Discussions with Michael Cremo and correspondents

The Graham Hancock online Forum hosted Michael Cremo as Author of
the Month in December 2004.  This discussion centers on DNA and
corresponding Vedic blueprints for creation.

Dear Michael Cremo,

My question has to do with DNA.

I'm confused, I understand DNA is a product of science, but MtDNA and the y
chromosome of males I thought were pretty reliable data. Am I wrong? Can you
please explain to me, if so, how that could be wrong.?  I have been extremely
intrigued by its discoveries but I have felt that the evidence was inconclusive
since the y chromo dates back some 50,000 years and the MtDNA dates back
some 150,000 or so. How can it all be traced back to Africa if your theory is true?
Do you think it is possible for humans to have originated on this plane of existance
in the same place (for we know the people of the Americas, India, Austailia and Africa
claim to be direct descendants of these places of inhabitation but the DNA evidence
shows otherwise)?  However I have always felt like humankind was inhabiting this
Earthly plane for much longer. Also, I know that the scripture of the Vedas (I believe)
hints to the early understanding of this DNA substance and its inherent codes of life.
What does it say about its significance? Thank you for your time.

It just so happens that I do discuss these things in chapter four of Human
. One problem with these methods is that they assume from the start that
there must be some single place of origin. They assume that if there is more genetic
diversity among the people currently living in some geographical area, then that must
be the place of origin. So the methodology more or less assumes that there was some
single place of origin, and it is just a question of finding out where it was. And in terms
of the timing, they are based on certain assumptions, such as the assumption that
mitochondrial dna is not subjected to any selection pressure, and that the mutations
that accumulate are just chance mutations that accumulate at a certain definable rate.
But there are some researchers who say that mitochondrial DNA is subject to selection
pressure, which means that the mutation rates may not just be a function of time, but
of selection. And that messes mtDNA up as a molecular clock. Another problem is
that the rate of the molecular clock has to be calibrated somehow, and they usually
calibrate it against the fossil history of life as they now assume it to be true. Also,
when you are looking at Y chromosome genes, and other kinds of genetic markers,
you are dealing with only the surviving genetic lines. There could have been all kinds
of genetic lines that have gone out of existence, from branches of humans that
existed hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago, but who have left no
descendants in the current gene pool. In fact there are so many assumptions built
into these genetic models that even some geneticists say they are not very reliable.

From Human Devolution:

Biochemical and genetic evidence is not as reliable as some would have us believe.
Many researchers say that the fossil evidence is ultimately more important than the
genetic evidence in answering questions about human origins and antiquity. As Frayer
and his coauthors (1993, p. 19) said, “Unlike genetic data derived from living humans,
fossils can be used to test predictions of theories about the past without relying on a
long list of assumptions about the neutrality of genetic markers, mutational rates, or
other requirements necessary to retrodict the past from current genetic variation . . .
genetic information, at best, provides a theory of how modern human origins might have
happened if the assumptions used in interpreting the genetic data are correct.”
Contemplating the difficulties of using genetic evidence to establish theories of human
origins and antiquity, Oxford University population geneticist Rosalind Harding said,

“There’s no clear genetic test. We’re going to have to let the fossil people answer this one”
(Gibbons 2001, p. 1052).

And when we do look at the fossil evidence in its entirety, we find that anatomically modern
humans go so far back in time that it becomes impossible to explain their presence on
this planet by current Darwinian theories of evolution.

Frayer, David W., Wolpoff, Milford H., Thorne, Alan G., Smith, Fred H. and Pope, Geoffrey G.
(1993) Theories of modern human origins: The paleontological test. American Anthropologist, 95(1): 14–50.

Gibbons, Ann (2001) Modern men trace ancestry to African migrants. Science, 292: 1051–1052.

In some of the Vedic writings I have found the word bija, or seed, used in connection with
descriptions of the forms of living things. For example, in Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna
says he is the seed giving father of all living things. So it would be this seed that contains
the developmental plan of the body. That seed would include DNA, but even DNA does
not fully prescribe the form of a body. So I would say this subtle seed, or bija is also involved.

Michael A. Cremo

HOMEPAGE    CONTENTS    INTRO   REVIEWS    Back to Discourses