Talk:Lloyd Pye

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This article, as it stands July 7 2016 is insufferably wrong[edit]

Yes, there are some individuals who are so globally delusional, that they earn the title crank.

But, guess what, Lloyd Pye was not one of them, below is an introduction to his defend my POV page.

  • Sometimes good people make honest mistakes. This is not about those people. This is about the willfully stupid people who actually work at being ignorant and staying ignorant, and who make it a personal mission to prevent others from knowing more than they know or doing more than they would ever dare to consider

Hate? Where?

A few things of note

Flailing about, calling an intelligent human lazy, with out knowing his work habits is ...well

The Starr child skull is not an example of a human with hydrocephalus, but you have to do the work to realize that this is true, sorry Steven Novella, maybe even you, are at times, are too busy to do your homework.

The truth is more difficult, and cannot be ferreted out by being cavalier

I will help with this article over the next month or so

Some times those that speak, do not know (Tao Te Ching)

Purebread who? 22:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Help with the article. Mm-hmm.
So exactly WHAT is the Starchild Skull, then, if not an example of a human with hydrocephalus? --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The answer is not presently known, work continues, but, maybe not knowing, yet, is, well OK

You might look at Purebread who? 17:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

One of the best summarys of DNA sequencing of the StarAdult Skull[edit]

I have added this to the Bibliography section of the main page, maybe it needs to go elsewhere. Advise as you see fit

Purebread who? 04:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Leuders edit and wiki rules of politeness and respect[edit]

Riding his horse around, making his rounds as sheriff, User:Leuders added a comment to a link to the Evidence under external links section At the risk of edit war I have removed this comment

How about letting readers decide for themselves by following the link, huh

User:Leuders horse may be trained to avoid talk pages, I did leave him a note though

Purebread who? 20:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC) I

Bullet points for revision - Lloyd Pie is dead Why should anyone care?[edit]

Significant revisions of this page are intended

The author's understanding of Lloyd Pie and his positions on things...

  • careless and cavalier
  • inaccurate/just plain wrong

Satisfying as it may be to the author, being a shallow uncareful debunker and his positing his "take," wastes my time and that of others, maybe he should take up cribbage?!

Lloyd Pye was not an evolution denialist LLoyd Pie know Neandertals and humans interbred well before the cited DNA evidence.

Did Lloyd Pye get sucked in to tabloid trap behavior, a little bit, so could I

Comment as you see fit

Purebread who? 01:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Lloyd Pye's Premise on Hominoid's[edit]

"The key point to make about these animals, and about the many other variations of names given to them around the world, is that such names simply would not exist if the creatures they are meant to describe did not exist." To what extent is this true, if at all? Purebread who? 01:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I have never read anything of Pye's, and I know neither in what context this quote is situated, nor what the quote is about. However, this argument seems to be sort of like saying that unicorns and fairies must exist because the words "unicorn" and "fairy" do.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 00:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the addition.
Elasmotherium is an extinct genus of rhinoceros from Eurasia, some species of which lived as late as 29,000 years ago, and would therefore have lived among ::modern humans. The Elasmotherium may have been responsible for a Tatar legend of a unicorn-like animal.[
animals/siberian-unicorn-went-extinct-much-later-we-thought "Siberian Unicorn" Went Extinct Much Later Than We Thought] by Janet Fang (March 28, 2016) IFL ::Science!
A hidden people
At one time it was a common belief was that fairy folklore evolved from folk memories of a prehistoric race. It was suggested that newcomers drove out the ::original inhabitants, and the memories of this defeated, hidden people developed into the fairy beliefs we have today. Proponents of this theory claimed to ::find support in the tradition that of cold iron as a charm against the fairies, which was viewed as a cultural memory of invaders with iron weapons displacing ::inhabitants had only flint and were therefore easily defeated. Some 19th-century archaeologists thought they had found underground rooms in the Orkney islands ::resembling the Elfland in Childe Rowland. However the idea of a fallen vanquished race in hiding has fallen out of favour with scholars.
( from WP article on fairies, quite good!)

So how do we get beyond the "aliens" thing and get closer to the truth[edit]

The star child skull is not of a child, that is why I changed that text The best answer may be that the being had Antley Bixler syndrome ie sagittal cranio-ostosis + gynecomastia + genital anomalies. Most physicians, myself included, think Novella's interpretation is not correct. Documentation is in the article I linked under StarChild links. Arriving at a closer to the truth page can be called spam, but where does that get us?

Yes, LLoyd Pie's clock stopped on percentage of brain use. I do not think that that renders him imbecile. My motivation is a better article Purebread who? 00:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Just so there is no doubt about the souce[edit]

The link under StarChild skull is to Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:556-560 A must read from my standpoint Purebread who? 02:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Lloyd Pye[edit]

Lloyd Pye was not a crank at all but a committed truth-seeker who dared to take on the evolutionist establishment with well supported arguments against the idea that humans evolved directly from primates with no outside intervention. Anyone who has bothered to read Pye's key work - 'Everything you know is wrong' - will realise that the so called 'article' about him on 'Rational Wiki' is just a cheap, shoddy bit of mud-slinging that completely misrepresents the man, his ideas and the well marshalled evidence that he put behind them. It is amazing that the editors allowed such an offensively shallow soundbite to be published on this supposedly august website with no defending views offered to readers. Leaving aside the Starchild debate, the gist of Pye's arguments are as follows (i) The anatomical and genetic differences between humans and primates are so very great (cortex area, voice box, musculature etc. etc.) that they must cause any rational individual to doubt the simplistic notion of gradual & natural evolution from them to us within the available timescale. (ii) The evidence from mitochondrial DNA confirms that we have been around as a species for only c. 200,000 years, and the absence of any convincing intermediate species in the fossil record prior to that suggests we arrived here quite suddenly, not as a result of gradual evolution. (iii) The fact that humans have only 46 chromosomes as compared to the 48 chromosomes of every other primate species - and that this is the result of the fusing together of two of those chromosomes - could well be taken to indicate some kind of laboratory-based genetic engineering to bring humans into existence. Pye did not deny that we are related to primates and share a lot of our DNA with them, he merely dared to question the lazy and under-supported assumption made by the current science establishment that 'it all happened naturally' - an assertion which has become deeply entrenched but lacks any proper, evidence-based underpinning. I have yet to see any convincing refutation of Pye's argument by anyone, Richard Dawkins included. It is as though the science establishment prefers to ignore the intellectual challenge rather than engage with it because, after all, the best way to keep dissenting views marginalised to the realms of cranks and crazies is not to admit them to the debating chamber at all. In his lectures, Pye frequently referred to the closed-mindedness of the science elite and the climate of fear within which they are obliged to operate (fear of lost academic sinecures, fear of peer-disapproval etc.) If 'Rational Wiki' is anything to go by, he was dead right about that. Now, if anyone with a relevant Phd would like to answer this post with a properly (and politely) argued refutation of Lloyd Pye's arguments I would be the most avid of listeners. In the meantime I would urge all you knee-jerk pro-evolutionists to read the man's books, look up his lectures on You Tube and spend the time to think about what he is saying. This is far too important a subject to be dismissed with a few smart-alec, senior common-room jibes, especially in a forum with the word 'Rational' in its title. Jeremy Keen — Unsigned, by: Jemkeen / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

starchild skull not alien, but definitely not hydrocephalus either.[edit]

For one, there is a dent in the back of the skull as you can see in the first picture here, which is impossible in a hydrocephalus skull: It'd be like inflating a balloon and somehow leaving a dent in it. not only that, but google image "hydrocephalus skull" and you'll see that this is shaped nothing like that. Whats more, there are far more abnormalities bout this skull than just it's shape, as also demonstrated in this article.

I don't know what this skull is, but I do know two things 1)it's almost certainly not an alien, and 2) It's definitely not "just a hydrocephalic" either.

There's a website devoted to this thing that provides a lot more info and is a lot more convincing as well. I was originally entirely o n board with the "just hydrocephalus" explnation, but it is now clear after visiting this site that that simply doesn't work. Skadooshbag (talk) 05:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

      • UPDATE: It appears that two similar skulls were found in Peru, but I'm not too confident in these particular bones' authenticity. I have never before heard of anything bearing any similarity to the starchild in any sort of discussion of the starchild, and I can't help but notice that both skeletons seem to be missing all the exact same bones as the starchild skeleton, for example. Come to think of it there's the curious fact that the owner of these skulls wishes to remain anonymous whereas Lord Pye had absolutely no trouble being in the public eye. Skadooshbag (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)