My-Mu.com Blog My-Mu.com Guest Blog Podcast
Home About My-Mu Resources Book Store Interactive Media Links

Podcast #15 - Genetics and the Lost Continent of Mu


Genetics and the Lost Continent of Mu

I ran across a Youtube video in the recent past that took a pretty hard-line stance against James Churchward's theories and credited "his family's website" for proving that Mu was 100% false. This video podcast is in response to that specific presentation which has since been taken down.

Let me first reiterate that although I have had researched some aspects of James Churchward's theories, despite the accusation, I have not reached the conclusion that Mu is 100% false. I will repeat what I have said in the past and that is:

"I will strive to prepare and present factual information, engage in interactive dialog and discussion, rigorously defend the defendable, and quickly denounce the absurd in the exploration of the life and times of James Churchward and his theories about a lost continent in the Pacific Ocean that he named Mu."
Allow me to further reiterate, neither I nor any member of my family receive any financial consideration for the publication of James' books and that my participation in researching the life and theories of my great-grandfather is conducted in my spare time, I am not paid by any person or organization to conduct this research.

Subsequent communications have defused the situation. I did agree to present a comparison of James' theory about Mu being the 'Motherland of Man' versus the current scientific theory tracing our human migration from Africa. I believe that if someone does not trust the results of scientific study and academia, then no amount of data will convince that someone to change their mind. On the other hand, if there is no plausible explanation to automatically reject it, then perhaps the scientists got it right this one time.

I had no idea that anyone was teaching about Mu in front of audiences, but a quick online search provided some examples. The following video excerpt is from someone that espouses this theory.

--from the video excerpt--
We are debating whether the Nile Valley Civilization was the mother civilization.
No, it was not. You are not ready. (Then shows a picture of the lost continent of Mu from the "Books of The Golden Age")
--end of video excerpt transcript--

So, in a few words, what did James postulate as the location of the birthplace of humanity?

First, James tells us on the first page of his 1927 book, 'Lost Continent of Mu Motherland of Man',

The Garden of Eden was not in Asia but on a now sunken continent in the Pacific Ocean. The biblical story of creation-the epic of the seven days and seven nights came first not from the peoples of the Nile or of the Euphrates Valley but from this now submerged continent, Mu-the Motherland of Man. These assertions can be proved by the complex records which I discovered upon long-forgotten sacred tablets in India, together with records from other countries.
In the 1931 book, 'Children of Mu,' James takes a deep dive into a discourse about the migrations of humans from Mu and on page 99 provides a map of the migrations of what he identifies as the Negroid and Carian races.

So, what does science say about where humans originated-

Humans have experience with genetics just look at the 15,000 year old tradition of breeding dogs. Starting from the wolf, humankind has created 226 different breeds that the American Kennel Club recognizes. In the 19th century Gregor Mendel's studies with pea-plants provided a clearer understanding and mathematical models to use. In 1944, DNA was isolated for the first time and scientists were able to start to look at the underlying mechanism that passed along inherited characteristics. Testing and comparing mitochondrial DNA has indicated that populations can be traced to geographical locations. Also, looking at the rate of DNA mutation has provided an indicator of the age of genes representing human populations. The combined research and study into the human genome from a number of different labs and individuals has provided us with evidence that humankind originated in Africa. The maps are representations of the migrations of human beings over tens of thousands of years.

The 'Out of Africa' theory, bolstered by the genetic evidence, appears to me to be more credible.

One sometimes-overlooked facet of the debate about Mu is that the lost continent is an outstanding place for the evidence for the creation of the species by the Supreme Being. James was an ardent creationist and nobody should be surprised if his findings further promoted that agenda. These points are mute as the evidence for man's development in Africa have been discovered since James first published his books in the mid 1920s. Lucy, the Australopithecus, was found in 1974, 38 years after James died. Whatever further evidence shaping our current understanding of the past was not available to James.

The thought that the 'Out of Africa' theory might be considered conspiratorial is remarkable. How many labs, institutions and individuals would have to conspire to falsify the data and analysis to make this outcome? Why or better yet how, would a group of the most impoverished nations on earth conspire to achieve the goal of recognizing Africa as the motherland of humanity?

Let's try to build bridges between people instead of walls and as always, thanks for listening and have a great day.

2010 Churchward & Company, Inc.