Before we delve fully within this chapter on martian life living on the red planet, we must remove any sniggers, jokes, silly grins or lopsided smiles from what on first assumption seems an unbelievable hypothesis. Therefore I would now advise you to run through the little green men stories and clear your mind so we can progress with an impartial application. If this is now done, we will proceed.

In our chapter on stars and galaxies we spoke candidly of how they might be formed. Rather than endorsing existing science on globular balls of gas we discussed the possibility on converting these to spiralling hot vortexes.

Unintentionally, some time back now, I had a quite unique and original thought. It arrived as I was pursuing the problems of Darwinian evolution. It seemed almost inconceivable to me that we could have an evolutionary structure of life, yet still postulate a belief that we are only here because we found ourselves in the right place at the right time. I thought at the point it did not sound very scientific to suggest we just got lucky, where life upon our planet was carefully constructed , moulded and shaped into such a perfect species specifically designed to undertake the most arduous task of all, survival: It initially seemed unlikely that any species would develop to such high intellectual standards as ourselves without some complete governing factor involved in the equation.

I was beginning to believe that all things happen for a reason, and to suggest we crawled Darwinian like from the sea and progressed into this elegant example on mankind presented me with some extremely difficult questions.

If as Darwin had suggested, evolution is entirely based on a progressional basis, then why are we not still observing the attributes which surround his philosophy today? It would appear, even to the trained naturalist that something must be wrong with Darwinian thought. I know the principles of natural selection are well established in the world of science and our scientific community accept them unambiguously. But in saying that, we must not forget from our other chapters Einsteinian physics is well accepted as well, and it was only by completing a thorough examination of its internal matrix that permitted us the luxury to postulate philosophy based on previous, undisclosed evidence: What we might even term impartial evidence. If that was the case for special relativity, then theoretically it should also apply to Darwinian evolution.

We are not saying either of these two theories are wrong, merely diagnostics involved have not been scrutinised with enough conviction to allow either of them to be opened up and brought forwards to a natural conclusion which satisfy's more inquiring minds.

We showed with special relativitya more lateral approach brought us within a whisker of explaining the possibility of Ufology: The only thing it lacked was a forensic examination on scientific terms. And I think Darwinian philosophy might prove just as fruitful if we take the time and trouble to inspect it more thoroughly.

If as Darwin suggested we did slowly evolve in the seas, then unsteadily at first make our way from them on to more solid land mass, and gradually, as hundreds of millions of years passed reach this conclusion, we might be forgiven for asking, why has it stopped? What brought this definitive production line to a halt, and more importantly why do we not witness a steady progressional evolution today?

That in itself becomes a phenomenal question very seldom posed in the world of academia. It is one of those questions science would rather leave out, simply because no one has come-up with a credible solution; but it is a question that needs to be explored if we are to learn that life on our earth, might be governed in a planetary evolutionary fashion that allows, not just us, but every other planet in our solar system the opportunity to produce a methodical pattern of life.