Sorry for going off-topic; but I can't help myself.
Responding to the bolded: Darwin and the Theory of Evolution is always brought up as a bedrock of modern science. However, it's ironic that Origin of Species does not actually provide anything concrete on how new species are created; but rather shows how an existing organism adapts to local conditions.
I know that can sound a bit "out there", but it really isn't. Evolution works perfectly in regards to say a wing growing more muscular over time as a species of bird is required to fly further to find food, or a beak shape changing to account for different food sources on different islands. However, it takes a tortured application of the theory to make make it account for the formation of extremely complex organs to appear suddenly, and the fossil record contradicts the application of the theory, as well.
Here's some people much smarter than myself talking about it. If you like longer videos, check it out:
I haven't watched the video, but I love this kind of stuff, so I'll be checking it out this afternoon.
You're essentially discussing the macro- versus micro-evolution hypotheses.
You are correct in some senses, but incorrect in others.
Yes, it is true that Darwinian evolution falls apart in regards to the creation of species and the formation of complex organs. But that's perfectly fine because he basically never discusses them, outside of vague philosophical discussion.
You are incorrect, though when claiming that it's difficult for organs to appear suddenly, or that the fossil record disagrees with the theory of evolution.
Organs are not the type of thing which typically survives fossilization. They're not very dense, so they break down quickly and end up vanishing from the record. That explains why we don't see them very often in regards to fossilized discoveries. As for them appearing quickly, that's perfectly in line with evolution. Radical mutations (changes) create radical differentiations among species, which is why they essentially appear 'instantly' even though they're actually following the same path as everything else.
Similarly, the vast changes in the fossil record account for this same phenomenon. It only takes one tiny little genetic mutation to account for massive phenotypic differences, and those differences could create a significantly more impressive organism (survivably-speaking) which passes genes on.
I'm very curious to see what you mean when you say the fossil record contradicts the theory of evolution, because it all fits up essentially perfectly from what I've seen. It is a theory, after all. As I said before, a theory is not some random idea posited by an aspiring student-scientist. Theories are ideas which seek to unify already-existing laws of nature. The theory itself may be wrong, it's true (albeit extremely rarely), but the laws themselves have been proven without a doubt. At this point, evolution is just as proven and reliable and measurable as something easily taken for granted, like photosynthesis.
And now, in an attempt to be even mildly on-topic, I'm not particularly surprised by a hypothesis like the one posed in the OP. The headline is shit, as usual, but the idea within the article isn't all that hard to suppose.
Stephen Hawking (I'm pretty sure it was him. If not, it was some other major scientist) posited the idea that our universe was created by a collision of other universes; or perhaps "dimensions" would be a better term to use.
Framing the situation as 'before the Big Bang' is a bit silly, because the Big Bang is what created Space-Time, and therefore there is no such thing as 'before,' but it's still an interesting idea.
I don't see why Dark Matter couldn't simply be a part of a dimension we are not privy to, which is just bleeding symptoms into our universe. It's pretty far-fetched, but it's certainly not some completely unimaginable concept. It's a bit frustrating, because that would imply the discovery of yet another facet of our universe over which we have zero control and even ability to reliably measure; but that kinda just fits in line with the other insane stuff we've discovered recently.
As a whole, I wouldn't be surprised if the hypothesis in the OP is correct, and I also wouldn't be surprised it's wildly off the mark. We in that realm, at this point, where almost any physics-based idea is possible.