QUESTION EVERYTHING. Things are Not Always What They Seem. UFO's , Conspiracies and a Whole lot more!- Oh My!! Just look below. Everything is either in Audio File Format or links to YouTube pages. Files are converted to Audio by Amazon TTS and many are over an hour long. The site is readable in over 75 languages (not the audios). Click on the icon in the upper left. The corresponding text files will be added later. Translations of audio files are available by request. Have Enough Courage to Start, and Enough Heart to Finish. When I am finished rebuilding, this library has hundreds of files and a majority of all of the major Conspiracies are addressed here. If not, please request the ones that you would like to have posted. This site is live from France, from a provider that prides itself for not censoring. Look around and enjoy. As was said on the old TV series X-Files,"The Truth is out there" Welcome to the Study of Graduate Level Ufology and Conspiracies. Again, ALWAYS–QUESTION EVERYTHING. THIS SITE IS OVER 50 PAGES AND 500 POSTS DEEP. The Most massive of Posts is entitled The Briefing. It is over 10 hours of listening and is very, very comprehensive. I highly recomend it.
We are going to look at three major discoveries in human genetics – discoveries made by mainstream scientists, published in top journals, and findings that generate fascinating scientific debate.
The Question:
Does human DNA contain patterns that normal evolution cannot explain…?
I. THE BACKUP COPY – Why Do Our Cells Know How to Be Young Again?
The Discovery
In January 2023, a Harvard scientist named David Sinclair published something extraordinary in the journal Cell – one of the most prestigious science journals in the world.
His finding:
‘”Ageing is not caused by damage to your DNA. It is caused by your cells forgetting what they are supposed to be.”
This discovery builds on over a decade of groundbreaking work by researchers like Steve Horvath at UCLA, who developed the “epigenetic clock” – a DNA methylation-based biomarker that can accurately predict biological age across different tissues.
Horvath’s work, along with contributions from Morgan Levine at Yale (who created the PhenoAge clock), established that ageing follows predictable epigenetic patterns that can be measured and potentially reversed.
Think of it like this:
Your DNA is the instruction manual.
But there is another system – called the epigenome – that tells your cells ‘which instructions to follow’.
As you age, your cells lose track of these instructions.
A skin cell starts acting less like a skin cell.
A liver cell forgets how to be a liver cell.
This confusion is what we call ageing.
But here is the shocking part:
The original instructions are still there. Hidden. Waiting…
Sinclair’s team proved they could make old mice young again by reminding their cells of the original instructions.
(Lu, Y.R., Tian, X., Sinclair, D.A. “Loss of epigenetic information as a cause of mammalian ageing.” *Cell*, 12 January 2023).
Why This Matters
Sinclair said:
“This is the first study showing that we can have precise control of the biological age of a complex animal; that we can drive it forwards and backwards at will”.
(Harvard Medical School, January 2023)
Read that again.
They can make animals older or younger ‘at will’.
This is not science fiction. This is published, peer-reviewed science from Harvard Medical School.
But Sinclair’s work did not emerge in isolation.
In 2006, Japanese scientist Shinya Yamanaka made a Nobel Prize-winning discovery:
he identified just four transcription factors (Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc – now called the Yamanaka factors) that could reprogram adult cells back into embryonic-like stem cells.
What Yamanaka proved was revolutionary:
mature, specialized cells contained all the information needed to become young again.
In 2023, two separate research teams used these Yamanaka factors to reverse ageing in mice.
One group extended mouse lifespan using gene therapy to deliver the factors.
Another reversed ageing-like changes.
Both teams restored the animals’ epigenome – the system controlling which genes are active – to a more youthful state.
Even more striking:
a 2021 study showed that partial reprogramming with Yamanaka factors reversed the biological age of human cells by an average of 30 years, as measured by epigenetic clocks.
The Question Nobody Wants to Ask
If your cells contain a “backup copy” of how to be young – information that is stored but dormant – why does it exist?
Evolution does not create backup systems that never get used…
Natural selection is ruthless about efficiency.
If something does not help you survive and reproduce, it gets deleted over time.
Yet here is this sophisticated backup system, sitting in every cell, never naturally activated, waiting for someone with the right knowledge to switch it on.
It is like finding a perfectly functional reset button in your body that evolution “accidentally” created but never wired up to anything.
Recent research shows that older cells retain a form of youthful epigenetic information, which can be reactivated through epigenetic reprogramming.
Sinclair’s team demonstrated that cells possess a backup copy of youthful epigenetic information that can restore cell identity (NAD.com, “David Sinclair: DNA Tagging,” 2024).
This phenomenon – called “reprogramming-induced rejuvenation” – has been replicated across multiple labs.
Scientists can now rejuvenate cells without complete dedifferentiation, meaning ageing can be reversed whilst cells retain their identity.
Studies show this partial reprogramming can restore visual function in mice, prevent age-related physiological changes, and extend lifespan.
Researchers like Cynthia Kenyon at Calico (formerly UCSF) have shown similar patterns in other organisms.
Her 1993 discovery that a single gene mutation could double the lifespan of C. elegans worms – whilst keeping them youthful and fertile – demonstrated that ageing rates are genetically controlled, not merely the result of random deterioration.
The Mainstream Explanation
When pressed, scientists say the backup is just “developmental remnants” or “evolved mechanisms.”
Some evolutionary biologists argue this represents a “spandrel”,
a by-product of developmental pathways that exist for other purposes.
The epigenetic machinery, they claim, evolved for embryonic development and cell differentiation; ageing reversal is merely an unintended side effect.
This is a fair argument.
Evolution creates vestigial systems all the time.
Wisdom teeth.
The appendix.
Remnant pathways that no longer serve their original purpose.
But here is what makes this different:
Vestigial systems degrade.
They lose function over time because there is no evolutionary pressure to maintain them.
The appendix does not work as well as it once did.
Wisdom teeth cause more problems than they solve.
Unused pathways accumulate mutations and drift into uselessness.
This backup?
It maintains perfect fidelity across decades of cellular life. It does not degrade. It does not drift.
After 80 years of life, your cells still contain pristine instructions for being 20 years old – instructions that can be accessed with just four specific factors.
That is unusual for an unused evolutionary remnant. Unused systems typically rust. This one has not.
The precision with which this information can be accessed – requiring only four specific factors to reverse decades of ageing – suggests something more than random developmental scaffolding left behind.
It is like finding a perfectly functional reset button in your body that evolution “accidentally” created but never wired up to anything.
The question is not whether developmental pathways exist – they clearly do.
The question is why they remain so perfectly preserved and accessible throughout life when there is no evolutionary pressure to maintain them.
What It Suggests
The ageing backup system displays characteristics often associated with engineered systems:
functional modularity, precise reversibility, and information preservation across decades of cellular life.
The mechanism is now well-documented:
ageing occurs when cells lose track of their epigenetic identity, yet the “backup copy” of youthful programming remains intact, waiting to be reactivated.
Whether this reflects intentional design or represents natural processes we do not yet fully understand remains an open question.
However, the pattern raises significant questions about the origins of this system.
Nir Barzilai‘s research on centenarians at Albert Einstein College of Medicine shows that some humans naturally possess genetic variants that slow this loss of information, allowing them to live healthier for longer.
His Longevity Genes Project has identified the actual genes responsible:
CETP – Boosts “good” cholesterol, protecting your heart
APOC3 – Improves how your body handles fats
IGF1R – Controls growth signals linked to how long you live
ADIPOQ – Manages your metabolism
TSHR – Affects how fast you age
These are not theoretical. These are real genes you can test for. And they all seem to help maintain access to that hidden “youth information” we talked about.
The pattern is clear:
some people’s bodies are better at preserving the backup.
The question remains:
why does the backup exist at all…?
The implications are profound:
if cellular ageing is information loss rather than inevitable damage, and if that information can be restored, then the ageing process may be more controllable than previously thought.
Why such a system exists – and why it remains dormant without external intervention – remains one of biology’s deepest mysteries.
II. THE CHROMOSOME MYSTERY – How Did One Genetic Accident Spread to Every Human on Earth?
The Basic Facts
You have 46 chromosomes.
Chimpanzees have 48.
So do gorillas, orangutans – all the great apes.
Only humans have 46.
Why?
Because at some point in the past, two of our ancestral chromosomes fused together to make one.
Scientists can see the evidence:
there are leftover bits of chromosome “caps” in the middle of human chromosome 2, right where the fusion happened.
The fusion definitely occurred. That is not disputed.
What is disputed is,
how this became standard for every human alive.
The Timeline Problem
For decades, scientists thought this fusion happened 4-5 million years ago.
New research says otherwise.
It happened about 900,000 years ago (give or take 500,000 years) (Poszewiecka et al., “Revised time estimation of the ancestral human chromosome 2 fusion,” BMC Genomics, 2022).
That is far more recent than anyone expected.
And here is where it gets interesting:
Right around that same time – between 900,000 and 800,000 years ago – the human population crashed… hard…
We are talking about a population bottleneck that lasted over 100,000 years (Hu et al., 2023, analyzed by population geneticist John Hawks).
The Problem with the Story
Think about what has to happen for this fusion to spread:
1. It happens in ONE person (a random mutation)
2. That person has 47 chromosomes instead of 48
3. They can still have children, but it is harder
4. Somehow, over time, EVERYONE ends up with this fusion
5. It becomes locked in before humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans split apart
6. All three groups carry it
For this to work naturally, one of three things must happen:
Option A: The fusion gives you a huge survival advantage, so it spreads rapidly.
Problem: There is no evidence for this. Having 46 chromosomes does not make you stronger or smarter.
Option B: The population gets so small that random chance can spread an unusual trait.
Here is the problem:
people with fused chromosomes have a harder time having babies. Not impossible – but harder.
Studies show about 20-30% reduced fertility. More miscarriages. Difficulties in the cellular process that makes sperm and eggs.
So how does a trait that makes reproduction harder spread to everyone?
The 2023 study by Hu and colleagues suggests the human population crashed to about 1,280 breeding individuals for over 100,000 years.
Let’s be clear:
that is mathematically sufficient for genetic drift to work.
A population that small, for that long, could theoretically fix almost any trait through pure chance. It is possible.
But here is what makes geneticists pause:
that same tiny population, struggling to survive, spreads a trait that makes reproduction 20-30% harder, to 100% frequency, across multiple diverging lineages (humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans), before they split apart – all with no apparent benefit.
Possible? Yes.
Probable? That is the debate.
The mathematics say it could happen. The probability makes people wonder if there is more to the story.
Option C: Someone is managing which individuals get to breed, selecting for the fusion until it becomes standard.
Problem:
This requires intention, purpose, and agency – factors outside the scope of natural evolutionary processes as currently understood.
What Mainstream Science Says
The official explanation:
“It happened during a population bottleneck through genetic drift and possibly some unknown advantage.”
That is academic language for “we do not really know, but it ‘must’ be natural”…
Polish geneticist Pawel Stankiewicz suggests the fusion was,
“a single non-recurrent event that spread through a small polygamous clan population bottleneck” and was “likely facilitated by an evolutionary advantage”.
(Stankiewicz, “One pedigree we all may have come from,” Molecular Cytogenetics, 2016).
– ~900,000 years ago: One person is born with a chromosome fusion
– 900,000-800,000 years ago: Population crashes to very small numbers for over 100,000 years
– During this time: The fusion somehow spreads to everyone in this small group
– ~700,000 years ago: Population expands again
– Result: Every human, Neanderthal, and Denisovan descendant carries the fusion
This is an extraordinarily precise sequence of events.
Population geneticist John Hawks acknowledges the puzzle:
“Whether these immediate common ancestors of Neandertal, Denisovan, and African ancestral humans were a tight bottleneck or not, this is the most recent population in which the fusion of chromosome 2 could have happened”.
(Hawks, “When did human chromosome 2 fuse?”, 2023)
What it Looks Like
If you wanted to change human genetics in a controlled way, here is what you would do:
1. Take a small population during a bottleneck (easier to manage)
2. Introduce or select for specific genetic changes
3. Control breeding until those changes become standard
4. Release the modified population back into the world
That is not what mainstream science proposes.
Yet the pattern,
single mutation event, severe bottleneck, complete fixation across all descendant populations, unclear selective advantage,
…resembles what we might expect from targeted modification more than it resembles typical evolutionary processes.
The question remains:
Is this an example of extreme genetic drift under unusual circumstances, or does it represent something “else” entirely?
III. THE LANGUAGE GENE – How Did Humans Learn to Talk So Quickly?
If you have a mutation in this gene, you cannot speak properly. You struggle with language, grammar, pronunciation – everything that makes human speech possible.
No other great ape has our version of FOXP2.
This is why humans talk and chimpanzees do not.
The Evolution Problem
For 70 million years of mammalian evolution, FOXP2 barely changed.
One amino acid substitution between mice and primates. That is it…
Seventy million years, one change.
Then humans show up.
In just 4-6 million years (since humans split from chimps), FOXP2 gets two amino acid changes.
Functional changes.
Changes that enable language.
That is a 35-fold acceleration in evolution rate (Zhang et al., “Accelerated protein evolution and origins of human-specific features: FOXP2 as an example,” 2002).
Scientists call this “accelerated evolution.”
That is academic code for,
“this should not have happened this fast”…
When Did It Happen?
Here is where it gets specific.
Human FOXP2 has two critical changes that no other ape has.
Scientists can pinpoint exactly where they occurred:
positions 303 and 325 in the protein sequence.
Two tiny changes.
Two amino acids swapped out.
That is it…
That is the difference between humans who can discuss philosophy and chimpanzees who cannot.
These changes happened around 200,000 years ago – right when anatomically modern humans first appeared.
But that is not all.
The regulatory elements – the genetic switches that control ‘when’ and ‘how much’ FOXP2 gets expressed – changed even more recently.
Possibly within the last 100,000 years.
Think about that timeline.
The gene changes.
Then, separately, the controls for that gene change.
Both happening in evolutionary eyeblinks…
The Timing Is Suspicious
Around 60,000-44,000 years ago, something happened to humans.
Evidence of advanced thinking and creativity appears in the archaeological record seemingly overnight.
This cognitive explosion happens right around the time FOXP2 regulatory elements were undergoing rapid changes (multiple studies, 2000s-2010s).
The gene that enables language changes rapidly.
Then humans suddenly start acting like modern humans…
Coincidence?
The Selection Problem
Here is where it gets strange.
When scientists looked for evidence of natural selection on FOXP2, they found… contradictions…
Early studies in 2002 said:
“Yes, this gene shows clear signs of selection.
Something was pushing for these changes.”
But then in 2018, a massive study – more comprehensive methods, better data, thousands more genomes from populations worldwide – said:
“Actually, we cannot find that signature.”
This is how science works:
better data sometimes overturns earlier findings…
So Where does that Leave Us?
The current scientific consensus leans toward changes in regulatory regions (the control switches that determine when and how much the gene is expressed), rather than the gene’s protein sequence itself being under direct selection.
Regulatory changes are harder to detect using standard selection tests, which could explain the ambiguous signature.
But it still raises a question:
We have rapid changes (35-60x faster than normal).
We have functional changes (they enable language – arguably the defining human trait).
But we do not have the clear selection signature we would expect for something this beneficial.
Why would the most important cognitive upgrade in human history happen through such an unusual pathway…?
Maybe regulatory evolution works differently than we expect.
Maybe the signature was erased by subsequent genetic shuffling.
Maybe we are looking in the wrong places.
Or maybe there is something about this particular change that does not fit our standard models of how selection works.
What It Looks Like
If you wanted to enhance a species’ cognitive abilities, you might:
– Modify genes responsible for language and communication
– Do it quickly (no need to wait millions of years)
– Make functional changes (specific improvements, not random mutations)
– Allow the population to spread those changes naturally
Whether this represents accelerated natural selection under unique circumstances, or something more deliberate, remains an open question in evolutionary biology.
What is clear is that,
standard evolutionary timelines struggle to account for the speed and precision of these changes…
IV. THE PATTERN – What Connects All Three Discoveries
Let’s review what we have documented:
The Backup System (Ageing)
– Cells contain dormant instructions for youth
– These instructions never activate naturally
– They can only be accessed with external intervention
– No evolutionary explanation for why they exist in this form
The Chromosome Fusion
– Single event ~900,000 years ago
– Spreads to entire population during massive population crash
– Becomes standard for all human lineages
– No clear advantage to having it
The Language Gene
– Evolves 35 times faster than normal
– Functional changes enabling speech
– Happens within 200,000 years
– No clear evidence of natural selection
The Common Thread
All three show patterns that normal evolution does not typically produce:
– Precise timing – Major changes happen during population bottlenecks when small groups could be managed
– Rapid changes – Things happen too fast for standard evolution
– Functional improvements – Not random mutations, but specific enhancements (language ability, chromosome optimization)
– Programmed systems – Information that looks encoded or designed (the ageing backup)
Two Explanations
Mainstream science proposes:
“All of this happened naturally through random mutations, genetic drift during population bottlenecks, and selective advantages we are still working to identify.
Evolution works in surprising ways, especially under extreme circumstances.”
This uses known mechanisms – mutation, drift, selection – operating under extreme but documented conditions like bottlenecks and small populations.
We have seen these processes work in real time.
Alternative framework:
“These patterns show characteristics consistent with targeted modifications.
Changes during population bottlenecks when small groups could be managed. Functional improvements, not random noise.
Systems that look programmed.”
This requires… well, we do not know exactly what it requires.
The goal is not to replace evolutionary biology. It is to honestly examine the cases where the conventional model struggles to provide fully satisfying answers.
The genetic evidence is clear:
something unusual happened to human DNA.
Whether that “something” was natural processes we do not understand yet, or intentional modification by an unknown agency, remains an open question…
ACADEMIC SOURCES
Ageing & Epigenetics:
– Lu, Y.R., Tian, X., Sinclair, D.A. “Loss of epigenetic information as a cause of mammalian ageing.” *Cell*, 12 January 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2022.12.027 – Harvard Medical School. “Loss of Epigenetic Information Can Drive Ageing, Restoration Can Reverse It.” January 2023 – Sinclair Lab Research Overview. Harvard Medical School, Paul F. Glenn Centre for Biology of Ageing Research – NAD.com. “David Sinclair: DNA Tagging, rather than DNA Damage, Drives Ageing and Is Reversible.” 2024 – Diamandis, P. “Unlocking Youth: Epigenetics Could Change Ageing Forever.” 2023 – Horvath, S. “DNA methylation age of human tissues and cell types.” *Genome Biology*, 2013. DOI: 10.1186/gb-2013–14–10-r115 – Levine, M.E. et al. “An epigenetic biomarker of ageing for lifespan and healthspan.” *Ageing*, 2018. DOI: 10.18632/aging.101414 – Yamanaka, S. & Takahashi, K. “Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures.” *Cell*, 2006. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.07.024 – Ocampo, A. et al. “In vivo amelioration of age-associated hallmarks by partial reprogramming.” *Cell*, 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.11.052 – Gill, D. et al. “Multi-omic rejuvenation of human cells by maturation phase transient reprogramming.” *eLife*, 2021. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.71624 – Sarkar, T.J. et al. “Transient non-integrative expression of nuclear reprogramming factors promotes multifaceted amelioration of aging in human cells.” *Nature Communications*, 2020. DOI: 10.1038/s41467–020–15174–3 – Kenyon, C. et al. “A C. elegans mutant that lives twice as long as wild type.” *Nature*, 1993. DOI: 10.1038/366461a0 – Barzilai, N. et al. “Unique lipoprotein phenotype and genotype associated with exceptional longevity.” *JAMA*, 2003. DOI: 10.1001/jama.290.15.2030 – Atzmon, G. et al. “Lipoprotein genotype and conserved pathway for exceptional longevity in humans.” *PLOS Biology*, 2006. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040113
Chromosome 2 Fusion: – Poszewiecka, B. et al. “Revised time estimation of the ancestral human chromosome 2 fusion.” *BMC Genomics*, 25 August 2022. DOI: 10.1186/s12864–022–08828–7 – Stankiewicz, P. “One pedigree we all may have come from – did Adam and Eve have the chromosome 2 fusion?” *Molecular Cytogenetics*, 26 September 2016. DOI: 10.1186/s13039–016–0267–2 – Hawks, J. “When did human chromosome 2 fuse?” John Hawks blog, 31 August 2023 – Hu, Y. et al. “Genomic inference of a severe human bottleneck during the Early to Middle Pleistocene transition.” *Science*, 2023. DOI: 10.1126/science.abq7487 – BioLogos. “Denisovans, Humans and the Chromosome 2 Fusion.” September 2012
FOXP2 Gene: – Enard, W. et al. “Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language.” *Nature*, 22 August 2002. DOI: 10.1038/nature01025 – Zhang, J. et al. “Accelerated protein evolution and origins of human-specific features: Foxp2 as an example.” *Genetics*, 2002. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.162.4.1825 – Scientific Reports. “FOXP2 variation in great ape populations offers insight into the evolution of communication skills.” 4 December 2017. DOI: 10.1038/s41598–017–16844-x – Atkinson, E.G. et al. “No evidence for recent selection at FOXP2 amongst diverse human populations.” *Cell*, 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.10.004 – Maricic, T. et al. “A recent evolutionary change affects a regulatory element in the human FOXP2 gene.” *Molecular Biology and Evolution*, 2013. DOI: 10.1093/molbev/mst073
Part II The Human Origins Deep Dive October 18, 2025
What the Ancient Texts Actually say about Human Creation
In Part I, we examined three genetic anomalies that do not fit neatly into the standard evolutionary story.
Chromosome 2 fusion – a precise genetic event that every human carries.
FOXP2’s remarkably rapid evolution – our language gene changed faster than random mutation typically allows.
Epigenetic aging patterns – cells contain what looks like programmed information rather than just accumulated damage.
The evidence suggests something unusual happened to human DNA. But here is the question that makes academics uncomfortable: if something modified us, would there be any record of it?
There is.
Not in one civilization’s mythology, but across multiple ancient cultures separated by oceans and millennia. These texts do not describe abstract creation from nothing – they describe biological processes. Mixing. Experimentation. Trial and error. Multiple attempts.
They describe, in strikingly specific detail, what looks a lot like genetic engineering.
I. GROUND RULES
Before we dive in, here is our approach:
Our honesty:
We cannot prove ancient genetic engineering happened.
What we CAN show you is a pattern that is either an extraordinary coincidence, reflects universal human observations about heredity and creation, OR points to something mainstream science has not fully considered.
We are making a case, not claiming certainty.
Fair warning:
We are going to propose interpretations of ancient texts that differ from mainstream scholarship. When we do this, we will tell you.
We will show you what the texts say, what scholars traditionally think they mean, and what they might mean if we look at them through a different lens. You decide which interpretation makes more sense to you.
These are not religious stories written thousands of years after the fact – these are humanity’s first written records of where we came from.
The Creation Recipe – Atrahasis Epic
The Atrahasis Epic, dated to around 1800 BCE but copying even older texts, describes human creation with unusual specificity.
The gods needed workers.
“The Anunnaki”, and here is our first translation controversy,
Sitchin translated this as “those who from heaven to earth came,” but mainstream Assyriologists translate it as “princely offspring” or “offspring of Anu.”
The cuneiform can support multiple readings, so keep that ambiguity in mind:
decided to create a primitive worker.
But here is what is interesting:
they did not create from nothing.
The text describes taking an existing primitive being – called “the clay” or “the wild human” – and mixing it with “blood” or “essence” from a god named Geshtu-E, whose name literally means “one who has intelligence.”
The goddess Nintu performs what the text describes as a mixing process – whether this is metaphorical (combining spiritual and physical elements) or literal biological procedure is debated – with seven birth goddesses assisting.
The process is documented with unusual specificity:
The clay comes from a specific source – the Abzu, Enki’s underground freshwater realm
Ninmah “nips off fourteen pieces” of the mixed material
Each piece goes into what the text describes as a womb
Gestation takes nine days (possibly symbolic of nine months, though scholars debate this)
When the first humans are successfully born, the gods hold a celebration
The new creations can now “bear the load of the gods.”
Look, every culture has gods creating humans. That is not remarkable.
What is remarkable is the procedural detail:
Pre-existing primitive material
Adding biological essence from an intelligent being
A precise mixing process
Specific gestation periods
Multiple surrogates
A successful result
Traditional interpretation:
This is metaphorical – describing how humans have both earthly (clay) and divine (breath/blood) elements, explaining our dual nature as physical beings with consciousness.
Alternative interpretation:
If ancient people witnessed or remembered genetic engineering, this is remarkably close to how they might describe it:
source material + advanced genetic component + controlled gestation = new being.
You decide which makes more sense.
The Experimentation Phase – When Gods get Drunk
But here is where it gets wild.
Another text, “Enki and Ninmah,” describes what happened at that celebration banquet. Enki and Ninmah get drunk on beer and start arguing. Ninmah boasts that she controls human fate and can make humans however she wants.
Enki challenges her:
whatever defect she creates, he will find a use for it.
What follows is documented in detail:
Attempt 1: Ninmah creates a man who cannot reach out and grasp. Enki immediately gives him purpose: he will serve the king, unable to steal because of his condition.
Attempt 2: She creates a blind man. Enki gives him the gift of music and destines him to be a minstrel to the king.
Attempt 3: Paralyzed feet. Enki assigns him as silversmith – seated profession.
Attempt 4: Man who cannot control his bodily functions. Enki cures him with a ritual bath.
Attempt 5: Infertile woman. Enki assigns her to the queen’s household as a weaver.
Attempt 6: Being without genitalia. Enki calls this being a eunuch and places them in service to the king.
Attempt 7: A creation so damaged even Ninmah cannot help it – cannot stand, cannot speak, cannot eat. Even Enki fails to improve this one.
Traditional interpretation:
This is a theodicy myth – explaining why disabilities exist and showing that even disabled people have value in society. The Sumerians observed birth defects and created a story to give them meaning.
Alternative interpretation: This reads like documented experimental trials. Multiple attempts with different outcomes. Some successful with adaptation, some failures. Detailed records of genetic defects.
Here is what is interesting:
ancient peoples definitely observed disabilities.
They understood heredity from animal breeding.
They could have invented this myth to explain what they saw.
But why frame it as deliberate experimentation by creators?
Why not just say “sometimes creation goes wrong”?
The competitive trial-and-error framing is oddly specific.
The Upgrade Problem – Adapa
Now here is where scholars get really divided, because various Sumerian and Akkadian fragments suggest the first created humans had a critical flaw: they could not reproduce independently.
This is where Enki – the god of wisdom – made what some texts hint was an unauthorized modification. Working with his sister Ninki, Enki is credited in the broader Mesopotamian tradition with enabling human reproduction.
The result was Adapa – whose name means “exceedingly wise.”
Adapa was different from earlier humans.
He could reproduce.
He understood complex concepts.
He knew about eternal life.
The texts portray him as possessing capabilities earlier created humans lacked.
Important caveat:
This synthesis draws connections across multiple fragmentary texts.
Not all scholars agree these fragments describe a single continuous narrative.
We are presenting one possible reading of the evidence.
The texts indicate this advancement – whether biological, spiritual, or both – was done without approval from Enki’s brother Enlil, who wanted only obedient workers.
This created a conflict among the gods.
The Adapa story continues:
he is brought before Anu, the supreme god, and offered the “bread and water of life” – immortality.
But following Enki’s advice (possibly a trick), he refuses it.
Humanity remains mortal.
The Divine Conflict
The texts describe an ongoing conflict between Enki and Enlil over humanity.
Enki wanted to give humans wisdom and capabilities.
Enlil wanted slaves.
Eventually, Enlil decided to destroy the modified humans through a great flood. But Enki warned a man named Ziusudra (later called Utnapishtim in Akkadian, Noah in Hebrew tradition) to build an ark.
Humanity survived, but only the lineage Enki chose to preserve.
III. EGYPT: THE DIVINE WORKSHOP
Egyptian records from around 2600 BCE describe the god Khnum creating humans on a potter’s wheel – but the texts specify he is “forming their bodies” and “fashioning their ka” (life force), not just making clay dolls.
The Memphite Theology describes Ptah “fashioning” humans using pre-existing material, giving them “life and power,” and creating different types deliberately.
The Pyramid Texts reference divine bloodlines in humans. Pharaohs are described as literal hybrids of divine and human. Specific genetic lineages are traced to gods.
Standard interpretation:
Religious/political ideology. Pharaohs claimed divine descent to legitimize their rule – a common practice in ancient monarchies worldwide.
Alternative interpretation:
These texts preserve memory of hybrid bloodlines or genetic modifications, with royal families maintaining records of their “enhanced” lineage.
IV. HEBREW TEXTS: THE TROUBLING PRONOUNS
Genesis, compiled between 1000–500 BCE but preserving older oral traditions, contains peculiarities scholars have debated for millennia.
Genesis 1:26:
“Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness…'”
The Hebrew word is Elohim – grammatically plural.
Traditional explanations:
“Royal we” (plural of majesty)
Trinity (Christian interpretation)
God speaking to his heavenly court of angels
Alternative interpretation:
Elohim literally means “gods” (plural) and the text preserves memory of multiple beings involved in human creation.
Genesis 1:27:
“So God created mankind in his own image… male and female he created them.”
The phrase “in the image” – tselem in Hebrew – can mean physical likeness (like a statue) or can mean representing God’s attributes (traditional interpretation).
Most Hebrew scholars favor the latter, though the word itself is ambiguous.
“When human beings began to increase in number… the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose…
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days – and also afterward – when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them.”
“Sons of God” – bene elohim – in early Hebrew literature typically means divine beings, though some scholars argue it could mean “sons of Seth” (righteous human lineage) or human kings.
Nephilim often translates as “giants” but can also mean “those who came down” or “fallen ones” – the etymology is genuinely disputed. The text describes interbreeding between two populations. Resulting offspring with unusual characteristics. Some kind of widespread corruption.
The Book of Enoch (300–100 BCE, possibly preserving older oral traditions) expands on this with specific details.
First Enoch chapters 6–7 describe two hundred “Watchers” – divine beings – descending to Earth, deliberately interbreeding with human women, teaching forbidden knowledge.
The resulting Nephilim cause what the text describes as genetic chaos – corruption of “all flesh,” animals included.
First Enoch 15:8–12 describes these hybrids as anomalies causing disruption of natural order, requiring divine intervention – the Flood – to reset.
Genesis describes Noah’s family as “perfect in his generations.”
The Hebrew word “tamim” means “without blemish” – the same word used throughout the Hebrew Bible for unblemished animals suitable for sacrifice.
Traditional interpretation:
“Tamim” means morally righteous or spiritually pure. Noah was righteous in a corrupt generation.
Alternative interpretation (Sitchin and others):
“Tamim” in the context of “generations” refers to genetic purity – unmixed lineage. Same word used for genetic perfection in animal breeding contexts.
Timeline consideration:
If the Flood is historical, geological evidence points to around 12,000 years ago (Younger Dryas).
But this is speculative – the Flood might be mythological, might be a regional event remembered as global, or might refer to multiple flooding events in human prehistory.
What is interesting:
whether historical or mythological, the text describes genetic corruption requiring a population bottleneck to eliminate, with a specific lineage preserved and becoming the source of post-reset humanity.
That pattern – corruption, bottleneck, preservation of specific lineage – appears in the genetic record multiple times during human evolution, though at various timescales.
V. THE VEDAS: CYCLES AND DEGRADATION
The Rig Veda (1500–1200 BCE, claiming to record much older knowledge) describes human creation by Prajapati with notable details.
The Nasadiya Sukta – the Creation Hymn – describes creation as emergence rather than creation from nothing.
It references “the One” generating diversity, suggests multiple attempts and versions, and remarkably, questions whether even the gods know the true origin.
That is a weirdly agnostic stance for a religious text.
Later Vedic texts describe different yugas – world ages – with different human capabilities:
Satya Yuga: Humans lived 100,000 years, had telepathic abilities
Treta Yuga: Lifespan reduced to 10,000 years
Dwapara Yuga: 1,000 years
Kali Yuga (our age): 100 years, limited abilities
Traditional interpretation:
Spiritual/moral degradation. As humanity becomes less righteous, we lose divine blessings and capabilities.
This is allegory for spiritual decline.
Alternative interpretation:
This describes biological degradation – humans losing capabilities and lifespan over time. Remember Sinclair’s research on epigenetic aging?
Programmed information loss. Original design containing more information. Activation and deactivation of genetic potential.
The Mahabharata contains accounts of hybrid beings – part-divine, part-human. Genetic experiments creating unusual offspring. Advanced medical knowledge. Selective breeding for specific traits.
Fair consideration:
Ancient Indians definitely practiced selective breeding of animals and understood heredity. These stories might reflect that practical knowledge elevated to cosmic scale.
VI. CHINA: THE GODDESS’S EXPERIMENTS
Chinese mythology describes the goddess Nü Wa creating humans from yellow earth using a deliberate mixing process.
She creates different classes from different materials:
Nobles from carefully formed yellow earth
Commoners from mud flung from a rope when she grew tired
The texts note multiple batches with varying quality. Physical creation process.
Deliberate social stratification built into the creation method itself.
Traditional interpretation:
Myth explaining and justifying social hierarchy. The nobility are “better made” to legitimise their rule.
Alternative interpretation:
Memory of different types or batches of humans created with different qualities.
VII. MESOAMERICA: THE FOUR FAILED PROTOTYPES
Here is where it gets really interesting, because the Mayan Popol Vuh – written in the 1550s CE but preserving pre-Columbian oral tradition from possibly 1000 BCE or earlier – describes perhaps the most detailed account of experimental human creation.
The gods try FOUR separate times.
Each attempt is documented:
Attempt 1: They created animals. But these could not speak or worship. Rejected.
Attempt 2: Humans from mud. Could not hold their shape, could not reproduce, could not think. Destroyed.
Attempt 3: Humans from wood and reeds. Could walk and speak, but had no intelligence, no emotion, no memory. The text says “they existed but had no heart.” Destroyed in a flood.
Attempt 4: Mixed ground maize with water and divine essence, adding animal blood. This created four original humans.
But these were TOO perfect. They could see everything, knew everything.
So the gods deliberately reduced their abilities,
“covering their eyes like a breath on a mirror.”
Traditional interpretation:
Agricultural stages. Each creation attempt represents a stage of Mayan cultural development – hunting (animals), early pottery (mud people), simple agriculture (wood people), advanced maize cultivation (corn people).
The limitation represents human mortality and bounded knowledge compared to gods.
Alternative interpretation:
Multiple experimental attempts. Different biological materials tested.
Trial-and-error refinement. Intentional capability limitation of the final product. Describes deactivation of genetic potential.
The big question:
Why would the Maya independently invent such a detailed story of iterative creation with multiple failed prototypes?
And why would it align so closely with the Sumerian accounts – separated by an ocean and thousands of years?
Honest acknowledgment:
The Maya definitely practiced agriculture and understood that maize was superior to earlier crops.
They could have elevated their agricultural history to cosmic creation myth.
But the procedural specificity – and the alignment with Old World texts despite zero contact – is worth noting.
VIII. GREECE: PROMETHEUS AND THE MANUFACTURED WOMAN
Greek mythology describes Prometheus creating humans from earth mixed with water, adding divine fire – consciousness and intelligence.
Epimetheus created animals first, exhausting the “stock of abilities” before humans were made, leaving humans physically vulnerable but intelligent.
Prometheus later upgrades humans by giving them fire and knowledge against the gods’ wishes – and is punished for it.
The Pandora story is particularly interesting:
the first woman is artificially created by multiple gods, each adding a specific feature – beauty from Aphrodite, music from Apollo, persuasion from Hermes.
She is designed for a specific purpose and manufactured rather than naturally born.
Traditional interpretation:
Myths explaining human nature – why we are physically weak but intelligent, why we have fire and technology, why women are both beautiful and dangerous (misogynistic ancient Greek attitudes).
Alternative interpretation:
Deliberate feature engineering. Multi-source genetic contribution. Describes beings adding specific capabilities to a created being.
IX. THE PATTERN WORTH EXAMINING
Let me show you something.
Seven major ancient civilizations. Separated by thousands of miles and hundreds or thousands of years.
Here is what they describe:
All seven describe using pre-existing material:
All seven describe adding a divine/advanced component
All seven describe physical combining (not just speaking into existence)
Six of seven mention multiple types or attempts
All seven describe specific designed capabilities
All seven describe limitations on human abilities
Standard explanation:
Universal human observations create similar myths.
Noticed disabilities and variations (explaining why humans differ)
Wondered about death (explaining mortality)
These universal experiences generated similar creation stories independently.
Alternative interpretation:
The consistency across isolated cultures – particularly the procedural specificity and the trial-and-error methodology – suggests either:
An extremely ancient common source (before Old/New World separation 15,000+ years ago)
Independent preservation of witnessed or remembered events
Universal human intuition about origins that is oddly specific
The Mesoamerica factor:
Cultural diffusion explains Old World similarities.
But the Maya had ZERO contact with Eurasia/Africa before 1492.
Yet the Popol Vuh describes remarkably similar processes to the Atrahasis Epic.
For pure diffusion to work, you need a common source before the Americas separated from the Old World – meaning oral tradition preserving specific procedural details for 10,000+ years before writing existed.
That is not impossible – Aboriginal Australians preserved stories for 10,000+ years – but it pushes the origin of these stories very far back in time.
X. TRANSLATING ANCIENT LANGUAGE INTO MODERN CONCEPTS
Here is where we need to be very clear about what we are doing: we are proposing interpretations, not providing translations.
When ancient texts say “mixing clay with divine blood,” scholars traditionally interpret this as combining physical matter (body) with spiritual essence (soul/consciousness). That is a perfectly valid reading.
But IF – and this is a ‘big if’ – IF ancient people were trying to describe genetic engineering without modern vocabulary, here is what those same phrases might mean:
“Mixing clay with divine blood” could describe:
Taking existing hominid DNA (the “clay”)
Adding advanced genetic sequences (the “divine essence”)
“Gestation in surrogate wombs” (Sumerian) might be:
In vitro fertilization
Surrogacy
Controlled reproduction
Critical point:
These are interpretative possibilities, not the only valid readings. Traditional interpretations – that these texts describe spiritual/metaphorical truths about human nature – are equally valid and supported by scholarly consensus.
We are asking:
IF the alternative interpretation were correct, would these texts look different?
And the answer is:
probably not. They would look a lot like this.
XI. The Multi-Stage Modification Hypothesis
Now here is where the timeline problem actually transforms into something more interesting:
What if modification was not a single event?
The simple version of the hypothesis says:
Advanced beings showed up 200,000 years ago, modified humans, left.
But that creates timeline problems because chromosome 2 fusion happened 2–3 million years ago, while ancient texts were written only 4,000 years ago.
What if we are thinking about this wrong?
Expanded hypothesis:
Advanced beings have been involved with our lineage for millions of years, with modifications occurring at multiple critical points:
~2–3 million years ago:Chromosome 2 fusion in early hominins (Australopithecus or early Homo). First major genetic modification of our lineage. This predates modern humans entirely – it affected our pre-human ancestors.
~500,000–300,000 years ago:Additional modifications leading to anatomically modern Homo sapiens. Brain size increases. Anatomical changes enabling complex speech apparatus.
~100,000–70,000 years ago:FOXP2 refinements and other genetic changes enabling complex language, abstract thinking, and behavioral modernity. This is when humans suddenly start creating art, jewellery, complex tools, and showing signs of symbolic thought.
~12,000 years ago:Population bottleneck event (possibly the Younger Dryas/Flood events recorded in myths worldwide). Elimination of “corrupted” lineages or genetic variants. Preservation of specific bloodlines.
This solves multiple problems:
Timeline coherence:Each genetic change corresponds to a different intervention point. The ancient texts remember the MOST RECENT major event (12,000–200,000 years ago), not the earliest modifications. Oral tradition preserving 10,000–15,000 years is plausible. Preserving 2 million years is not.
Multiple bottlenecks:The genetic record shows multiple bottleneck events at different times. If these were all natural, why so many? If they were intervention points, it makes more sense.
Staged development:It explains why human evolution shows both gradual changes AND sudden leaps. The gradual parts are natural evolution between interventions. The leaps are modification events.
Ancient presence:Many texts describe “the gods” or “the Anunnaki” as having been here for vast ages, not just arriving once. Sumerian king lists claim rulers reigned for thousands of years “before the flood.” This suggests long-term presence, not a single visit.
Ongoing involvement:Genesis describes the Nephilim as being “on the earth in those days – and also afterward.” Not a one-time event. The Hebrew texts, Greek myths, and Vedic accounts all describe ongoing interaction between divine beings and humans across long timespans.
The implication:
We might not be looking at a single modification event 200,000 years ago, but an ongoing genetic program spanning millions of years, with multiple interventions at critical evolutionary transition points.
Why would they do this over such a long timeframe?:
Possible explanations:
Long-term project:Creating a species with specific capabilities takes millions of years of iterative refinement
They live on different timescales:If they are long-lived or experience time differently, millions of years might not seem long to them
They have been here the whole time:Earth might be their long-term project or laboratory
Gradualism by design:Rapid modification might be unstable; staged modifications over millions of years might produce more robust results
This is actually more consistent with the evidence:
The ancient texts do not describe a single creation moment – they describe an ongoing relationship between “gods” and humans spanning generations.
The Sumerian texts cover thousands of years of interaction.
The Hebrew Bible spans millennia.
The Vedic yugas describe vast ages.
They are not describing a moment.
They are describing an era.
The chromosome 2 fusion is not a problem for this hypothesis – it is evidence.
It shows modification occurred at the pre-human hominin stage, millions of years before modern humans existed. Then additional modifications occurred later, creating us.
We are not the first attempt.
We might not even be the final version…
The question shifts from,
“Did they modify us 200,000 years ago?” to “Have they been guiding our evolution for millions of years?”
That is a much bigger question…
XII. WHAT WOULD PROVE OR DISPROVE THIS?
Real science requires falsifiability.
So what would prove or disprove the ancient modification hypothesis…?
Would SUPPORT the hypothesis:
Finding genetic signatures of artificial modification (e.g., patterns that do not occur naturally)
Discovering archaeological evidence of advanced technology from 200,000+ years ago
Identifying specific genes that show impossible natural evolution patterns
Finding multiple independent ancient texts describing the same technical procedures in even greater detail
Would DISPROVE the hypothesis:
Demonstrating all ancient text similarities derive from documented cultural contact
Finding clear selective pressures explaining all rapid genetic changes
Showing the patterns are statistically likely to occur by chance
Proving oral tradition cannot preserve specific details for required timeframes
Current status:
Neither proven nor disproven. The hypothesis generates testable predictions, which makes it scientific regardless of how unconventional it seems.
XIII. CONCLUSION
The ancient Sumerians, writing 4,000 years ago, described mixing primitive humans with divine genetics through a multi-stage process with documented failures.
The Mayans, separated by an ocean and having zero contact with the Old World, described four experimental attempts with the final version deliberately limited.
The Vedic texts described degradation of human capabilities over vast ages.
The Hebrew texts described genetic corruption requiring a population reset.
And modern genetics shows rapid evolution enabling unique capabilities, changes fixed during population bottlenecks, and patterns that some researchers interpret as programmed information.
Two independent sources – ancient documents and modern DNA analysis – show interesting parallels.
Does this prove ancient genetic engineering? No.
Does it prove the texts are purely metaphorical? Also no.
Does it deserve honest investigation rather than reflexive dismissal? Absolutely…
XIV. SO WHY EVEN CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS?
Given that standard explanations work reasonably well, why entertain the genetic engineering hypothesis at all?
1. The specificity is unusual
Yes, ancient peoples understood breeding.
But,
Why frame it as deliberate experimentation with documented failures?
Why not just say “the gods created different types of people for different purposes”?
The competitive trial-and-error framing (Enki vs. Ninmah) is oddly specific.
2. The cross-cultural consistency despite isolation
Cultural diffusion explains Old World similarities. Universal psychology explains broad themes.
But the Mayan Popol Vuh describing four explicit failed attempts before success, using different materials, with the final version deliberately limited – that’s remarkably similar to the Sumerian Atrahasis describing primitive material + divine essence, initial failures, then successful creation.
Yes, both cultures understood breeding and agriculture.
But why independently arrive at such similar multi-stage experimental narratives?
3. The “limitation” detail is backwards
Most creation myths explain why humans have certain abilities (given by gods).
These myths explain why we lack abilities we could have had. That is backwards for typical theological explanations but forwards for engineering descriptions.
“We made them too capable and had to limit them” (Popol Vuh) is not a natural mythological motif.
Why would gods create humans, realize they are too powerful, then deliberately reduce them?
That is not theology – that is design modification.
4. The genetic patterns are interesting
Yes, natural evolution explains the patterns.
But some patterns (rapid FOXP2 evolution, bottleneck fixation, epigenetic programming) are interesting enough that alternative explanations deserve consideration alongside conventional ones.
5. Science advances by investigating ‘uncomfortable’ hypotheses
Plate tectonics was “absurd.”
Heliocentrism was “heretical.”
Quantum mechanics was “impossible.”
Evolution was “blasphemous.”
Every major scientific advance came from investigating hypotheses that seemed crazy at the time…
We are not claiming this hypothesis is correct.
We are claiming it is worth investigatingrather than dismissing because it challenges assumptions…
XV. FINAL WORDS
We have laid out a hypothesis: ancient texts from multiple isolated cultures describe what looks like genetic engineering, and modern genetics shows interesting patterns that could be consistent with modification.
The ancient Sumerians described mixing clay with divine blood through multiple surrogate wombs.
The Maya described four failed attempts before creating humans who were then deliberately limited.
The Vedas described degradation of capabilities over ages.
The Hebrews described genetic corruption requiring a reset.
Maybe they were just making stuff up based on observations of breeding and agriculture.
Maybe they were preserving actual memories in the only vocabulary they had.
Maybe the truth is something we have not considered.
The only way to find out is to look.
Not with predetermined conclusions.
Not with comfortable assumptions.
Not with career-protecting caution.
But with genuine curiosity about whether the story we have been told about human origins is complete.
Because maybe our ancestors were not telling creation myths.
Maybe they were trying to tell us exactly what happened.
And maybe we should finally start listening – skeptically, carefully, critically, but honestly.
The evidence exists.
The patterns are real.
The questions are legitimate.
What we do with that information is up to us…!
SOURCES
Genetic Research (Mainstream):
Sinclair, D.A. (2019). Lifespan: Why We Age – and Why We Don’t Have To
Zhang, J., Webb, D.M., & Podlaha, O. (2002). “Accelerated protein evolution and origins of human-specific features: Foxp2 as an example.” Genetics, 162(4), 1825–1835
Enard, W., et al. (2002). “Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language.” Nature, 418(6900), 869–872
Ijdo, J.W., et al. (1991). “Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion.” PNAS, 88(20), 9051–9055
Yunis, J.J. & Prakash, O. (1982). “The origin of man: a chromosomal pictorial legacy.” Science, 215(4539), 1525–1530
Ancient Texts (Primary Sources – Multiple Translations Recommended):
Atrahasis Epic – Stephanie Dalley’s Myths from Mesopotamia (Oxford, 2000)
Enuma Elish – Multiple translations available Benjamin Foster translation (Norton, 2005)
ETCSL online versions
Enki and Ninmah – Available through ETCSL (Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature)
Popol Vuh – Dennis Tedlock translation (Simon & Schuster, 1996)
Book of Enoch – R.H. Charles translation (1917, public domain)
Also George Nickelsburg modern translation Genesis (Hebrew Bible) – Multiple translations
Robert Alter’s The Hebrew Bible (Norton, 2019) – literal translation with notes
Rig Veda – Multiple translations Wendy Doniger’s The Rig Veda (Penguin, 1981) Ralph T.H. Griffith translation (older, public domain)
Academic Context (Mainstream Scholarship):
Kramer, S.N. (1963). The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character
Jacobsen, T. (1976). The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion
Black, J., & Green, A. (1992). Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary
Nicholson, I. (2001). Mexican and Central American Mythology
Ancient astronaut interpretation of Sumerian texts WARNING: Mainstream Assyriologists reject most of his translations
Note on Sitchin: We have used some of his interpretations but acknowledge they are disputed. Always compare with mainstream translations from ETCSL and scholarly sources. The ancient texts exist independently of Sitchin’s interpretations.
Critical Perspectives:
Heiser, M.S. (2015). The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible ETCSL – etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk
On Comparative Mythology:
Campbell, J. (1949). The Hero with a Thousand Faces
Quantum entanglement. Conceptual artwork of a pair of entangled quantum particles or events (left and right) interacting at a distance. Quantum entanglement is one of the consequences of quantum theory. Two particles will appear to be linked across space and time, with changes to one of the particles (such as an observation or measurement) affecting the other one. This instantaneous effect appears to be independent of both space and time, meaning that, in the quantum realm, effect may precede cause.
