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)
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.
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......