Why Was Man Such A Rare Creature?

Posted in Books, Evolution on  | 2 minutes | 13 Comments →

I came across a copy of Jim Marrs’ Rule By Secrecy the other day. Towards the end of the book, the author makes passing reference to an interesting question that may or may not have implications for the conventional evolutionary narrative. Since I’m neither an “evolutionist” or “YEC”, don’t interpret this as an attack on the former or an endorsement of the latter. When it comes to the evolution vs. creation debate, the only thing I hold to is that God created. I don’t know how, or how long it took—and unlike the staunch supporters on either side, I won’t pretend to know. That said, Marrs writes:

The industrial revolution as well as the evolution theories of Charles Darwin have led most people to believe in the “progress of man”—that humankind evolved from tree-climbing primates to moderns with high technology. Today, recent discoveries and new interpretations of ancient literature and artifacts are leading many to believe the opposite—that humankind “fell” from a golden age into barbarity and is only now regaining lost knowledge.

Even world population figures suggest an early decline rather than growth in the human species. “Global population figures between 6,000 B.C. and the beginning of our era are extremely significant,” wrote Tomas. “There were about 250 million people on earth 2,000 years ago. The population of the planet in 4,800 B.C. was 20 million. In the year 5,000 B.C. there were 10 million on all the continents. One thousand years earlier—in 6,000 B.C.—only 5 million people inhabited the earth. On the basis of these figures, the population of the globe was well under 1 million about 10,000 B.C.—an astonishingly low figure. Why was man such a rare creature if he has had a continuous existence as a primate and then as a rational being for at least 2 million years?”

Has anybody encountered this line of questioning WRT the conventional evolutionary narrative? Does anybody know of any good answers to the question?


  1. cautiouslycurious


    I don’t this has much to do with evolution. I would suspect that it would have to do with advances that enable a larger population (e.g. agriculture). Irrigation allows for people to develop lands and sustain more people on lands that were once inhabitable. Irrigation was first used at around 6,000 BC. More land, more food = larger sustainable population.

    At least, this is what I think he was asking, why was there such a growth in population at that point in time, as opposed to any other point during the existence of our species. Also, I’m not sure where he gets the idea that there was a decline when all the figures he cites indicate growth. Even then, its not odd for a couple million of a species to die off from disease.

  2. If you don’t understand how it happened, even at a high level, then you’ve already decided not to use science to understand something. You’ve simply made a statement of faith. Just like the young earthers.

  3. cautiouslycurious



    If you really think that the hypothesis that I set forward is not a part of the scientific method, then I don’t know what to say. This is something that you should have learned in elementary school. I hope that either your comment was not directed towards me or that you were not brought up through the American education system because that would be depressing news.

  4. cautiouslycurious



    Disregard my previous post. I’m convinced you were talking about “When it comes to the evolution vs. creation debate, the only thing I hold to is that God created.” I tend to agree with you. Sorry for the confusion.

  5. I agree that this seems to bear little relation to evolution. The Wikipedia article on Toba catastrophe theory seems like a good intro point to the topic.

  6. Cautiously Curious, just so you know I was indeed referencing the OP and not your comment.

  7. jason


    I must say, my own humble research has me questioning whether our history books are accurate or not.

    I also wonder if history, as we are taught today, has been “adjusted” to fit and conform to evolutionary thinking? Were our ancestors anything other than human? Were they any less intelligent? Did we gradually evolve from an ape-like ancestor to modern day man? I would argue no.

    In fact, I would go so far as to agree with the Jim Marrs statement “humankind “fell” from a golden age into barbarity and is only now regaining lost knowledge.”

    I’m not trying to stir, I’m not a Creationist in the strictest sense, I’m not a conspiracy theorist and I’m not anti-evolution. I’m simply voicing my thoughts/concerns out loud.

    I think Jim Marrs has an interesting point.

  8. cl



    I’m not trying to stir, I’m not a Creationist in the strictest sense, I’m not a conspiracy theorist and I’m not anti-evolution. I’m simply voicing my thoughts/concerns out loud.

    It’s too late. That you don’t swallow the contemporary narrative hook, line and sinker makes you “anti-evolution” in the eyes of many. I just went through this with a guy here. This person never even bothered to ask my opinion, just read a few posts and concluded away.


    It’s depressing, really, that the culture wars have escalated to this point. Reasonable discussion about evolution is near impossible.

  9. jason


    “It’s too late. That you don’t swallow the contemporary narrative hook, line and sinker makes you “anti-evolution” in the eyes of many.”

    So sad isn’t it? Nobody is allowed to think for themselves or question without fear of reprisal. That kids are taught “what” to think but not “how” to think.

    If you have the time, email me sometime cl, I would love to discuss these issues and more in-depth.

  10. FZ


    This is off topic, but I just saw some of your adventures into TheFriendlyAtheist blog. Hilarious. Like that one commenter who said your blog was full of incoherence and that there hasn’t been any takedown of atheist arguments. Has this guy ever heard that the logical problem of evil is all but dead? And when you challenged him to provide an example of “incoherence” he evaded. CL, next time someone says that they could create a philosophical argument for the existence of fairies, FSMs or magic dragons, actually challenge them to a debate. Ask them to lay out a sound syllogism and watch the hilarity ensue.

  11. dale



    hey i feel how you do. that is, if i’m understanding you right?

    i’m a theist, but not of the fundamental, literal interpretation stock. i too wish that the floor for dialog allowed more time for discussing various ways of understanding the supernatural and that it exists, versus always loosing energy towards addressing the atheist’s perpetual need to satisfy their lack of disbelief to be proven and justified by rationality and science.

    when i hear them talk, i don’t hear much rationality. i really only hear pseudo science. it’s all a veil for ego and emotional charged opinions, in my opinion. how is it wise to be closed minded? conversely, what’s ignorant about saying that there are things greater than us, and that at a certain point we have to admit inability in understanding absolutely everything? we should be able to demand a higher power, or the universe itself, to reveal to us the truth?

    i think that there are definitely things that orthodox and conventional theism have gotten right. i also think that there are things that they have either gotten wrong, misunderstood, or have refused to look at (but should) due to their dogmatic convictions, which often times don’t have much to do with original teachings, but rather, hierarchal structures that they have constructed for their own insular purposes and profit.

    on the flip side, i do think that the atheist voice is a great thing for theists to hear. it forces us really consider what we want to say we believe in. it is beneficial to strengthening our belief, but unfortunately, i think they do themselves a disservice by claiming that they are the ones who are clearly “rational” and “scientific”. they think they’re the brave pioneers of intellect, but they more often come across as the 21st century version of the 16th-17th century catholic church, but championing disbelief rather than belief.

    also, in regards to your mention of “conspiracy theories” i don’t think that anything should be outright ruled as off the table for consideration or discussion. that’s not the same thing as saying it will be believed, but what if the real truth has been chopped up and spread about a whole range of belief systems, and we could all stand to learn a lot from each other? that is, if we were all willing to be open to that possibility?

    the truth could be stranger than fiction?

  12. cl



    Off-topic is always welcomed. I’m not one of those sticklers to whine about “thread derailment” or whatever. Just so you know :)

    As for the adventures at said blog, they’re still going. TheBlackCat at least tries, despite suffering from all the same problems as HoverFrog, but it’s all the same: I’m “ignoring” their points despite the fact we’ve been trading points for weeks now; not interested in discussion; etc. It really is hilarious, as you say. The latest bit of hilarity came when TheBlackCat actually tried to claim that science can’t establish mechanisms in either natural or supernatural phenomena. Call me crazy, but I replied that heat was a known mechanism for boiling water.


  13. jason


    cl, in comment 11 you briefly touch on “truth”.

    I’m trying to get my head around “truth”. What is truth exactly?

    I always assumed evolution, as an example, was an absolute truth. All my beliefs etc had to be “adjusted” to fit with what science had “proven” to be true. It was only when I started researching evidences supporting evolution did I realise evolution, like religion, is more of a social or perhaps personal truth. Now I realise many would argue evolution is an absolute truth, “as true as gravity” we often hear, but as one sifts through the scientific literature, IMHO, the truth is not as clear as the populiser’s would have us believe…

    Another example, that still boggles my mind…

    I grew up many years ago in “white” South Africa, just as the Apartheid era was coming to an end. At school etc it was generally taught we were “helping” the blacks, that they couldn’t manage by themselves, that black’s were dangerous, backwards and that the Apartheid system was in everyone’s best interests. Mandela was locked away because he was a terrorist who bombed and murdered white people in his private war, his struggle.

    This was generally accepted as “truth”. Many white South Africans, and many blacks too, believed it. And yet, here I am 25+- years later being told the whites were wrong. Mandela received a Nobel peace prize and was even elected president in 1994.

    Where can a person find absolute truth, is there such a thing?

    p.s cl, I did reply to your email message, let me know if you received it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *