50 replies to this topic

[third_eye]

science should be the last in line to claim that all that is to be known is already known, thus far just in this decade alone the boundaries of what is definitively concrete scientific 'facts' has been turned inside out by 'new' findings every now and then, by nothing less than 'newer' technologies brought about through better understanding of the 'facts' in greater clarity and focus, with high tech methods made possible with better science, there is still much to be known not less than the fact that what was known wasn't as accurate as believed.
With every new answer comes more questions, from the physical to the metaphysical and everything in between.
No harm in keeping an open mind, just bear in mind that just as there is bad pseudo science, there too is bad science. Actually, its the people behind the science that determines where it all ends up, science is but a tool of thoughts, of minds.
No point making anything into more or less than what it is.
Personally, i find it hilarious that this 'alien' not 'alien' debate can get people all wound up and tightly strung, nothing conclusive can be put on the table one way or the other, science or faith, either way the cows are still out on the pasture but still on the farm.
Only matters if you want milk in a bottle.
~meh~

[theminstrels]

Wow a topic that went way off course again.  Anyways back to the OP It takes more than one skull that has not been put through all of the possible tests that can be given to make a claim that everything is wrong.  That is like jumping with a group of friends into the mouth of an active volcano with some new tin foil on and expecting to live.

[DieChecker]

A steaming Pyle.....

I watched like 20 minutes of the video and I came away thinking this guy is right up there with the Bigfoot Hunters. He uses facts and then twists them slightly to fit his pet idea. He says... same, same, same, same, BLAM! mega super change to human. Personnally, I do see the changes that he suggests are not there. Also I'd acuse him of cherry picking his skull representatives. Purposefully picking the lowest brow, highest eye-ridge examples he could find.

It is very much like he stole the idea from the book and movie 2001: A Space Odyssey.

[Gummug]

thewatchman7, on 05 February 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

it doesnt huh?



just watch the video then try tell me one skull proves us wrong...

There is a third explanation (fourth if you include intervention theories I guess). Man and apes/gorillas/chimpanzees etc. are indeed related, but apes "devolved" from man, not man evolved from the mentioned group. That would also explain the retrovirus locations...

[73V3N]

Lloyd Pye has demonstrated  conclusively that the Darwinian model of macro evolution, that is,  Cro-Magnon man descended from the hominids, is pure fiction. He shows  that Darwin and his successors have never shown the link ( (hence “Missing Link”) and have gone  to incredible lengths to defend their position but are utterly incapable  of admitting that their theory was unfounded. Lloyd also asserts that  the Creationists, who base their claims on a literal interpretation of  the Bible, don’t have a case as well.

[DieChecker]

73V3N, on 09 February 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:

Lloyd Pye has demonstrated  conclusively that the Darwinian model of macro evolution, that is,  Cro-Magnon man descended from the hominids, is pure fiction. He shows  that Darwin and his successors have never shown the link ( (hence “Missing Link”) and have gone  to incredible lengths to defend their position but are utterly incapable  of admitting that their theory was unfounded. Lloyd also asserts that  the Creationists, who base their claims on a literal interpretation of  the Bible, don’t have a case as well.

It is hardly conclusive. If one was to make a graph of the differences and changes of each skull type the linear graph would meet up directly at where humans are today. Lloyd is playing of Monkey Fear. Irrational fear that people have where they don't want to be decended from chimp headed bipeds. He uses spurious logic with real world facts. There is no Missing Link because there is nothing missing. We know how humans evolved by directly looking at fossils for the time range of the last half million years.

[Gaden]

73V3N, on 09 February 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:

Lloyd Pye has demonstrated  conclusively that the Darwinian model of macro evolution, that is,  Cro-Magnon man descended from the hominids, is pure fiction. He shows  that Darwin and his successors have never shown the link ( (hence "Missing Link") and have gone  to incredible lengths to defend their position but are utterly incapable  of admitting that their theory was unfounded. Lloyd also asserts that  the Creationists, who base their claims on a literal interpretation of  the Bible, don't have a case as well.

So, what makes Lloyd Pye more believable than the thousands of archaeologist who say different?
By the way, there is no 'missing link' it is not a term used by real scientists. A 'link' is not needed, as the changes in humans were gradual over millions of years.

Edited by Gaden, 09 February 2012 - 03:40 AM.

[Gummug]

Has anyone ever read or studied the theory of irreducible complexity? Basically (if I understand it right) it means that if you have say, an eye evolved, it's worthless without an optic nerve (and of course a brain). Likewise if you have an optic nerve but no eye it would be of no use. So those would all have to evolve at the same time to be of use to the organism. And this irreducible complexity goes all the way down to the cellular level. So the odds against these "parts" evolving at the same time seem astronomical...

[Reece22]

Gummug, on 10 February 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

Has anyone ever read or studied the theory of irreducible complexity? Basically (if I understand it right) it means that if you have say, an eye evolved, it's worthless without an optic nerve (and of course a brain). Likewise if you have an optic nerve but no eye it would be of no use. So those would all have to evolve at the same time to be of use to the organism. And this irreducible complexity goes all the way down to the cellular level. So the odds against these "parts" evolving at the same time seem astronomical...

I am not sure that we need to approach the underpinnings of evolution, and argue against it via a top-down abstract like irreducible complexity.  We have 18 constituent expressed proteins (OK we can use 25), 4 nucleic acids (or 5 if you count RNA), a constrained set of codons which express for proteins, and a constrained set of mutative processes and generational culling mechanisms.

This is a very straightforward gaming domain.  All our contributors are defined, measurable, and finite.  Not only finite but not really that large at all.  The Genome itself is not that large, as information goes.

So, rather than employ a top-down philosophical assessment which we would use to challenge the causal mechanisms of evolution as we understand them.  Why do we not simulate evolution at the codon, mutative and culling levels and just show it happening in a simulation, expressed in terms of the Human Genome?  That would pretty much settle the argument.

It is not that big of a deal.  We should be able to show that the development of the HAR regions in the human nDNA COULD indeed take place over 250,000 years, and that yes, we can end up with G1 and G2 variants of the Toll Like Receptor 4 gene, in simply 6,000 years of evolution.

So why not do it?

[Sensible Logic]

73V3N, on 09 February 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:

Lloyd Pye has demonstrated  conclusively that the Darwinian model of macro evolution, that is,  Cro-Magnon man descended from the hominids, is pure fiction. He shows  that Darwin and his successors have never shown the link ( (hence “Missing Link”) and have gone  to incredible lengths to defend their position but are utterly incapable  of admitting that their theory was unfounded. Lloyd also asserts that  the Creationists, who base their claims on a literal interpretation of  the Bible, don’t have a case as well.

Does that mean he has also proved the world is flat and hollow, The moon s lit by luminous shrimp, and that the ark had dinosaurs?

[Gummug]

Reece22, on 11 February 2012 - 04:34 AM, said:

I am not sure that we need to approach the underpinnings of evolution, and argue against it via a top-down abstract like irreducible complexity.  We have 18 constituent expressed proteins (OK we can use 25), 4 nucleic acids (or 5 if you count RNA), a constrained set of codons which express for proteins, and a constrained set of mutative processes and generational culling mechanisms.

This is a very straightforward gaming domain.  All our contributors are defined, measurable, and finite.  Not only finite but not really that large at all.  The Genome itself is not that large, as information goes.

So, rather than employ a top-down philosophical assessment which we would use to challenge the causal mechanisms of evolution as we understand them.  Why do we not simulate evolution at the codon, mutative and culling levels and just show it happening in a simulation, expressed in terms of the Human Genome?  That would pretty much settle the argument.

It is not that big of a deal.  We should be able to show that the development of the HAR regions in the human nDNA COULD indeed take place over 250,000 years, and that yes, we can end up with G1 and G2 variants of the Toll Like Receptor 4 gene, in simply 6,000 years of evolution.

So why not do it?

I am fairly well educated, but I guess I'm not completely familiar with all the terms you used, like codon, HAR region, Toll Like Receptor 4 gene, etc., so it looks like I'll have to maybe study this more completely...however, I'm inclined to believe that people believe what they want...like, "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts", lol.
Shoot, I hope I don't have to get a doctorate in biochemistry in order to discuss this intelligently...

Edited by Gummug, 12 February 2012 - 05:30 AM.

[Reece22]

Gummug, on 12 February 2012 - 05:29 AM, said:

I am fairly well educated, but I guess I'm not completely familiar with all the terms you used, like codon, HAR region, Toll Like Receptor 4 gene, etc., so it looks like I'll have to maybe study this more completely...however, I'm inclined to believe that people believe what they want...like, "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts", lol.
Shoot, I hope I don't have to get a doctorate in biochemistry in order to discuss this intelligently...

Gummug, mi apologia.  I was not meaning to imply that this post was directed as a context response to yours.  Your excellent post simply prompted my rambling thoughts along that same line, so I quoted it. No demeaning or argumentative intent was involved.  The Human Accelerated Region (HAR) of the Human Genome is 16 super fast mutated regions which contrast us from our most immediately remote genetic ancestor (Lewin, Genes IX Bartlett).  A codon is simply three letters of DNA in a row. It is the first level of true information in DNA (well almost, 5' and 3' are..but....another story).  These codons are the map or blueprint which is used to assemble 18 proteins into becoming the human body.

The Toll Like Receptor 4 gene in part determines whether or not we can consume wheat easily (New England Journal of Medicine, Aug 2004) - this is another accelerated region of the Human Genome.
Our health and diet tolerances are expressed from our DNA in many regards, so getting this type of information out to the public in easy to understand modes, not just simply into the hands of evolutionary biologists is important for our health future.  

[Gummug]

Reece22, on 12 February 2012 - 06:05 AM, said:

Gummug, mi apologia.

That's OK, no apologies necessary...I think it's interesting that the more you study and learn, sometimes the more you realize how much there is to learn and that after a lifetime of study you've barely scratched the surface of all there is to learn.
What I'd like to know (I hope I'm not hijacking this thread) is how white blood cells know which foreign objects to attack, what is an enemy of the body I mean, because they don't have eyes or ears or noses, lol. Or nerves either they don't have as far as I know...or a brain...and yet they somehow know what to attack.
I guess I'm done rambling.

[Fenerbahce]

I did not read. But It seems true.

Aziz Yıldırım

[73V3N]

Lloyd Pye's theory stands separate from Creationism, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, and explains many of the conundrums left unanswered by those other theories. It contains insights into just how much of what we think we know is wrong, from the very beginnings of life, to the evolutionary impossibility of the Cambrian Explosion, which Charles Darwin saw as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.