View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Discuss Ancient Mysteries and Places - Atlantis, The Pyramids, Stonehenge, etc. Also Forbidden Archaeology.

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby Craig Browning » 20 Sep 2011, 05:01

CONFESSION: I just noticed this list earlier while wading through this thread. My hillbilly logic kicked in and this is what my thoughts were. . .


Have You Ever Wondered...?

Why humans use only about 10% of our massively supercharged brains, yet savants can somehow access parts of the remaining 90%
For starters the 10% thing is pure rubbish, you will find very little in the medical world let alone psychology studies & work around intelligence that comes near supporting that particular myth. While it is true, the typical human being does not effectively use the over-all capacity (potential) of the mind, they do use the whole thing (figuratively speaking – we really don’t know what “the mind” is so how can anyone actually say how much of it is or isn’t used?)


Why our skin is so poorly adapted to the amount of sunlight striking Earth?
Oi! Do some homework Winston. It’s not that our skin is “so poorly adapted” but that the various “advances” known to humankind is destroying the natural layers of protection that was once in the atmosphere. Too, the tampering with food stuffs has resulted in physical mutation factors which could include a “weakening” of skins ability to deal with natural weathering & aging.


Why we are so physically weak compared to our closest genetic relatives?
Which “closet genetic relative” are we talking about, the Pig or other primates?

Aren’t Apes stronger and more capable of doing certain things Pigs can’t? But then Dolphins are said to have genetic markers that connect them to humans, after all, they are the “2nd smartest mammal on earth”, right? But they can’t make simple tools as primates are known to do – they can’t reach or grab but they can do math and learn language. . . they can swim down incredible levels in the ocean but we can’t? Wonder if it has to do with how the physical thing – the animal – is made? What our evolutionary path brought about?

Believe it or not there are those primates that are nearly as weak as the adult male homosapien. Where’s this factoid take us on this particular fairy-tale adventure?


Why Earth is the only planet or moon with moveable tectonic plates?
Where did you get this bit of detail? I’m pretty certain you’ll find contradictions to that claim in that at least one other planet that I have vague recollection on, has a malleable surface as does one of the moons of Uranus (if I’m remembering my TV shows – Science Channel – correctly). Too, there is known “volcanic” activity on certain planets which would suggest tectonic activity of some form.


Why Earth’s moon is so extraordinarily outsized relative to other moons?
Not certain I understand why this is an issue given the leading theories as to how the moon happened; to my mind there’s nothing out of place or mystical about it in that it developed in a manner that’s slightly different than the other moons; while the other moons were made primarily from collected particles that slowly turned into a spherical shape (in most cases) the Earth’s moon started off as being a big hunk of earth itself and most likely, part of another planet which collided with us a few billion or so years back. It moved into orbit and only then began to collect stray space rocks as it solidified. Science isn’t certain that the moon has a solidified core as of yet. . . at least that’s what I understand.


Why megalithic structures like the Pyramids cannot be duplicated today?
Hmmm. . . we have pyramid buildings all over the world now days, the Luxor Hotel-Casino in Las Vegas being built to the dimensions of the Great Pyramid. What we have had problems with is the volume and being able to efficiently circulate air in such structures (they create a massive “dead space” that can feel exceptionally oppressive and at the same time creates a kind of time distortion for people exposed to the central area for an extended or repeated periods of time.

Building a stone Pyramid like the others simply has no logical or economic reason behind it but I’ll lay money on it, modern engineers could make it happen if a dollar were to be made from the endeavor. Our “inability” to build such icons is based on our being able to do so using the tools and technology of that age – it defies our rationale because of the immense size of such projects and the rapidity by which the projects were completed. This is especially true when it comes to top beams that way 16 + tons, such as we have with Stonehenge.

So yes, we can replicate these things we just question how it would be possible to do so using the bare bone basics we assume our ancestors had available to use. Because of this mystery idle minds conclude one of two paths; Magickal Manipulation or Alternative Consciousness’s (ET and his Lizard People buddies). Stonehenge came about as Merlin played his flute and caused the stones to dance across the continent and into place; the Pyramid stones were moved by way of chanting – creating vibrations levels that would make the stones levitate and move into place. . .

NOT!


How the ancient Sumerians could know Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto existed when we discovered Uranus only in 1781, Neptune in 1846, and Pluto in 1930?
It’s quite possible that those “stars” were visible in ancient times during key seasons, just as Venus & Mars do their thing. There are tales in Egyptian mythos about the day the earth moved and this is what cast certain stars into the Underworld. . . interestingly their tale coincides with similar tales from other major cultures that created the same idea at around the same time. Too, we know that our solar system is expanding; even the moon is much further away from us now than it would have been 3,000+ years ago . . . as would other major celestial bodies.

This is strictly my hypothesis based on what I know of the situations in question; from the more mystical side of things I would have to suggest that the shaman of the day found these planets as the result of Astral Travel (something the Dogman tribe swears to be true. . . their cave drawings revealing astronomical movement and rotations we’re only just now discovering. Legend stating that it was knowledge gleaned by traveling from within)


How and why the Sumerians kept cosmic time in units of almost 26,000 years?
Reading Blavatsky?

Several ancient cultures have similar time tables that were all created by very natural means without the aid of talking Lizards or some kind of incantation. If you could put on their shoes it would be relatively easy for you to see how true “meditation” and internal thought allowed them to find particular “solutions”. Just like today’s scientist the ancients merely asked WHY? and kept asking it until they got answers – solutions that fit, based on their era, culture and understanding of things. Over time much of what was first seen and understood would be lost, changed, and understanding of it becoming more of a challenge, but then time would come when others that knew about such things would be able to see it, discern it and preserve it.


Why humans have a gene pool with over 4000 genetic defects, while our closest genetic relatives, chimps and gorillas, have very few?
As noted, we are more closely related to Pigs than we are Apes, stop letting physical traits mislead you. While they are a fore certain cousin, they are not our brothers & sisters or parents when it comes to certain details. What’s ironic is the fact that South Pacific Cannibals had a name for humans that translates to mean “Long Pork” – the texture of our hide and meat is very similar to pig. . . think on this as you enjoy that next ham sandwich. . .

I’d say that part of the reason for the defects starts with the amount of in-breeding the human race is guilty of but likewise, parts of our developmental process require exchange/trade-offs. To be a super-brain, which is our biggest strength, we became deficient in other areas genetically, it’s that simple.


Why the human genome clocks is only about 200,000 years old but anthropologists insist we descend from creatures 6.0 million years old?
Not exactly sure what this is referring to, seems like a handful of straw to me.


Why humans in no way resemble those ancient so-called “pre”-humans?
Exsqueeze me?

When was the last time you looked at an Evolutionary Morph Graph?

Once we move into the primate look-alike stage we resemble every one of our ancestors. More so, if you watch an embryo develop you will see them move through the entire evolutionary chain. So much so that some are actually born with a “tail” – a short extension of the spine just above the anus; I know because two of my three step-children had this “birth defect” but the carnival Side Show market has likewise exploited such traits when found pronounced.


Why humans have 46 chromosomes while our closest genetic relatives (sharing over 95% of our DNA) total 48?
Dunno. . . but I’m betting that we are comparing more apples to oranges again.
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA






Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby ProfWag » 20 Sep 2011, 07:16

Wow Craig, that sure was a lot of time spent on an obviously uninformed author. I saw the first comment about the 10% of the brain, realized that Mr. Pye didn't do any research before writing his book, and moved on to other things. Thanks for the time spent clarifying though.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby Craig Browning » 21 Sep 2011, 00:51

ProfWag wrote:Wow Craig, that sure was a lot of time spent on an obviously uninformed author. I saw the first comment about the 10% of the brain, realized that Mr. Pye didn't do any research before writing his book, and moved on to other things. Thanks for the time spent clarifying though.


:oops: Part of it was a matter of "therapy" for me but too, I wanted "certain people who shant be named" to pause and consider (if possible) some of the horribly misrepresented material they get sucked in by and how it is seen in the real world, outside the one they've imprisoned themselves with.

I've seen far too many people (my kid brother in particular) get sucked in on this sort of ignorant hype and watched as it destroyed lives just like Alcoholism or Drug Addiction will do. It's insanity and it really pisses me off. :evil:
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby Arouet » 21 Sep 2011, 01:00

Wasn't Lloyd Pie supposed to have his next set of testing done by now that was supposed to be definitive?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby skysurfer » 11 Jun 2012, 15:01

After reading (in June 2012) the rebuttal of Lloyd Pye's views by Arouet back in Oct 2010 I wrote to Lloyd asking him for a response.
Unfortunately I hadn't seen the second rebuttal by Craig Browning on the second page of this thread.

Anyway here is Lloyd's reponse - in block capitals - to Arouet's points.

by Arouet » Wed Oct 13, 2010 12:12 pm

Scepcop wrote:He has many strong arguments. Examples:

http://www.lloydpye.com/eykiw.htm


Have You Ever Wondered...?

Why humans use only about 10% of our massively supercharged brains, yet savants can somehow access parts of the remaining 90%

Why our skin is so poorly adapted to the amount of sunlight striking Earth?

Why we are so physically weak compared to our closest genetic relatives?

Why Earth is the only planet or moon with moveable tectonic plates?

Why Earth’s moon is so extraordinarily outsized relative to other moons?

Why megalithic structures like the Pyramids cannot be duplicated today?

How the ancient Sumerians could know Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto existed when we discovered Uranus only in 1781, Neptune in 1846, and Pluto in 1930?

How and why the Sumerians kept cosmic time in units of almost 26,000 years?

Why humans have a gene pool with over 4000 genetic defects, while our closest genetic relatives, chimps and gorillas, have very few?

Why the human genome clocks is only about 200,000 years old but anthropologists insist we descend from creatures 6.0 million years old?

Why humans in no way resemble those ancient so-called “pre”-humans?

Why humans have 46 chromosomes while our closest genetic relatives (sharing over 95% of our DNA) total 48?

ALL OF THESE WERE WRITTEN IN 1996 AND PUBLISHED IN 1997, 15 YEARS AGO. THE BASIC KNOWLEDGE BEHIND SOME OF THESE STATEMENTS MIGHT HAVE CHANGED IN 15 YEARS. LET'S SEE......


Did you see his video I posted above about human genetics?


I did look at his video, now, I'm not evolutionary biologist, but compared to either hearing or reading real evolutionary biologists such as Dawkins, his knowledge seems basic and uninformed. There is a reason that people study years to properly learn how to analyse this stuff.

WHAT PEOPLE LIKE DAWKINS LEARN IN YEARS OF STUDY IS HOW TO ANALYZE EVERY CHIP OF BARK ON ONE TREE IN A VAST FOREST. THEIR MASTERY OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THEIR TREE LEADS THEM, AND APPARENTLY YOU, TO BELIEVE THEY SOMEHOW OSMOTICALLY UNDERSTAND EVERY OTHER TREE IN THE FOREST. I BEG TO DIFFER.

Those questions start off poorly with the debunked myth that we only use 10% of our brain. Neurologists do not believe this. The question of savants is, indeed, interesting - I listened to a podcast recently discussing savants: they don't use "more" of their brain, they use their brians differently - and usually its at the detriment of one part of their brain which gets compensated from another part (such as with autisticTh savants). But MRI technology clearly shows that we use our whole brains.

SO FAR AS I KNOW, NO EARLY RESEARCHER INTO THIS PROBLEM EVER SAID THE "10%" FIGURE WAS A LITERAL PERCENTAGE OF HOW MUCH OF OUR BRAINS ARE ACTIVE AT ANY TIME. THIS HAS BECOME A RECENT DISTORTION OF THE ORIGINAL RESEARCH TO MAKE IT SEEM IN ERROR. THE ORIGINAL MEANING IS EXACTLY THE CONTEXT IN WHICH I USE IT. THE EARLY RESEARCHERS, AND ME, CONTEND THAT HUMANS HAVE ACCESS TO ONLY 10% OF OUR OVERALL INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY.

THIS 10% FIGURE CAME ABOUT AFTER STUDY OF THE FIRST COUPLE DOZEN SAVANTS SHOWED THAT ALL OF THEM WERE GETTING SMALL GLIMPSES INTO SOME VAST UNKNOWN REGION OF MENTAL CAPACITY CARRIED IN, OR IN SOME WAY ACCESSED BY, THE HEADS OF ALL HUMAN BEINGS. THAT GLIMPSE COST THEM A GREAT DEAL OF FUNCTIONALITY IN THE "NORMAL" AREAS OF THEIR BRAINS, THE AREAS WHERE THE REST OF US ARE FORCED TO SPEND OUR TIME AND ENERGY, BUT THE FACT THAT SO MANY SAVANTS WERE GRANTED SUCH A WIDE RANGE OF ASTOUNDING MENTAL ABILITIES LED EARLY RESEARCHERS TO CONCLUDE THE OBVIOUS, WHICH IS THAT "NORMAL" HUMANS CAN ACCESS ONLY A VERY SMALL PART OF THEIR FULL MENTAL CAPACITY. IN FACT, 10% IS A GROSSLY UPSIDE PROJECTION. FROM WHAT I CAN TELL FROM THIS RESEARCH, WE COULD HAVE ACCESS TO 1% OR LESS OF WHAT WE MIGHT HAVE IF THE GENETIC "BLOCKAGES" IN OUR BRAINS CAN EVER BE REMOVED. BUT THAT WILL TAKE ACCESSING GREAT SWATHS OF THE "SEALED OFF" PARTS OF OUR BRAINPOWER, AND WHO KNOWS HOW LONG IT WILL BE BEFORE WE BEGIN TO RECOVER OUR FULLEST CAPACITY?

AGAIN, LET ME BE CLEAR BECAUSE THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. THE DISCUSSION IS NOT ABOUT USE OF THE PHYSICAL AREAS OF THE BRAIN. EVERYONE REALIZES AND ACCEPTS THAT ALL PARTS OF THE BRAIN CAN BE USED AT ANY TIME, BUT OBVIOUSLY NOT ALL AT ONCE. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ACCESSING THE SOFTWARE THAT THE HARDWARE OF THE BRAIN ITSELF CAN SOMEHOW ACCESS. THINK OF IT THAT WAY. THE BRAIN IS YOUR HARDWARE, AND OUR FULLEST MENTAL CAPACITY IS A "CLOUD" OUT THERE, SOMEWHERE, THAT THE HARDWARE CAN ACCESS AT AN EXTREMELY LIMITED LEVEL. BUT THERE MUST BE SWITCHES AND LEVERS IN THE HARDWARE THAT WE CAN "THROW" IN ORDER TO ACCESS MORE AND MORE OF THE CLOUD OF INTELLIGENCE, WHICH WE CAN CALL OUR "MORPHIC FIELD" TO GIVE RUPERT SHELDRAKE A NOD. IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS, THIS IS PROBABLY A WASTE OF TIME.

Didn't our skin only become poorly adaptive to the amount of sun hitting the earth when we opened a hole in our ozone layer letting in excess radiation? And who knows, give it few 10s of 1000s of years and we might do just fine with less ozone!

THE ORIGINAL HUMANS ON EARTH, BLACKS IN SOUTHERN AFRICA ABOUT 200,000 YEARS AGO, HAD SKIN THAT WAS REASONABLY WELL ADAPTED TO SUN EXPOSURE IF THEY WERE OUT IN THE SUN CONSISTENTLY. BLACK SKIN WILL DEFINITELY SUNBURN IF NOT PROPERLY ACCLIMATED TO A GREAT DEAL OF SUN, BUT WHEN PROPERLY ACCLIMATED, IT FUNCTIONS WELL ENOUGH. SO WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE LIGHTER SHADES OF SKIN? WELL, IT SEEMS TO BE MIXED IN WITH THE STRANGE FACT THAT OUR BODIES DON'T PRODUCE VITAMIN D, AS OUR SUPPOSEDLY CLOSE RELATIVES, THE PRIMATES, CLEARLY DO. SO WHAT HAPPENED? WHY DID WE GIVE UP INTERNAL PRODUCTION FOR EXTERNAL CAPTURE AND UTILIZATION THROUGH THE SKIN? HOW WAS THAT AN ADAPTIVE IMPROVEMENT? NOBODY HAS A GOOD ANSWER. ALL OF IT IS JUST ONE LONG SERIES OF PROBLEMS THAT NOBODY CAN EXPLAIN, INCLUDING ME.

Aren't we weaker compared to our closest relatives due to the use of tools? Humans just don't need such big muscles in order to survive.

THIS ANSWER FOR OUR 5-10 FOLD LOSS OF STRENGTH IS LAUGHABLE. WHEN WE SUPPOSEDLY CAME DOWN OUT OF TREES TO TRY TO MAKE OUR WAY OUT ON THE SAVANNAS OF AFRICA, WE NEEDED EVERY OUNCE OF STRENGTH WE COULD MUSTER. WE WERE WALKING SKIN BAGS OF FOOD TO THE BIG CATS OUT THERE. NO CLAWS, NO FANGS, NO TOUGH HIDE TO CHEW THROUGH. WE WERE CHERRIES ON THE SODA OF WILDEBEESTS AND RHINOS. SO TO GIVE UP SO MUCH STRENGTH WAS ANOTHER ADAPTIVE INSANITY. WHY WOULD WE DO IT?

IN FACT, WHY WOULD WE NOT GAIN STRENGTH IN ABUNDANCE TO GIVE OURSELVES A FIGHTING CHANCE AGAINST PREDATORS? REMEMBER, THERE WERE SUPPOSEDLY MILLIONS OF YEARS WHERE PREHUMANS HAD TO COPE WITH HARDCORE PREDATORS THAT WOULD HAVE SEEN THEM AS ONE OF THE EASIEST FOODS TO RUN DOWN AND CONSUME. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. WE'VE HAD TOOLS FOR AN INCREDIBLY SHORT TIME BY COMPARISON, AND IT DOESN'T SEEM REMOTELY POSSIBLE THAT WE WOULD LOSE SO MUCH STRENGTH IN SUCH A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. KEEP IN MIND, TOO, THAT SKELETONS AND MUSCLES WORK IN ABSOLUTE CONJUNCTION. BIG MUSCLES REQUIRE BIG SKELETONS, WHICH APES HAVE. SMALL MUSCLES ATTACH TO THINNER AND WEAKER BONES. WHICH REDUCED FIRST? THE MUSCLES OR THE BONES? AND IF THEY DID IT IN ABOSLUTE CONCERT, HOW WAS THAT COORDINATED? WHAT WAS THE INITIATING FACTOR, OR FACTORS? TOOLS? I DON'T THINK SO. YOU NEED SOMETHING LESS SIMPLISTIC TO EXPLAIN THIS.

Who says that the earth is the only planet with movable tectonic plates? From wiki:


The appearance of plate tectonics on terrestrial planets is related to planetary mass, with more massive planets than Earth expected to exhibit plate tectonics. Earth may be a borderline case, owing its tectonic activity to abundant water (Valencia, O'Connell & Sasselov 2007)[63]


The article says that they have found evidence of suspected plate tectonics on Titan. That there may have been plate tectonics on Venus at one point (but this is still being debated). Some scientists think there may be tectonics on Mars (though it seems most disagree). There may be evidence of tectonic movement on some of the Jupiter's satellites. And it is theorized that many planets around other stars will have plate tectonics. Our sample size is very small here on earth, and there are billions upon billions of planets out there. Quite a strange comment for Pye to make.

NOT STRANGE AT ALL. AS OF 15 YEARS AGO, AND AS OF TODAY, AS YOUR OWN MATERIAL CONFIRMS, THERE IS NO KNOWN AND ACCEPTED EXAMPLE OF PLATE TECTONICS OTHER THAN EARTH. THERE IS CONSIDERABLE SPECULATION, AS YOU RIGHTLY POINT OUT, BUT THAT'S ALL IT IS. AND LET ME ADD AN IMPORTANT FACT THAT IS EXTREMELY WELL PROVED. IN A VACUUM LIKE SPACE, WHEN ANY LIQUID, FLUID, OR VISCOUS SUBSTANCE IS LET LOOSE (AS IN THE SPACE SHUTTLE, WHERE THIS WAS PROVED TIME AND AGAIN), THAT MATERIAL WILL INVARIABLY PULL ITSELF INTO THE TIGHTEST GLOBULAR MASS IT CAN FORM ITSELF INTO. THIS WOULD BE TRUE FOR ANY OTHER SUPPOSEDLY VISCOUS SUBSTANCE LIKE A CONGEALING PLANET OR MOON OR ANY OTHER PROTOPLANETARY BODY THAT WAS SUPPOSEDLY VISCOUS BEFORE HARDENING INTO THE PLANETARY BODIES AS WE KNOW THEM TODAY. SO I THINK THE ACTUAL FACTS ARE ON MY SIDE, AND I WIN THIS ONE IN A WALKAWAY.

Why is Earth's moon outsized compared to other moons? What does that even mean? From listening to astronmy cast, there are some pretty big moons out there! Does Pye even know what a moon is? Again from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_satellite


The large gas giants have extensive systems of moons, including half a dozen comparable in size to Earth's moon: the four Galilean moons, Saturn's Titan, and Neptune's Triton

DID YOU EVEN READ WHAT I WROTE? WHY IS THE MOON SO OUTSIZED (AND, FOR THE SLOW CROWD, I GUESS I SHOULD HAVE ADDED "COMPARED TO THE EARTH") RELATIVE TO OTHER MOONS (AND, BY COROLLARY, "COMPARED TO THEIR PLANETS")? SO, YES, FROM A TECHNICAL STANDPOINT I COULD HAVE BEEN A BIT CLEARER, BUT I DO THINK MOST PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT AND THE MEANING OF WHAT I WROTE.


Why can't we duplicate the Pyramids? Who says we can't? Just because no one has decided to do it? Why would someone want to build something like that using the techniques from back then?

THIS IS THE MOST ABSURDLY IMPLAUSIBLE STATEMENT IN THE LOT. IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE CREATION OF THE PYRAMIDS IN EARTHLY TERMS, YOU REALLY HAVE NO BUSINESS COMMENTING ON IT. THIS IS A SUBJECT YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT.

I don't know a lot about the sumerians: how reliable is the hypothesis that they knew about uranus, neptune and pluto?

ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS READ THE TRANSLATIONS OF THEIR TEXTS.

What reason does Pye have to believe that the great apes don't have many genetic defects? I would imagine that we know a heck of a lot more about human genetic defects for obvious reasons, but this study suggests that we share some pretty major defects with our cousins: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11350162


J Mol Biol. 2001 May 11;308(4):587-96.
Human genetic disorders, a phylogenetic perspective.

Martinez J, Dugaiczyk LJ, Zielinski R, Dugaiczyk A.

Department of Biochemistry, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA.
Abstract

When viewed from the perspective of time, human genetic disorders give new insights into their etiology and evolution. Here, we have correlated a specific set of Alu repetitive DNA elements, known to be the basis of certain genetic defects, with their phylogenetic roots in primate evolution. From a differential distribution of Alu repeats among primate species, we identify the phylogenetic roots of three human genetic diseases involving the LPL, ApoB, and HPRT genes. The different phylogenetic age of these genetic disorders could explain the different susceptibility of various primate species to genetic diseases. Our results show that LPL deficiency is the oldest and should affect humans, apes, and monkeys. ApoB deficiency should affect humans and great apes, while a disorder in the HPRT gene (leading to the Lesch-Nyhan syndrome) is unique to human, chimpanzee, and gorilla. Similar results can be obtained for cancer. We submit that de novo transpositions of Alu elements, and saltatory appearances of Alu-mediated genetic disorders, represent singularities, places where behavior changes suddenly. Alus' propensity to spread, not only increased the regulatory and developmental complexity of the primate genome, it also increased its instability and susceptibility to genetic defects and cancer. The dynamic spread not only provided markers of primate phylogeny, it must have actively shaped the course of that phylogeny.



The last three go beyond what I know about offhand, but given his treatment of the others, what do you think the odds are that those will hold up if I actually dig into them.

DIG AWAY, MY FRIEND. SEE IF YOU CAN FIND ANYWHERE IN THE BALLPARK OF OVER 4,000 GENETIC DISORDERS IN ANY PRIMATE AT ALL. OKAY? SERIOUSLY. HAVE FUN! I KNOW YOU WILL.... ;-)

Scepcop, you've got to be careful with your heros. Beware of flashy presentations in youtube videos. Pye is filled with errors to the point that a lay person like me can dig them up with relative ease. Read a book on evolution, see the detail they go into. You will see the difference between them and anomaly hunters like Pye, who with all due respect, don't match up. This isn't an insult: PHds for example, go through an incredible amount of training into research methodology and the scientific method.

PH.D.S ARE, FOR THE MOST PART, OBEDIENT DRONES WHO HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY BRAINWASHED BY A SYSTEM THAT DOES NOT ALLOW STRONGLY INDEPENDENT THINKERS TO PASS INTO THEIR RANKS. THIS IS HOW THEY MAINSTAIN DISCIPLINE, AND THIS IS HOW PEOPLE LIKE YOU COME TO THINK THEY ARE NEARLY INFALLABLE, WHEN IN FACT THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF SCIENCE, RIGHT TO THIS VERY MOMENT, IS ONE LONG, UNENDING STRING OF HURRIEDLY CORRECTED COLOSSALLY BONEHEADED MISTAKES.

THE NEXT TIME YOU COME TO A GUNFIGHT, BRING MORE THAN A KNIFE......
skysurfer
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 27 Oct 2010, 18:36

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby Arouet » 11 Jun 2012, 19:23

What do you think of those replies, skysurfer?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby skysurfer » 11 Jun 2012, 23:30

Hi Arouet,
You ask what I think of Lloyd's reply.

I think it's more relevant to ask what YOU think because he was responding specifically to your points.

To be honest - although I have followed the Starchild issue closely for many years - these biological matters of DNA etc etc are not my studied subjects, so I feel under-qualified to pronounce on them.

What I will say is that having known and respected Lloyd's tenancity over Starchild and his obvious devotion to the study of homonoids and many related alternative subjects, I have no doubt in considering the possible validity of his views alongside others.

Frankly I don't believe he would have given up such a huge chunk of his life over this unless there was 'something in it'.

I also have since drawn Lloyd's attention to the second criticism of his view by Craig Browning.

He understandably argues that he can't give up valuable time compiling responses to every knocker but he did fire off one comment aimed at Craig.

He writes:
"You come at your knowledge base through a filter that utterly blocks out what I use to overlay all that you use. I have a much broader range of information to draw from because you've narrowed your own to only "received wisdom" from the poobahs of science. You have to drop the blinders that sheild out the broader range of information before you have any chance to grasp even a scintilla of actual truth about the world you live in."
skysurfer
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 27 Oct 2010, 18:36

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby Arouet » 12 Jun 2012, 01:42

skysurfer wrote:WHAT PEOPLE LIKE DAWKINS LEARN IN YEARS OF STUDY IS HOW TO ANALYZE EVERY CHIP OF BARK ON ONE TREE IN A VAST FOREST. THEIR MASTERY OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THEIR TREE LEADS THEM, AND APPARENTLY YOU, TO BELIEVE THEY SOMEHOW OSMOTICALLY UNDERSTAND EVERY OTHER TREE IN THE FOREST. I BEG TO DIFFER.


No real content here - I'm not sure what this is saying. Is he alluding to the fact that there can be variations in nature?


SO FAR AS I KNOW, NO EARLY RESEARCHER INTO THIS PROBLEM EVER SAID THE "10%" FIGURE WAS A LITERAL PERCENTAGE OF HOW MUCH OF OUR BRAINS ARE ACTIVE AT ANY TIME. THIS HAS BECOME A RECENT DISTORTION OF THE ORIGINAL RESEARCH TO MAKE IT SEEM IN ERROR. THE ORIGINAL MEANING IS EXACTLY THE CONTEXT IN WHICH I USE IT. THE EARLY RESEARCHERS, AND ME, CONTEND THAT HUMANS HAVE ACCESS TO ONLY 10% OF OUR OVERALL INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY.


First of all, he might consider not using the wording of common myths if he doesn't want to be confused with believing them. But this doesn't get away from the basic problem which is whether his statement is true? Early neuroscientists may have believed that claim, but do neuroscientists today? I'm not a expert on this, but my understanding is that the current thought is that when the brain is injured or less function in some ways, this can sometimes result in more resources being pumped to other areas of the brain, sometimes resulting in extroadinary talent, or memory, etc. Pye doesn't address this at all in his reply

THIS 10% FIGURE CAME ABOUT AFTER STUDY OF THE FIRST COUPLE DOZEN SAVANTS SHOWED THAT ALL OF THEM WERE GETTING SMALL GLIMPSES INTO SOME VAST UNKNOWN REGION OF MENTAL CAPACITY CARRIED IN, OR IN SOME WAY ACCESSED BY, THE HEADS OF ALL HUMAN BEINGS. THAT GLIMPSE COST THEM A GREAT DEAL OF FUNCTIONALITY IN THE "NORMAL" AREAS OF THEIR BRAINS, THE AREAS WHERE THE REST OF US ARE FORCED TO SPEND OUR TIME AND ENERGY, BUT THE FACT THAT SO MANY SAVANTS WERE GRANTED SUCH A WIDE RANGE OF ASTOUNDING MENTAL ABILITIES LED EARLY RESEARCHERS TO CONCLUDE THE OBVIOUS, WHICH IS THAT "NORMAL" HUMANS CAN ACCESS ONLY A VERY SMALL PART OF THEIR FULL MENTAL CAPACITY. IN FACT, 10% IS A GROSSLY UPSIDE PROJECTION. FROM WHAT I CAN TELL FROM THIS RESEARCH, WE COULD HAVE ACCESS TO 1% OR LESS OF WHAT WE MIGHT HAVE IF THE GENETIC "BLOCKAGES" IN OUR BRAINS CAN EVER BE REMOVED. BUT THAT WILL TAKE ACCESSING GREAT SWATHS OF THE "SEALED OFF" PARTS OF OUR BRAINPOWER, AND WHO KNOWS HOW LONG IT WILL BE BEFORE WE BEGIN TO RECOVER OUR FULLEST CAPACITY?


He only mentions the early research -perhaps he has more recent researcher that he just didn't refer to in a quick email.

AGAIN, LET ME BE CLEAR BECAUSE THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. THE DISCUSSION IS NOT ABOUT USE OF THE PHYSICAL AREAS OF THE BRAIN. EVERYONE REALIZES AND ACCEPTS THAT ALL PARTS OF THE BRAIN CAN BE USED AT ANY TIME, BUT OBVIOUSLY NOT ALL AT ONCE. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ACCESSING THE SOFTWARE THAT THE HARDWARE OF THE BRAIN ITSELF CAN SOMEHOW ACCESS. THINK OF IT THAT WAY. THE BRAIN IS YOUR HARDWARE, AND OUR FULLEST MENTAL CAPACITY IS A "CLOUD" OUT THERE, SOMEWHERE, THAT THE HARDWARE CAN ACCESS AT AN EXTREMELY LIMITED LEVEL. BUT THERE MUST BE SWITCHES AND LEVERS IN THE HARDWARE THAT WE CAN "THROW" IN ORDER TO ACCESS MORE AND MORE OF THE CLOUD OF INTELLIGENCE, WHICH WE CAN CALL OUR "MORPHIC FIELD" TO GIVE RUPERT SHELDRAKE A NOD. IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS, THIS IS PROBABLY A WASTE OF TIME.


He doesn't address how the brain would get more power to access these greater capacities - if the power source is not there, then I'm not sure how it makes sense to talk about what our overall capacity being 10 times more than current.

THE ORIGINAL HUMANS ON EARTH, BLACKS IN SOUTHERN AFRICA ABOUT 200,000 YEARS AGO, HAD SKIN THAT WAS REASONABLY WELL ADAPTED TO SUN EXPOSURE IF THEY WERE OUT IN THE SUN CONSISTENTLY. BLACK SKIN WILL DEFINITELY SUNBURN IF NOT PROPERLY ACCLIMATED TO A GREAT DEAL OF SUN, BUT WHEN PROPERLY ACCLIMATED, IT FUNCTIONS WELL ENOUGH. SO WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE LIGHTER SHADES OF SKIN? WELL, IT SEEMS TO BE MIXED IN WITH THE STRANGE FACT THAT OUR BODIES DON'T PRODUCE VITAMIN D, AS OUR SUPPOSEDLY CLOSE RELATIVES, THE PRIMATES, CLEARLY DO. SO WHAT HAPPENED? WHY DID WE GIVE UP INTERNAL PRODUCTION FOR EXTERNAL CAPTURE AND UTILIZATION THROUGH THE SKIN? HOW WAS THAT AN ADAPTIVE IMPROVEMENT? NOBODY HAS A GOOD ANSWER. ALL OF IT IS JUST ONE LONG SERIES OF PROBLEMS THAT NOBODY CAN EXPLAIN, INCLUDING ME.


I'm not sure his point here. Let's accept that for the sake of the argument that the evolutionary path has not been traced. What conclusions can we draw from that?

THIS ANSWER FOR OUR 5-10 FOLD LOSS OF STRENGTH IS LAUGHABLE. WHEN WE SUPPOSEDLY CAME DOWN OUT OF TREES TO TRY TO MAKE OUR WAY OUT ON THE SAVANNAS OF AFRICA, WE NEEDED EVERY OUNCE OF STRENGTH WE COULD MUSTER. WE WERE WALKING SKIN BAGS OF FOOD TO THE BIG CATS OUT THERE. NO CLAWS, NO FANGS, NO TOUGH HIDE TO CHEW THROUGH. WE WERE CHERRIES ON THE SODA OF WILDEBEESTS AND RHINOS. SO TO GIVE UP SO MUCH STRENGTH WAS ANOTHER ADAPTIVE INSANITY. WHY WOULD WE DO IT?


First of all - Pye is referring to natural selection in the language of choice. That's not really how NS works. It's about traits that get passed down. However, pushing that aside, he's again ignore our use of tools - such as weapons - which did not require as much strength to protect ourselves/

IN FACT, WHY WOULD WE NOT GAIN STRENGTH IN ABUNDANCE TO GIVE OURSELVES A FIGHTING CHANCE AGAINST PREDATORS?


Again, not sure if understands how natural selection works - there are any number of mutations that may have been beneficial and enhanced survival but didn't happen. He's also not looking at the overall resources required. When one part of the body starts using more resources there may be a cost to other parts of the body.

NOT STRANGE AT ALL. AS OF 15 YEARS AGO, AND AS OF TODAY, AS YOUR OWN MATERIAL CONFIRMS, THERE IS NO KNOWN AND ACCEPTED EXAMPLE OF PLATE TECTONICS OTHER THAN EARTH. THERE IS CONSIDERABLE SPECULATION, AS YOU RIGHTLY POINT OUT, BUT THAT'S ALL IT IS. AND LET ME ADD AN IMPORTANT FACT THAT IS EXTREMELY WELL PROVED. IN A VACUUM LIKE SPACE, WHEN ANY LIQUID, FLUID, OR VISCOUS SUBSTANCE IS LET LOOSE (AS IN THE SPACE SHUTTLE, WHERE THIS WAS PROVED TIME AND AGAIN), THAT MATERIAL WILL INVARIABLY PULL ITSELF INTO THE TIGHTEST GLOBULAR MASS IT CAN FORM ITSELF INTO. THIS WOULD BE TRUE FOR ANY OTHER SUPPOSEDLY VISCOUS SUBSTANCE LIKE A CONGEALING PLANET OR MOON OR ANY OTHER PROTOPLANETARY BODY THAT WAS SUPPOSEDLY VISCOUS BEFORE HARDENING INTO THE PLANETARY BODIES AS WE KNOW THEM TODAY. SO I THINK THE ACTUAL FACTS ARE ON MY SIDE, AND I WIN THIS ONE IN A WALKAWAY.


Gosh, he's all over the place here. On tectonics, Pye drew conclusions about the Earth being the only planet with plate tectonics. Whether or not we've confirmed it on other planets, the question is why presume that no other planets have them, which is what Pye seems to be doing. He's got the argument from ignorance all mixed up

DID YOU EVEN READ WHAT I WROTE? WHY IS THE MOON SO OUTSIZED (AND, FOR THE SLOW CROWD, I GUESS I SHOULD HAVE ADDED "COMPARED TO THE EARTH") RELATIVE TO OTHER MOONS (AND, BY COROLLARY, "COMPARED TO THEIR PLANETS")? SO, YES, FROM A TECHNICAL STANDPOINT I COULD HAVE BEEN A BIT CLEARER, BUT I DO THINK MOST PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT AND THE MEANING OF WHAT I WROTE.


He's basing this on a tiny tiny sample of the billions and billions of planets out there. That's the point.

THE MOST ABSURDLY IMPLAUSIBLE STATEMENT IN THE LOT. IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE CREATION OF THE PYRAMIDS IN EARTHLY TERMS, YOU REALLY HAVE NO BUSINESS COMMENTING ON IT. THIS IS A SUBJECT YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT.


There are plenty of hypotheses and records from that time, AFAIK. This is not such a mystery. I guess we could go into it but its a boring topic.

PH.D.S ARE, FOR THE MOST PART, OBEDIENT DRONES WHO HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY BRAINWASHED BY A SYSTEM THAT DOES NOT ALLOW STRONGLY INDEPENDENT THINKERS TO PASS INTO THEIR RANKS. THIS IS HOW THEY MAINSTAIN DISCIPLINE, AND THIS IS HOW PEOPLE LIKE YOU COME TO THINK THEY ARE NEARLY INFALLABLE, WHEN IN FACT THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF SCIENCE, RIGHT TO THIS VERY MOMENT, IS ONE LONG, UNENDING STRING OF HURRIEDLY CORRECTED COLOSSALLY BONEHEADED MISTAKES.

THE NEXT TIME YOU COME TO A GUNFIGHT, BRING MORE THAN A KNIFE......


The only point to discuss here is that science has often got it wrong and must be corrected - yes ,that's part of the process and not a negative part at that.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby KimberlyHardacre » 05 Aug 2012, 16:18

yea, wikipedia tends to get off the road sometimes with its confusing and misleading articles(sometimes) but at the end of the day, it is quite helpful :D
User avatar
KimberlyHardacre
 
Posts: 15
Joined: 04 Aug 2012, 21:01

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby fatgoat » 12 Oct 2012, 10:30

Arouet, its not that anyone ingnored your opinions.
Just that they were just that "opinions" and your link smells of government/public education. Is it worth mentioning that your c+p was riddled with should, could, may, and theorized "theories=opinions" just like Pye The difference beingthat Pye seems to try make it easy to understand, with little support compared to the goverment supported researchers.. makes more sense to me No long winded selective, deceiving clever wording.

In fact if I had a name in the scientific community or millions to spend, I would support Lloyd Pye knowing well i would be ridiculed forever by mainstream media and scientific communities. I am far from convinced by the existing theories of our origins despite the counless years and dollars and most importantly consent to support it.
Most of us are aware of whats already believed and whats in the works, for it is widely published unlike the true pursuits of truth.
We live in a world where phamaceutical companies make billions of making people sicker while oppresing many cures from nature or (god)?
Wars for profit..? Mass madness and people like Pye are at least trying to fix this not just join the crowd and point fingers, your just helping remind us how brainwashed you all are.
People are still enslaved to the few who have the most money, these people obscure most of the truth, especially our origins, thus life as we know it continues
Who said "It must be hard for those who take authority as the truth intead of the truth as the authority"?
User avatar
fatgoat
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 12 Oct 2012, 09:58

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby fatgoat » 12 Oct 2012, 10:35

Lloyd Pye doesn't debunk his critics. He just picks apart the parts of their arguments that can't be proved one way or another and shifts his theories when the critics explain away his claims.

Take the Star Child nonesense. Pye claims that the skull has been shown to have evidence of female DNa and thus has a human mother. That's a logical conclusion. He then says that they haven't been able to extract male human DNA and therefore the father must be an alien. That's a completely illogical argument and really really bad science.

His agument relies on the basis that things that can't be found or explained must therefore be alien, which is stupid.

You dont seem to notice mainstream science is just that... if you dont know the answer, make a theory and try prove, why is it only a problem for you now...
is it because this contradicts your opinion? "theory" of evolution... big band "theory" LOL
User avatar
fatgoat
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 12 Oct 2012, 09:58

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby NinjaPuppy » 12 Oct 2012, 19:52

Welcome fatgoat.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby really? » 12 Oct 2012, 21:54

Scepcop wrote:Arouet, you are just speculating and dismissing the big questions and giving copouts. There are many things you can't explain by Darwinism.

Arouet isn't giving you any copouts.
Why do you abscond from reasonable explanations in favor of highly fanciful explanations ? Don't leave us guessing. What things can't be explained by Evolutionary Theory ?

Scepcop wrote:Pye didn't say that we couldn't duplicate the pyramids with ancient techniques. He said we couldn't duplicate them with MODERN techniques. Get that straight.

You are splitting hairs. To cut down a tree you don't use a hammer or screw driver you use a saw or axe. The right tool gets the job done. The point you miss is we can create the tools to build a pyramid.

Scepcop wrote:Words and actions are totally different things. You can say all you want, but you can't erase the facts.

You rarely have facts Winston, you are full of contrarianism for the sake of being contrary I think. Something you are absolutely unaware it seems is scientists like to to look for failures of theory or hypothesis, that's what science is partly about. One theory that gets constantly tested is the Theory of Relativity. If Pye had actually found any bonifide chink in the armor of Evolutionary Theory or human origins, etc.etc. scientists would eagerly pursue the lead.

P.S. I always shake my head in incredulity too hear that there are people that actually take as gospel we only use 10% of our brain myth. Do people really think the other 90% is doing nothing except taking up space in our heads ?
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby Arouet » 12 Oct 2012, 22:25

Welcom fatgoat, though I found your two posts contradictory and I'm not quite getting your problem with my post - maybe refer me to the specific parts you disagree with and we can discuss from there.

(also: I'm not sure if this is just me, but just now when i read your user name it first looked like as I skimmed it a not so nice term for homosexuals. It might be just a freak of how I read it, but maybe not the best choice of username?)
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby NinjaPuppy » 13 Oct 2012, 00:27

Arouet wrote:(also: I'm not sure if this is just me, but just now when i read your user name it first looked like as I skimmed it a not so nice term for homosexuals. It might be just a freak of how I read it, but maybe not the best choice of username?)

No, it's not just you. I had a similar thought at first glance of his name. After a moment of clarity, I thought that it might have something to do with that "goat" and "sheep" thing called sheep-goat effect: http://skepdic.com/sheep-goat.html
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Previous

Return to Ancient Mysteries and Places / Forbidden Archaeology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests