12 Ways Humans Are NOT Primates - Lloyd Pye

reply to post by theufologist


Oh, c'mon. It's not that we 'have to' protect ourselves from the weather. It's that we can protect ourselves from the weather. Animals seek shelter from the weather, if they could build structures to do so they most likely certainly would.

Since no one has done it, I'll attempt to counter his points from the top of my head. Not that i don't believe his points, I don't agree with the conclusion he draws from them. I could be way off, if so prove me wrong.


Lighter Bones: Primates larger than us have to support more weight with their bones. Their environment (I'm thinking swinging around on trees, etc) puts their bones at a higher risk for falls or collisions as opposed to walking around on the ground. Stronger bones may have been genetically selected as a broken bone with no doctor can be very detrimental or fatal.

Ok, thinking about it now, I could argue as I do above and it's really not going to help. My point is that we are related to other primates, and our definition of primate is based on factors we have chosen. Yes, we have differences, this is fairly obvious. But these differences can be seen as changes from a more primate like past to our current state.

Bone strength wasn't selected for as much, same for muscle mass requirements. Brains advanced as ours need a fat for energy. Since we lack hair the fat also acts as insulation. As far as the lack of hair or the reversal of front to back patterns. Well that's just what happened. Not every trait of a species is selected for.

Let's say the smart guy who passed his genes on also had a gene which changed the hair, or grew less of it. If it doesn't become a major disadvantage or override the intelligence genes, then it sticks around. If the only guy with blond hair is passing his genes around because he's the strongest person then the future offspring of that group will have a higher percentage of blondes. Not because being blond is particular advantage, but it was associated with one. Also, a female preference of blond, or in the above, males with less hair, could have been selection factor in the elimination of body hair. I'm not saying that was the reason, but it could be. Our fashions, trends, likes and dislikes, these things factor into the future of our species.

The growth of hair and nails, I'm not sure what he's getting at here. We aren't primates because our nails grow and our head hair continues to grow? He says it's better to have it another way, well, why? Why is it better? Where does he draw that conclusion from? He gives no reason as to why "it was a good thing" What advantage is there to not replenishing nails or hair?

Ugh, okay, our skulls, brain, bipedalism, and speech are things that make us unique. Why does an elephant have such a large trunk? Why does a shark have teeth like that? He's merely listing things that distinguish us from other primates. Yes, those are really important advancements and traits for us but they can be tied together. We aren't as special as people would like to say. We just had a few changes that were enormous advantages, but we're still animals.

You could argue that the large number of genetic disorders is related to the variations which allowed for bipedal hips. Perhaps such a high level is necessary for a species which does not produce many offspring per generation or reproductive female. I don't know the stats on this but how does our number compare to other species? Then, what is the difference between the extent that we've studied our own genetic disorders compared to other species?

Regardless of how much information he uses to back up his points in other parts of his presentation, the way he presents the material is not very scientific at all. "We decided to give up a couple of chromosomes", "What were we thinking?", he speaks as if these were choices perpetrated by us or by a conscious, goal seeking nature. It's the frame of reference he uses which seems to invalidate his points for me. You can be persuasive and scientific at the same time. Speaking of your points as if they are givens and that the alternatives are ridiculous would not fly in academia.

EDIT:

Ok, his statement which asked why don't we have more chromosomes is plain ridiculous. He 'thinks' we should have about 20 more for being so advanced. Why? Does he know exactly how nature works? How do you just suppose we should have more, and 20 more at that because of how advanced we are. By that reasoning our genetic code should be much, much longer than other species and should share little resemblance to lesser species like a worm or a fly. Quantity /= Quality

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Parabol]

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by damwel
Evolution doesn't say man came from the great apes, it says man and ape came from a common ancestor. Come'on now, you really didn't know that or it's just easier to argue against saying that man came from ape? I have to say that the theme of ATS is deny ignorance.

I agree, thats how evolutionary trees work according to logical reasoning.

But, how many chromosomes did our common ancestor have?

How did the number change exactly? Modern science admits there are no sure answers to this anomaly. Therefore discussion about the possibilities is relevant to anthropology or genetics, because if you can prove exactly how this happened, you will probably win a Nobel prize.

So how did the chromosomes fuse? Any ideas are welcome and I will surely consider them. I am still searching for the answer like anyone else.

Reproduction can happen with differing numbers of chromonsones.

Fusing happens by deletions and heteroplasmy.

(lighter bones is one of the things that could be explained by an ape like primate on its way to being more of a water ape, then suddenly changing course back to land.)

[edit on 2009/7/29 by Aeons]

reply to post by JScytale
Good response but you're sure to regret it!

A few other mammals have 46 chromosomes too...nilgai. It's an antelope and used as game for hunting practice. There's also a squirrel and some rats. Some animals have more pairs of chromosomes and some have fewer...

A combination of chromosomal banding and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was used to characterize the karyotype of Boselaphus tragocamelus (nilgai) relative to the domestic cattle standard karyotype. G-, Q- and C-band karyotypes of nilgai are presented, and the chromosomal complement of nilgai is determined to be 2n=46

Nilgai

By 'regret' I mean guys will ask you to substantiate your post and drag the OP away into criticisms of evolution...all of which has been done on a lot of threads. Thing is...the obvious flaws in Pye's logic are a direct outcome of his lack of understanding of evolution.

The point stands that Lloyd Pye's ideas are baseless. If he was to accept that fact he'd have no reason to be on the circuit shipping merchandise and would shuffle away into anonymity.

reply to post by Kandinsky


i don't see how other animals having the same number of chromosomes has any real bearing whatsoever. what matters is the genetic data.

that's like assuming two caravans of cars must be related because they have the same amount of cars, without taking into account that one caravan of cars contains say, 4 families going off to a vacation, while the other is packed to the brim with freshly caught fish on the way to the market.

Originally posted by Frith
I've always wondered how humanity can continue to pass 100% fatal childhood genetic disorders through the generations and Pye makes some good arguments, but I'd prefer to stick to easier to quantify UFO material than speculate on the origins of human DNA.

You know you COULD read up about genetics and you wouldnt have to wonder so much.

Anyway, I just find the arguments in the OP video laughable. Some of it doesnt even make sense, like the skull part. Or genetic disorders for that matter. With technology, we have gone above and beyond the laws of evolution.

oh god, he thinks more chromosomes = more advanced?
he just lost all credibility.

Someone PLEASE inform this man that ferns have 480 chromosomes, and then give him 5 years to start his Church of the Fern.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by JScytale]

*Cough...retro-virusses...*Cough!

reply to post by SpacePunk


It's not about building shelters, it's something like being naked (us) vs. being dressed up (them). I think it's a curious fact, at least. Something to ponder.

reply to post by ChemBreather

HARVARD SCIENTISTS AGREE...WE ‘ARE’ ALIEN HYBRIDS:
Harvard University’s Stone Age Laboratory and their Molecular Anthropology Laboratory, have been engaged from the beginning of the ’human genome project’ with the possibility of the human race being a hybrid of primitive man and an extraterrestrial race.

Your quote seems to have something to do with this site:
conjecturenews.com...
"Conjecture News"...gotta love it.

Not only does there not seem to be any Dr. Martha Rabinowitz at Harvard, there does not seem to be a "Stone Age Laboratory" there or a Molecular Anthropology Laboratory.

Good research.

But, how many chromosomes did our common ancestor have?

How did the number change exactly? Modern science admits there are no sure answers to this anomaly. Therefore discussion about the possibilities is relevant to anthropology or genetics, because if you can prove exactly how this happened, you will probably win a Nobel prize.

So how did the chromosomes fuse? Any ideas are welcome and I will surely consider them. I am still searching for the answer like anyone else.

Everyone else did a pretty decent job covering most of this guy's "arguments", which are complete nonsense. But I wanted to talk about this one, since it hasn't been adequately covered.

The "missing" chromosomes are in fact one of the clearest proofs we have for common descent! I made a post on this topic on a different forum, which I will just quote here, with some slight edits:

---

The fact that humans have one fewer chromosome pair than other great apes seems like a big problem for evolution, but it turns out that it's in fact an excellent piece of evidence for evolution.

Ken Miller explains it much better than I:

www.youtube.com...

You really should watch the video (it's only four minutes), but if you don't have speakers or something, I'll try to explain as best I can.

The great apes, other than humans, have 24 pairs of chromosomes each. Humans, however, only have 23. There is no way, in such an evolutionarily short time, for humans to have lost an entire chromosome. Thus, evolution seems like it might be in trouble. If humans simply don't have the 24th chromosome, then there's something supernatural happening, because that's not biologically possible. The only thing that could save evolution is if one of our chromosomes is in fact two chromosomes that somehow were fused together over evolutionary time. In that case, all of the necessary genes would still be there, and the dilemma would be solved.

How do you go about testing that? Well, geneticists know that there are genetic markers, called "telomeres", that mark the ends of a chromosome, and there are "centromeres" that mark the center of a chromosome. If a human chromosome were in fact two fused chromosomes, there would be extra telomeres in the middle of the chromosome (where the two old chromosomes fused) and there would be two centromeres, one on each side of the extra telomeres. Scientists went looking, and found exactly what they had predicted. Human chromosome #2 has exactly these features, showing that it evolved from two separate chromosomes in our great ape ancestors.

This is what makes evolution good science. It makes predictions, and those predictions turn out to be true.

Someone wrote a bookI think it was in the eighties where they put forward a very good theory that some of the differences were because man spent a lot of time living in the water I think the book was called the Descent of Woman.

They said the reason we had more body fat like whales and dolphins because of the need for protection in the water. The longer hair on our heads was for a young toddler tocling too. I can't remember all the reasons now but it seemed a plausible theory.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ChemBreather

 

HARVARD SCIENTISTS AGREE...WE ‘ARE’ ALIEN HYBRIDS:
Harvard University’s Stone Age Laboratory and their Molecular Anthropology Laboratory, have been engaged from the beginning of the ’human genome project’ with the possibility of the human race being a hybrid of primitive man and an extraterrestrial race.

Your quote seems to have something to do with this site:
conjecturenews.com...
"Conjecture News"...gotta love it.

Not only does there not seem to be any Dr. Martha Rabinowitz at Harvard, there does not seem to be a "Stone Age Laboratory" there or a Molecular Anthropology Laboratory.

Good research.

It is from here : Irishufology

It all ties in with 223 genes they cant find in other living creatures on earth exept for humans, that say some thing ! Alien/Hybrid..

Much better than monkey...

Think of things like this: You have a pie (any kind you want). I cut off a slice and put cool whip on it (I'll call mine apes). You cut a slightly smaller/larger slice and you put whipped cream on it (I'll call yours humans). Now we have 2 slices that vary in size and composition. My slice did not come from your slice...nor did your slice from mine. BUT they both came from the same pie (common ancestor). Make sense?

Just my 2-cents

reply to post by JScytale


Hehe , you can train a chimp to drive a scooter too, dosnt make him a human .
Like this sweedish zookeeper said this summer, he had found evidence of a monkey there showed signs of human ancestry, the Big News was that he thru rocks at the humans 'starring' at him.. That is a sure sing if intelligence .. I call it an reaction as too the monkey being tired of the people starring at him all day, nothing more, nothing less..

Originally posted by keldas
Someone wrote a bookI think it was in the eighties where they put forward a very good theory that some of the differences were because man spent a lot of time living in the water I think the book was called the Descent of Woman.

They said the reason we had more body fat like whales and dolphins because of the need for protection in the water. The longer hair on our heads was for a young toddler tocling too. I can't remember all the reasons now but it seemed a plausible theory.

People HATE it in this field. For some reason you have to come out of trees and wander the savanna. This is very very important to them - and they present their reasons like dogma, not like fact. Its interesting.

If you stand up straight, you can go deeper into the water to look for food.

There are monkeys that hang out in the water. Most of human existence has developed along water ways. We have a far greater need for the fats found in ocean life.

We are in a small cadre of animals that don't make our own vitamin C. Which would suggest that at some critical point the bodies of our ancestors found this an unneccessary trait, probably because of its abundance in thier diet. Seaweed around Africa is very high in Vitamin C.

The evidence is already there. The fossils they find in that rift valley were all not dry when those people/animals were alive. It was ocean surf.

It seems pretty obvious that at some point our ancestors hung out in the water a lot, and then moved inland again for some reason. It makes way more sense than we wanted to run across the savanna. What the hell on the savanna can't outrun us? Or better yet, wouldn't a return to complete 4 legged locomotion on the savanna be MUCH more sensible than standing up and running? Even mercats standing get down to run fast on all fours - because its faster and the savanna then hides you better. Its a way stupider theory - but people with PhDs are very attached to it so it has to be right.

[edit on 2009/7/29 by Aeons]

[edit on 2009/7/29 by Aeons]

reply to post by Aggie Man


Only if my pie turned into a pancake, or else the 'theory' of yours is just nonsens..

When you slice a pie, you get two slices of pie, nothing more..

You dont get one slice of pie and one pancake, you see that ? Right ! ?

reply to post by ChemBreather


Did you pay attention to the toppings added scenario? The different toppings changed the composition of each individual slice....the toppings are synonymous with DNA/chromosome variations with us and apes. It doesn't have to be a "pancake" in order to be different. A "pancake" would be comparing a man to a mouse.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Aggie Man]

reply to post by ChemBreather


So you countered Phage's observation by noting that your source is a paranormal website? Ok, way more reliable than Harvard's own information.

Also, that you don't like monkeys doesn't change it a bit that if we look at other animals (in terms of bones, blood and yes, DNA), we're most closely related to other apes, especially chimpanzee and bonobo. I'm not saying that I know we're not a product of alien genetic engineering, but one thing I wonder is why it took so long to engineer us. The things that set us apart from other apes, like big brains and advanced tool-using, started gradually with Homo erectus about 2 million years ago, and it was just 200,000 years ago when there started to be people around that were biologically like us.

reply to post by Griffo515


Thank you for this post. There have been many replies to what Mr Pye has stated, and thanks to them for rebutting his ideas.

I think the overall aim of Mr Pye is to show that we are not evolving into a fitter species as the argument goes.

BTW, Mr Pye is getting the full DNA test done to his Starchild skull this fall. I can't wait to find out the information about this most fascinating artifact. I did read his book from the library and it is quite a good read.

One question to the people who believe in evolution out of nothing: How did something so complex as DNA form? Are you sure there wasn't any type of intelligent design that went into it?