Can anthropolgists say for sure we haven't progressed to this point previously?! Was the 'origin' of the universe aka the 'big bang' in fact a nuclear explosion?!
This is very plausible, but it would obviously be a different species. We would assume a hominid or proto-hominid species of some sort, but it could have been reptiles. Humans could be hybrids of them. I've always thought that when David Icke talks about reptilians in human form, the notion is not as strange or outlandish as it first seems, provided you don't take him literally and instead treat it as a theory of human hybrid evolution.
We think of homo sapiens sapiens as one single species descended from primates. This is now anthropological dogma, but seems naive and simplistic to me, as there are vast differences across human populations.
Maybe psychopathy has some sort of physical anthropological explanation along these lines, in that psychopaths are a 'species within a species' who belong to a genetic line hybridised differently to most others and their psychopathy is an expression of a latent primeval pedigree?
Bear in mind also that, in a similar way to physical anthropology, the Big Bang theory is cosmological dogma without much rigorous science to back it up. It's essentially theorising based on what evidence can be gathered. Our metaphysical comprehension is impaired as we lack the full picture and also have a tendency since modernity to lean on 'science' dogmatically. It may not be true. The Universe could instead be a physical constant, or could be shrinking, or there may be multiple universies (multi-verses) or there may be additional dimensions of physical reality we don't know of. There are other explanations.
Save for my allusions to political ponerology and references to psychopathy, this the whole topic belongs on a different thread of course.
