of great potential differences between space and Earth, and by removing cloud canopies and transforming the gaseous composition of the atmosphere. Meteoric pass-throughs collisions would have occurred. The Sun would be stimulated to hyper-activity. The electrical and atomic state of every organism and rock would be altered.

The radiating effect of one meteor or comet of small size gliding through the atmosphere is heavier than that of a large cluster of hydrogen bombs because of its great heat, well over 2000° C, over a long trajectory, the wide distribution of fall-out, and its possible final explosion at a great speed of many kilometers per second. A single such passage, of which there would have been many, should produce millions of mutations in the biosphere generally. A large explosion creates a catastrophic tube from the upper mantle into outer space, in and around which many millions of combinations of electrical, chemical, physical, material, thermal, and pressure events take place. Paleontologist D. J. McLaren had events such as these in mind when, in a presidential address to his colleagues, he reviewed the evidence of the wholesale extinction of species. After describing the effects of a large-body collision, he remarked: "This will do." [23] Yet, it is not only extinction that occurs, but also speciation.

As soon as they will grant the occurrence of extraterrestrially caused disaster, paleontologists will arrive at a public agreement in favor of quantavolution. Essentially this would include first that the species have been created and exterminated in waves. The waves will probably be fixed chronologically at the passages between the conventionally named periods -- such as between the Pliocene and Pleistocene. Thirdly, they will probably settle upon radiation storms (or, for stretched-out changing, new atmospheric constants) as the principal force bringing in the great changes. They may well decide that these radiation storms are connected with cosmic explosions and encounters. Finally, they may, with greatest reluctance, turn to a shorter time-scale for measuring the succession of events in natural history. For radiation storms and geological disasters not only mutate and exterminate species; they also invalidate methods of dating that assume a constant chemical and geophysical environment.

The time of man and protoman now includes a Holocene that impinges upon the Pleistocene that is moving back in turn into the old Pliocene. I have already noted that anthropologists believe that they are finding modern types of homo in early Pleistocene (once Pliocene) times. Whether the advent of homo sapiens should be set in these times or in the early Holocene depends largely upon whether one adopts a long-time or short-time chronology. The change from hominid to homo was not anatomically or physiologically spectacular. Australopithecine and sinanthropus, if they lived alongside each other, probably lived in the time of proto-modern man as well.

Ericson declares our thesis in the title to his study, "Extinctions and Evolutionary Changes in Microfossils Clearly Define the Abrupt Onset of the Pleistocene." [24] Now I report what Salop writes:

This last explanation, involving man, is not acceptable; all species were under extinction stress in both Pleistocene and Holocene, including man. Moreover Salop limits the causes unduly. He comments, "Growth of the solar constant by one percent results in an insignificant rise of temperature of the troposphere, but the UV radiation multiplies 100,000 times." The ozone shield would capture most of this if it were as strong as today. Recent planetary, cometary, and meteoroid catastrophes, which are more probable but are not discussed here by Salop, would engender infinitely greater radiation storms [26] .

Most large mammal species were wiped out in the late Pleistocene, 70% by one estimate, in ways that would imply worldwide atmospheric revolution, as with the mammoth. The quantavolution of hominid into homo sapiens could have occurred on one of numerous occasions. Given the lesser resistance of the mammals and man to radiation effects, and granted findings such as Ericson's and Salop's, there is further reason to hypothesize the mutation and drastic adaptation of humans.

If the proto-men (the Hominid 'X') of this era were spread over at least the Afro-Asian world, some estimates, no matter that they must be highly speculative, are in order. The creatures must have been numerous. In a world of ten million hominids (30 per 100 square miles) and during a thousand years of one or more ionizing forces, whether continuous or intermittent, five million females would be subjected to radiation. Their eggs would be present and available for mutation for a life-span, say, of forty years. Assuming that females averaged a pregnancy once every two years, that their life spans averaged twenty years of child-bearing, and that a radiation storm environment persisted in which one of twelve fertilized eggs had been mutated, then some 1.85 billion mutated births would occur in the one millennium. Mutated sperms might raise the number to three billions.

Of these three billions, from 300 to 3 millions might be beneficial or inconsequential, guaranteeing at the least an average chance of physiological survival beyond infancy. One must not neglect the chance that two mutants would interbreed, making possible combinations of genes, or a new total configuration. If systemic mutation were admitted to be possible, then too the chances of an emergent human would be increased [27] . The numerous high energy forces would have had enormous effect upon the ecology and mankind. Not only would they cause destruction on a grand scale; they would affect the mind of future generations in many ways -- genetically, by imprinting, by social indoctrination through story, a custom and institutions. The beginnings of mankind had to be associated with fearful happenings, as Nietzsche, Freud, T. Reik, I. Velikovsky, and of course all sacred historians have declared. Much was forgotten and distorted.

No one has detailed particular disasters and their human effects as well as Velikovsky. Still, it is not alone, as Velikovsky puts it, that mankind has never recovered from the terrors of catastrophe: homo sapiens schizotypus did not in fact exist before the terrible times. Mankind was born out of catastrophe and achieved his delusionary schizoid human nature out of catastrophes; and he can never be anything but the kind of creature that went through those special overwhelming experiences. Humanity was created during a natural reign of terror.

Quite recently, the role of viruses in genetic change has come to be recognized. Viral storms might accompany the large-scale penetration of the atmosphere by exploded material from extraterrestrial events. Various ancient myths report such occurrences. Apollo was the Greek god of plagues and arrows; he was a sky god and not the sun, as later writers supposed. Recently, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe have, in their book Life Cloud, proposed that early life forms were deposited on Earth by cometary fall-out. In Disease From Space (1979) they also claim space dust as the carrier of plagues to Earth. Their proposed investigations went unsupported by the grants authorities [28] . The search for viruses in meteorites and Martian soil samples in proceeding.

Deeply buried viruses might also be exposed and some of them mutated by large-scale earth upheavals. Large explosions can create drifting material that will disseminate both crystallized and already activated viruses in similar fall-outs, and with similar genetic results. Hope-Simpson in 1978 reported that the last six peaks of sunspots coincided with pandemic influenza, possibly from increased cosmic radiation which mutated existing viruses, enabling them to evade human immunities [29] . Not to be ignored, therefore, is the chain reaction of a virus, a viral mutation, and a human mutated by a virus. Again, the likelihood of successful mutation is small but the participating organisms are exceedingly numerous.

We bear in mind the theory, advanced elsewhere in my studies, that several solar system bodies disintegrated during the past 14,000 years. One or more were probably carrying life forms. Viruses might persist for some years, possibly thousands, prior to their extinction, in a permanently hostile environment, and hence, while scarcely detectable today in meteorites or direct planetary sampling, would have been aboard their exploded vehicles in ancient strikes against the Earth.

Still another means for achieving humanization, and also mutational, would be the psychosomatic conversion of genes. For a time, the idea fascinated Freud and Ferenczi. They were influenced by Lamarck's theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. On October 5, 1917 Freud wrote to Karl Abraham to this effect, saying, "Its essential content is that the omnipotence of thoughts was once a reality." When Abraham responded that he had not heard of the idea, Freud wrote that it would complete the theory of psychoanalysis by providing a theory of change through an "entoplastic" adaptation of one's own body.

Even before it was realized how minute was the probability of successful genetic mutation, Freud, like many another thoughtful person, like the theologians, like even Alfred Wallace and Lyell (until his old age), could not accept the piecemeal elaboration of homo sapiens according to the uniformitarian Darwinian model. With scientific catastrophism in disrepute and obloquy, they could not imagine an appropriate environmental stimulus to change.

The theory is not beyond discussion. Presumably the hominid bearer of sperms or eggs would be so drastically affected by environmental turbulence that it would will a chemical mutation upon them. Practically every tissue and organ of the body has been shown to be capable of physical change, usually deleterious, when an obsessed person focuses intense and prolonged attention upon the soma. The genetic material cannot logically be exempted from the obsessive influence; both point and systemic mutation could then occur.

The ability, conscious and/ or unconscious, to engender fully intense and prolonged neuro-chemical and/ or electrical energy, and to focus it upon a given tissue or organ, is given to few persons in these times. It might more frequently emerge when the environment is heavily agitated and the collectivity reflects this agitation and inspires a response among its members. That is, the alteration of the race by willing a genetic change might have occurred in the creative years of mankind. This would be a true mutation, inasmuch as a chemical intervention or electrical impulse affecting the genes is postulated.

The psychosomatic model has a low probability. Although the terrorized hominid woman may have had the most intense desire, conscious and unconscious, to change her offsprings, how could she have known how to target the eggs in her womb? Can terror act as a chemical bullet directed at the eggs? We have noted that Teilhard de Chardin and the 'school' of directed evolution also have found it necessary to premise an inherent motivation towards progressive biological change, to go along with transmutation. Psychosomatism unconsciously targets an organ. Physical stress and psychic stress both can affect the heart, for instance. And our culture tells us: 'Don't give your dear father a heart attack by your evil conduct. ' Further, there is a lore of affecting the unborn child. And witch-doctors may sometimes pretend to know how to affect one's enemies with psychic heart attacks and psychic damage to unborn children. Psychosomatism, we can affirm, performs the seeming miraculous. But we prefer to believe here that psychosomatism is the cultural product of the already humanized homo schizo. It is an irresistible path that the fear arising out of the split-ego and instinct-delay points out to the human being. In one report, which unfortunately I have lost, the women of a tribal group are apparently capable of controlling their own fertilization by 'willpower; ' this is, if true, a possible effect on the germ plasm or on the fluids or musculature of the reproductive organs.

Freud, and Jung, also believed in "phylogenetically inherited material" but could never describe precisely its brainwork. The evidence is that certain common symbols are not learned, nor 'classical' phobias, nor the oedipal complex, nor some other symbols and practices. The human inherits not only predispositions, but even subject-matter and memory traces. Homo schizo has a natural cultural output: so goes the contention. But we can postpone this matter until a later chapter.

Freud and his associates could not come to close grips with psychosomatic humanization; the chemistry, biology and neurology were not available, then. They may not be now. Freud's reconstruction of the origin of conscience suffers from such basic flaws that one marvels at even the limited acceptance granted it. He should have worked instead upon his psychosomatic theory of mutation. He declares that, in an early family of homo sapiens, the sons, sexually covetous of their mother and other females, killed their father and ate him; ever since this significant incident occurred, a sense of guilt for the action has been transmitted through the mnemonic generations.

Inasmuch as ordinary observations of primates and other mammals reveal the dispossession of the aging and weakening "bull males" in families and hordes, with regard to a full range of values, including the sexual, it is presumptuous to build a specifically human trait upon the assumed killing and deduce therefrom some of the most important qualities of human behavior such as guilt, conscience, totem and taboo, religion, and civilization. Unless, of course, we are dealing with an animal already so advanced in the preparation of conscience, that the concoction of new provocation would hardly be necessary. It is much more likely that the ascription of morality to events such as the reformation of sexual power in a group is attributable to a "higher morality" -- the instinct-delay fear -- that gives in the process of its sublimation and rationalization direction to all aspects of life.

Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1772-1844) advanced two important ideas. One was that of saltation, the leap from one species to another: "the first bird hatched from the egg of a reptile;" the second was that atmospheric changes and other environmental changes bring about speciation, particularly those "respiratory fluids," which "sharply and strongly modify" animal forms [31] . His treatment was cursory and unconvincing.

But today it is more apparent that atmospheric reactions are an important factor in behavior. They might be an alternative or a supplement to genetic mutation in transforming mankind. In this case, Hominids 'X' are presumed to have an already existing genetic capability of becoming human. They are genetically preadapted to quantavolution. This genetic capability is not exercised in the hominid condition because the atmosphere contains a 'hominid mixture, ' not a 'human' standard. The oxygen may have been more or less ionized than it is today, for example. The atmosphere may now be heavier (or lighter) in solar or cosmic rays, certain gases, and other chemical elements affecting biological behavior. Might some of these conditions alter human conduct?

The evidence is strong that some or all humans would be affected. Prevalence of unusual gases and metals in the workplace affect workers with psychiatric symptoms, even though they spend only a few hours their daily. One can surmise from this fact that an enduring day-around condition would bring about shortly a different norm of human mentation and behavior.

In such cases, the changed constant would affect proto-humans in a number of places around the world and humanization would be a worldwide phenomenon of the age. Although I feel that such changed constants have affected human history, I doubt that they alone could have accounted for the emergence of homo schizo. Therefore, I follow generally the model of a single-shot mutation in humanization. Some cultural science support for this position will be cited in the chapters to come, diffusion of basic culture from a single point of origin, for instance.

D. W. Patten has offered, as a geologist and creationist, several hypotheses on atmospheric acquisitions from outer planets, especially affecting the ozone and the nitrogen content of the air, which would then alter the chemistry of growth and longevity. He halts at this point [32] . Temporary or permanent alterations in the gaseous and ion composition of the air could potentiate an already existing physiology, especially via the endocrinal glands and hormonal system. Both the solar and cosmic 'constants' were inconstant during much of the primeval period of humankind; even lately, though respecting smaller deviations, the inconstancy of the solar and galactic winds has come under study.

External events can introduce continuous and to some extent permanent changes (operating as a new constant), if the events and the conditions they bring about persist. So long as heavy noise, air pollution, rapid movement, and other high-stress life conditions of New Yorkers are constant, New Yorkers will tend to have swollen adrenals. Or, so long as the proportion of oxygen in the air of the High Andes is relatively low, the people there will have unusually developed lungs. A connection of the endocrinal system with megavitamin therapy has registered effects upon schizophrenia through facilitating the physiological discharge of adrenalin.

A diminished oxygen supply or incompatibility of oxygen type in the atmosphere may introduce schizoid symptoms to some part of the population. The brain needs oxygen not only to survive but to energize neuro-transmissions throughout its domain. In schizophrenics the oxygen level in the brain is sharply lower than normal. Further, frontal lobe brain activity is low. Thought dissociation may be produced by oxygen deficiency in the frontal lobe.

A radiation storm; a material fall-out; a sweep-out or in-take of atmosphere in transactions with extraterrestrial bodies; intense electrical storms; and the dropping of canopies (opening of skies) can drastically reform the atmosphere. They might change atmospheric constants abruptly or over a period of time. The new atmosphere forces upon the hominids a new 'norm' of response. The new norm is, at least among some individuals, within the range of genetic capability. The adaptible survivors behave according to the new norm, which is to say that they now behave as "humans."

The reconstructed atmospheric constant may affect most importantly the fetal environment of the humans-to-be. This happens when the new chemicals in the air find their way into the hormonal food supply of the fetus. And/ or the new constant presents its demands for changed physiology and behavior upon the infant after birth. Man, and all life, lives off a radiation diet that is generally unperceived. Even today, delicate scientific instruments are required to detect radiation, and the symptomology of radiation poisoning is not very clear, or where clear does not readily name its precise cause.

The atmosphere of chaos was a mutator. The sun of the later Solarian Age may not have been. Nevertheless, the finally settled atmosphere has played a role in humanization. Legends around the world speak of a primordial cloudy sky. The opening of the skies would increase radioactive influences from perhaps still nearby and hot planetary bodies, and also and especially from the sun.

Exposure to helio-radiation (including ultra-violet rays) generally increases physical resistance, relieves arthritic and muscular pain, lends a feeling of well-being, stimulates ergosterol and hence Vitamin D production, counteracts rickets and respiratory disease, and kills bacteria and fungi of the skin. It promotes the healing of wounds and athletic performance; it increases the rate of basal metabolism. All of these occur at the price of occasional skin cancers, and possibly of still unknown deep changes [33] . Although they would contribute to a higher general level of health and activity, they would not create the human. Larger events are required.

The Earth's geomagnetic field has come under intense study in the past few years, because evidence now available points to reversals in the past. Whether the field has reversed quickly and often, as quantavolutionists believe, or gradually and rarely, as evolutionists think, a reversal of the North Magnetic Pole introduces as interval during which cosmic rays can descend upon the Earth unhindered and bring about mutations in great numbers. Some studies have indicated a coincidence of reversals with waves of biosphere extinction. B. Heezen, pioneer oceanographer (for it is on the rocks of the ocean bottom that magnetism can be most readily traced), has speculated that the last reversals was before the time of man. However, the time of man has been pushed back well beyond this period in conventional theory, and in quantavolutionary theory the times of the last several reversals are well within the human span, one having occurred in the eight century B. C. according to an examination of the orientation of iron particles in pottery of that age [34] . Yet another reversal is said to have occurred around four to six thousand years ago in connection with large biosphere and natural destruction [35] .

Furthermore, the geomagnetic field (GMF) is declining slowly. I have already introduced the work of Dubrow on the subject. If the decline has been exponential from some past peak, as I believe and will be discussing with Earl R. Milton in a forthcoming book, then the hominid was subjected to a sharply different paleomagnetic field. So we must ask ourselves whether the relaxed grip of the electromagnetic field disorganized the hominid brain and in effect created homo schizo. For he would be presented with an intellectual freedom in the form of a bewildering number of options for action instead of the more closed system of stimulus-response accorded Hominid 'X. ' The 'constant' is still changing, but slowly, today. Still the frequency of heart attacks has been convincingly associated with internationally collected measurements of geomagnetic activity as registered by magnetometers.

It may be possible, too, that many animals, including especially the primates, acquired a loosened behavioral potential at the same time, in the same way. Relieved of the heavier GMF, the minute electrical charges that operate the central nervous system may have stepped up their activity, relatively speaking, and, crowding the access points, delayed instinctive reactions and promoted displacements. An electric shock, administered experimentally or therapeutically (at this supposed new level of the human mind), provokes mental activity (mania), hallucinations, and amnesia, while reducing depression and anxiety. ECS [Electroconvulsive shock] leaves a permanent change in brain excitability. That a marked change in the Earth's electrical field would have affected the human brain is not difficult to accept. We have mentioned that much testimony on a primordial canopy of clouds exists, at the time of the first god Uranus (known by many names.) [36] The sky cover was probably removed in the time of human creation. The results would include a new and constant heavy bombardment of the biosphere with cosmic and solar particles. What legends frequently describe as the primordial chaos could have been a combination of actual celestial turbulence, ground bombardment, and mass biosphere mutations and extinctions, associated with the shock of being transmuted from hominid to homo. The Hebrew Genesis is by no means unique in referring to this concatenation of events.

Nor does this conclude speculation about the possibilities of the ancient skies. If large bodies transacted in close encounter or collision with Earth, as is argued elsewhere in the Quantavolution Series, large electrical charges would be exchanged between the bodies. The Earth could either lose or gain immense charges, sufficient to affect deeply the human nervous system. Then the proto-human must cope either with an enhanced or lesser charge on the Earth's surface or in the atmosphere, either as a sudden terminator event or as a new constant or both.

At this point of the discussion, the multiplicity of possibilities begins to bewilder and I would, if I could, sing the praises of "Occam's razor." Would the hominid mind split and develop instinct-delay and the poly-ego from any one or all of these possibilities? Or would man becomes stupefied, more hominidal, instead of electrified, confused, and energized? Reasoning ex post facto, which is to say, begging the question, I shall have to say that since he became the latter, whatever happened, even combinations of opposites, worked to the same end of instinct-delay and poly-ego problems.

In Seneca's ancient tragic drama, Thyestes, the chorus chants of the shocking fiery passage of Phaeton in his solar chariot, when each and every constellation deviated:

A fifth means of transforming hominid into human nature might be by the social imprinting of shock upon the individual. The hominids again afford the basic genetic capability and a pre-adapted habitat. In this case, however, natural disasters inflict shocks upon the hominid beyond its 'normal' tolerances of stimulation. The shocks in themselves are the grossly exaggerated homologues of the shocks of 'normal' existence.

They take the form of a celestial scene inhabited by new symbolic references and other mind-openers; of terrorizing high-energy expressions including spectres and pandemonium; of crushing and effacing effects that are prolonged and of high intensity; of the ranging of the natural elements.

The shocks are so traumatic that the victims adopt response behaviors that become patterned as the essence of human nature. The traumatized catastrophical survivors retain the memories, but distort and use them in ways that are typically human. Most importantly, they devise in the very process of their own creation the social means of perpetuating their own changed mentalities and behavior. Human nature is then and thereby guaranteed by a collectivity of humans formed into a group or society. The memorial generations transmit and adapt new traumatic and 'normal' tribulations to the fixated human nature.

In explaining the development of the human mind in relation to the catastrophes of Venus and Mars in the period 1453 to 687 B. C. Velikovsky pushes beyond Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, and Eliade with the concepts of collective amnesia and aggression [38] . Mankind is destructively aggressive as a result of suppressing its memories of natural disasters. "The inability to accept the catastrophic past is the source of man's aggression... Freud did not come to understand the true nature of the Great Trauma -- born in the Theogony or battle of the planetary gods with our Earth, brought more than once to the brink of destruction -- which was the fate of Mercury, Mars, and Moon. Freud died in exile from his home, when a crazed worshiper of Wotan was preparing another Götterdämmerung." [39]

The view which I am setting forth embraces this criticism of Freud and the concepts of collective amnesia or repression concerning catastrophes. Also, aggression is to be correlated with this suppression, and the techniques of aggression are in a direct sense analogized unconsciously and consciously to events witnessed in the sky. Nevertheless I perceive social imprinting as at best an auxiliary source of human nature, an intensifier, which itself needs to be intensified from time to time by fresh natural (or man-made) catastrophe.

The Middle Bronze age civilizations, 3500 years ago, whose trials Velikovsky describes so vividly, were pre-adapted to catastrophes; their societies behaved in ways already learned, and with institutions inherited from prior disasters. Ultimately, though, with the earliest disasters, a physiological change had to take precedence. Even in the genetic humanization of man, catastrophe was an on-looker, carrier, and psychological and cultural reinforcer of gene-fracturing elements.

John V. Myers and Warner B. Sizemore declare "that the disintegration of objective reality during cosmic catastrophe could produce subjective states similar to those of schizophrenia, and that the disintegration of subjective reality in the schizophrenic is accompanied by visions of cosmic catastrophe." [40] I argue that the reality recognized by the first human was catastrophic and his mind was as well. There was never -- and here I think we diverge from a common view of Velikovsky and a great many others, including conventional long-term evolutionists -- a clean minded, rational evolved human whose mind was 'blown' by catastrophic experiences: the recurrent disasters proved to homo schizo that his vision of the world was correct!

It is perhaps apparent to the reader by now that I prefer, as a 'holding position, ' a complicated mix of several means of humanization, altogether happening within a very short period of time. The mutation of an individual hominid is given prominence generally in the scenarios to come. But it is not difficult to switch from the one to the other, or to stress a combination. The changed atmospheric constant as the mode of humanization has the value of inherent continuity, and is as efficient as genetic mutation in explaining generational inheritance; also it permits humanization to occur simultaneously among many hominids at the same time, in the same month or a few years. We might begin a search for humanizing mechanisms that are present in the modern atmosphere but would not have been present in an atmosphere in which hominids could thrive.

The branches of the human race have changed in some respects, mostly cosmetically, since the cosmic beginnings of homo schizo. But the basic ways of behaving as human were determined in the midst of great crises: the interruption of the Earth's motions, the loss of electrical charge, the dropping of the immense cloud canopies in deluges, and the first openings of the sky. An allotment of a thousand years would have been sufficient for these tremendous experiences to bring about humanization.

Even while mutations were abundantly occurring among all species, a single group of hominids, largely potentiated as humans beforehand, in distress and in terror, would find amongst themselves individuals of flexible, if erratic, genetic constitution, who were capable of expanded symbolic behavior and signaling various interpretations of the new giant forces of the environment.

The same group would become capable of managing its newly installed communication system, and then lend its cooperative forces to the evolving interpretation of the universe, the aboriginal cosmology. The group would be driven to adopt the new system even before all of its members shared the mutant genes. In the endeavor to ease their pains and anticipate the sharing of the inheritable traits, it is possible that non-mutants actually mutated themselves by will power, adding a consistent but different emotional mechanism to the hereditary pool of the human-dominated group. Whereas the first mutants would operate by genetic instructions, the second kind of mutants would work out genetically a mode of hyper-excitation of the endocrinal system. This would lend the group an element of obsessive emotionality as soon as genetic miscegenation began.

The social imprinting of shock would come about not by itself alone but in the course of executing symbolic references of the first mutant type, in accepting the obsessive drive of the second mutant type, and in the development of followership among the erstwhile normal band, consisting of sophisticated crowd behavior already possessed by hominids.

All elements would be caught up in the atmospheric reformation. The mutations were consistent with it; they were in fact created by it and responsive to it so that, in a fundamental way, the correspondence of the new world with the new being was assured. Although it did not eradicate the old 'normal beings, ' the radicalized atmosphere punished them and preferred those who responded readily to the new constants.

1. This column is discussed in the author's Chaos and Creation and The Lately Tortured Earth and see I. Velikovsky, Earth in Upheaval, Doubleday, 1955; Harold T. Wilkins, Mysteries of Ancient South America, Secaucus, N. J., Univ. Press, 1956; Claude Schaeffer, Stratigraphie Comparée, London: Oxford U. Press, 1948.

2. Biosocial Anthropology, London: Malaby, 1975, 7.

3. New York: Macmillan, 1968.

4. Robert E. Ornstein, The Psychology of Consciousness, San Francisco: Freeman 1972, 63.

5. "The New Science of Immanuel Velikovsky," I Kronos 1, 1975, 6-7.

6. "Somatic Factors and Social Behavior," in R. Fox, ed., op. cit., 115; E. J. W. Barrington, et al., Hormones and Evolution, N. Y.: Academic Press, 2 vols., 1979.

7. A. C. Guyton, Medical Physiology, 3rd ed., Philadelphia: Saunders, 1966, 1040.

8. Dobzhansky, op. cit., 205; L. Bolk, Das Problem der Menschenwerdung, Jena: Fischer, 1926.

9. A. P. Dubrow, The Geomagnetic Field and Life, N. Y.: Plenum, 1978. Ibid., 84.

10. Emotions and Bodily changes, N. Y.: Columbia U. Press, 1935, 4th ed., 1954.

11. N. Tinbergen, The Study of Instinct, Oxford U. Press, 1969, 5th printing, 195.

12. Radiation, Genes, and Man, N. Y.: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1959, 43.

13. Discussed in B. Silcock, "The New Clues that Challenge Darwin," Sunday Times of London, Aug. 3, 1981, 13.

14. V. A. Mckusick and Frank A. Ruddle, "The Status of the Gene Map of the Human Chromosomes," 196 Science (22 April 1977), 390-405.

15. Op. cit,; The Major Features of Evolution, N. Y.: Columbia U. Press, 1953.

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid.

18. The Material Basis of Evolution, New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1940, 3.

19. Op. cit., 99.

20. Lewin, op. cit., 883.

21. Luis W. Alvarez, W. Alvarez, Frank Asaro, Helen V. Michel, "Extraterrestrial Cause for the Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction," 208 Science 4448 (6 June 1980), 1095-1108. 1107; Russell, Episodes 1979 No 4, 1979, 21. Cf. Otto H. Schindewolf, "Neocatastrophism?" (trans. V. Axel Firsoff), 2 Catastrophist Geology 2 (Dec. 1977), 9-21.

22. Op. cit.

23. Quoted in Robert Bass, "Did Worlds Collide?" 4 Pensee (Fall, 1974) 8.

24. David B. Ericson, 139 Science 3356, Feb. 22, 1963.

25. L. G. Salop, "Glaciations, Biologic Crisis and Supernovae," 2 Catastrophist Geology 2 (December 1977) 22- 41; cf, Martin, P. S. and H. E. Wright eds., Pleistocene Extinctions, 1968.

26. See A. De Grazia and E. R. Milton, Solaria Binaria, Princeton, N. J.: Metron Publ., 1983, for discussion.

27. I am using the kind of reasoning about genetic change over time employed by Simpson (1953), 109-10, on the horse. He estimates 300 effective new steps were needed over 15m/ y with a mutation rate of .000 001 and no systemic mutations, or macromutations, which, he says, are unknown. See also J. B. S. Haldane's approach, "Natural Selection," 101-49, in P. R. Bell, ed., Darwin's Biological Work: Some Aspects Reconsidered, Cambridge (Eng.) U. Press, 1959. See also Wallace and Dobzhansky, op. cit.

28. London Times, Lit. Supp. April 14, 1978. Life Cloud (N. Y.: Harper an Row, 1978).

29. R. E. Hope-Simpson, "Sunspots and Flu; A Correlation," 275 Nature (1978), 86. H. Hoaglund discusses "Some Biochemical Considerations of Time," in J. T. Fraser, ed., The Voices of Time, (N. Y.: Braziller, 1966), including oxygen consumption and slowing of time, and deep freezing and time slowdown of virus (325-9).

30. Ernest Jones, The Life and Works of Sigmund Freud, N. Y.: Basic Books, III, 312, 341.

31. "Influence du monde ambiant pour modifier les formes animales," Mem. de l' Acad. des Sciences, XII 91833) 63, quoted in H. F. Osborn, From the Greeks to Darwin, N. Y.: Scribner's, 1894, 199.

32. The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch, Seattle: Pacific Meridian, 1966.

33. S. H. Licht, ed., Therapeutic Electricity and Ultraviolet Radiation, E. Licht, New Haven, 1967.

34. Velikovsky describes this work of Mercanton and Folgheraiter in Earth in Upheaval, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1955, 146-7.

35. Dubrow, op. cit. 84.

36. Isaac Vail, Selected Works, Annular Publications, Santa Barbara, Calif., reprinted 1972.

37. In Four Tragedies and Octavia, E. F. Wartling, trans., Baltimore: Penguin, 1966, 81.

39. William Mullen, "Schizophrenia and the Fear of World Destruction," I Kronos (Spring, 1975), 70.

40. I Kronos (1975) 70.