April 8th Show

[Aaron LeClair]

Anyone know anything about DNA - did the guy say that *all humans* can be traced back to 1 of 7 females?

I've never heard that one before - is that true?

I've heard it before. I do not know if it's true or not. I expect it's like many things and different people say different things about it.

 

[Rick Deckard]

And yes, Rick, mitochondrial DNA does indeed trace us all back to the root females that spawned the original homo sapiens. Wiki can fill you in on the finer points, I'm sure (I'm certainly no expert... but I did play Parasite Eve! )

I did look on wikipedia first - I am lazy, but not *that* lazy - but I couldn't find the relevant info on the 'DNA' page.

However, I just looked again and did find the relevant page:

Human mitochondrial DNA haplogroup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Funny how science points to Mitochondrial Eve as the 'mother of humanity' - I suppose that goes someway to support the idea that the Bible does have a kernel of truth in it (although, IMO, taking the text literally is still wrong).

Anyway, Wikipedia is a double-edged sword for me - it's a brilliant resource, but sometimes I just can't muster the patience to wade through the detail on offer....I guess I am lazy, after all.

 

[DBTrek]

I've heard it before. I do not know if it's true or not. I expect it's like many things and different people say different things about it.

The theory was put forth by Professor Brian Sykes (Oxford) in his book "The Seven Daughters of Eve". It contained lots of interesting research including evidence that we could not have come from Neanderthals (as I mentioned in another thread).

-DBTrek

 

[BrandonD]

Stephen Jay Gould passed away in 2002, so it would be difficult to speak with him about this issue. He was known to be somewhat controversial, so if he thought there was something to the skull, he'd probably state it for the record. He didn't, and I'm not surprised.

dB

Stephen Jay Gould is controversial in the sense that a Creationist arguing for a 7000 year-old earth is controversial to the 6000 year-old earthers. He is an establishment scientist through and through, and a religious defender of its main precepts. Because of this, he commits the same mistakes that Mr Biedny ascribes to Mr Pye. I can provide examples if you like, but they are not brief.

To my observation, much of what Mr Biedny presents as "skepticism" is actually the impulse to defend the existing scientific establishment. Here is a quote of his to illustrate:

"People studying evolution are generally utilizing the scientific method, which is based on objectivity and logic. New information and insights are welcome, understanding is the goal. So tell me again how "evolutionists" have dirty hands?"

A general rule: The ideals of a discipline or organization seldom apply to the individuals within that organization, and when someone assumes this connection he is either naive or a religious defender.

No organization is exempt from this rule, because no human is exempt from human psychology.

A person who cannot conceive how individuals within a particular institution have "dirty hands" reveals an unwillingness to accept that scientists are equally susceptible to the same psychological mechanisms that exist within all other humans. Combine the statement quoted above with Biedny's clearly reactive defense of Gould and his disproportionately high estimation of "peer review" where paranormal subjects are concerned, and you have a case of a person whose is not so much a skeptic as a defender of existing scientific assumptions.

No one, not even scientists, are immune to human psychology, as much as people who admire the principles of science would like to think they are. Because of this fact, the institution of science has become nearly as brittle and dogmatic as religion has become. The general ideals and principles of science are great and positive for humanity, just as the general ideals and principles of religion are. It is the individuals in each camp that have literally ruined the institutions. They are distorted caricatures of what they could potentially be.

This is one of the reasons why radio shows like "The Paracast" exist at all. It is common sense (for anyone with a dash of reason) that the subjects discussed on the Paracast are compelling and important enough to be seriously examined by scientists and given at least the public attention and funding that is given to weapons and evolution. But that is certainly not the case, and it is not because of the weakness of the data.

For the record, I seriously doubt that Mr Biedny has some "secret agenda" to defend the status quo and discredit paranormal subjects. If it makes any difference, I only bring this stuff up because I think highly of the show and its hosts. It seems useful to present a bias I've observed that might not be readily obvious.

 

[DVS]

I thought David was came off really hyper-skeptical when compared to his questioning of prior guests that were let run their mouths virtually uncontested, like Sparks and his buddy with the ufo swallowing a plane story. I was getting very interested in what Pye was saying and thought he presented his case rather well even if it he didnt prove it was an alien hydrid, it was an interesting topic. It sounded like they just discarded this guy, kind of disrespectfully.

I wish they hadn't cut this guy short like that. I put Pye in the category of Dr. Leir, both are at least attempting to prove existence of aliens with some form hard evidence. As far as to what extent they are right, I dont know, but these guests sure are some of the most interesting.. Its better than some guy peddling abduction stories with nothing else.

At least this guy is aggressively researching this and I do believe there is a reason why mainstream scientists reject him wholesale, isnt that what is expected on this type of paranormal/alien-ufo topic???

When David assumed that the bone of the skull were the same as human, Lloyd Pye responded with why it wasnt, that there was something unique about it. Pye also did bring up anecdotal stories of the 'coneheaded' people that did exst and the guys just basically ignored it.

Obviously all the questions are not answered, and he obviously needed more tests to be done and in the end it might be a human skull after all. At least we could have learned why other skulls exist around the world that dont seem to be birth defects but were actually functional humans, possibly some of the Pharoahs had this type of skull. Are we really to beleive all of these were due to birth defects or people strapping wooden planks to the sides of their babies heads? Would they be as symmetrical? Who were they trying to imitate? Wouldnt their brains be screwed up? Could it be from an unknown humanoid race? Have this guy back on!



David could have asked follow up questions to Pye, to see if he really did meet Gould. However, David didnt and he was left to basically call the guy a liar.

I wonder what he had to say about the Incan skulls as seen here:

Inca Skulls

Im trying to find any statements on the net. If anyone else can find something, please post. If Gould didnt mention these skulls and he didnt mention the 'Starchild' skull, then what?

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I wish they hadn't cut this guy short like that. I put Pye in the category of Dr. Leir, both are at least attempting to prove existence of aliens with some form hard evidence. As far as to what extent they are right, I dont know, but these guests sure are some of the most interesting.. Its better than some guy peddling abduction stories with nothing else.

Funny, I was thinking about the similarities with Pye and Leir and was going to mention it. The implants aren't proven to be ET/alien, but they are anomalous and could be. Some of them at least. Leir also hawks products like his dvd. He talks about a video of a alien materializing in the closet, yet the only way to see it is by buying his dvd. I've contacted Leir about putting it up at his website, and he said he'll get his webmaster to do it. This never occurred and it's been years. on air he actually said it was at the site, it wasn't. Was this a ploy to get people to visit his page and therefore see his products? Something like that can be used against him, or rationalized away. If you look hard enough you can find reason to think ill of anyone. It says little to nothing about the implants or skull however. Only ones subjective stance and ify speculation on the handlers of it.

Brandon touched on most of what I have been wanting to say, but I have been too lazy to type it all up. So, thanks Brandon

 

[DVS]

Yeah I know thats what really ruins these people and probably why no 'real' scientist would want to latch his name onto these objects. As it stands they are just strange objects, but its like they peddle them to make money and I doubt its all for funding research. I just wish that some serious research is done by serious scientists just to put these to rest, alien or not.

 

[Rick Deckard]

No one, not even scientists, are immune to human psychology, as much as people who admire the principles of science would like to think they are. Because of this fact, the institution of science has become nearly as brittle and dogmatic as religion has become. The general ideals and principles of science are great and positive for humanity, just as the general ideals and principles of religion are. It is the individuals in each camp that have literally ruined the institutions. They are distorted caricatures of what they could potentially be.

Absolutely - and let's not underestimate the power of self-interest and preservation in respect of research grant renewals, professional 'credibility' and peer pressure. I also think that there tends to be a 'herd' mentality in the 'scientific community' too. They are *not* always the objective 'critical' thinkers that they claim to be - too many times I hear "that can't be true because it defies the laws of physics". What arrogance.

 

[CapnG]

too many times I hear "that can't be true because it defies the laws of physics".

I always treat that as a sentence fragment and mentally edit in "As we currently understand them" at the end.

 

[Rick Deckard]

I always treat that as a sentence fragment and mentally edit in "As we currently understand them" at the end.

Me too - but they very rarely accept the possibility that their 'current understanding' might be wrong - that's where the arrogance comes in.

 

[Nekrinos]

I know the whole star child thing did have it's flaws, but the one single thing I absolutely did not like how David had made up his mind from the beginning, and stuck with it no matter what. It just seemed like he had supporting evidence for almost everything David asked him. I mean, of course he is going to go talk to people until someone finally doesn't just write him off as a "crazy", and generally, that person is going to be someone who is already interested in the subject...

It just seems to me that the only people that would listen to him long enough for him to convince them were the people that ended up believing him. I think this guy sounds genuine enough, so I remain somewhat neutral.

 

[Rick Deckard]

It just seems to me that the only people that would listen to him long enough for him to convince them were the people that ended up believing him. I think this guy sounds genuine enough, so I remain somewhat neutral.

I've taken a neutral stance on this one too - I don't know enough about the science, the personalities or the cases to make a decision one way or another.

Although, I have to say that labelling this skull as 'Star Child' before the results are in can only hurt your credibility..

 

[pixelsmith]

i tend to agree with Nekrinos. i am sure David did his homework and came to the same conclusion i did, that the skull is probably human, but at least give the guest some credit and keep an open mind. i keep an open mind with Davids paranormal and ufo experiences even tho he has no proof whatsoever, i keep an open mind with many of the guests on the Paracast.

a person may have a genuine experience but might elaborate on it just to make it sound more plausible. if then this elaborated experience is discovered to be just that, then the WHOLE experience including the genuine part of it all gets dismissed as fake. i can see this happenening very easily. when someone sees something that cannot be explained, then their mind fills in the blanks or helps to create something that that person can understand and verbalize.

 

[pixelsmith]

Lorraine kills vegetables and eats them? poor little living things... i get a little tired of people saying they dont eat things they have to kill. when you pull a plant out of the ground and cook it, you have killed a living thing.

i admit that i kill animals and plants and then i eat them. animals and plants would eat me if they had a chance. thats what living things do, eat other living things.

 

[CapnG]

Lorraine kills vegetables and eats them? poor little living things... i get a little tired of people saying they dont eat things they have to kill. when you pull a plant out of the ground and cook it, you have killed a living thing.

i admit that i kill animals and plants and then i eat them. animals and plants would eat me if they had a chance. thats what living things do, eat other living things.

Hear hear! I very much doubt lions feel any remorse for the antelopes they just ate.

 

[pixelsmith]

i have a venus fly trap that eats other living things. i wonder if Lorraine would prefer my fly trap eat vegetables? would that be endorcing cannibalism?

 

[Nekrinos]

When she says she doesn't kill or eat animals, she is referring to the "animals" she can see. But what she doesn't realize is that animals are just living organisms. There are countless numbers of species of little microscopic organisms that she doesn't seem to even acknowledge. I mean, if a little ant was crossing the sidewalk, and she happened to be walking along and squished the poor little guy... wouldn't that make her animal/organism/whatever kill count go up by one? Who is she to say that only certain animals have "feelings" and others don't.

 

[Rick Deckard]

'Vegetarians' that eat fish make me chuckle...

 

[DBTrek]

Me too - but they very rarely accept the possibility that their 'current understanding' might be wrong - that's where the arrogance comes in.

I don't see it as arrogance. I think most people are aware that our understanding of the universe (through science) is something that is constantly evolving. The laws of physics represent our best current understanding as demonstrated through experimentation, demonstration, and theory. The claims of physics can be demonstrated time and time again by anyone with the know-how, anywhere on earth.

Now . . . when someone comes along and criticizes that understanding with nothing more than a wild, unverifiable story to back themselves up . . . that I find to be arrogance. It's basically saying "Your science is all f'ed up on account of I saw something that is in direct contradiction to it! My eyes are right, the accumulated, testable knowledge of the species is wrong!"

Our knowledge may in fact be wrong . . . but is it truly arrogance to accept what one can provably demonstrate over what random people simply claim is so?

-DBTrek

 

[Paul Kimball]

I have to say that labelling this skull as 'Star Child' before the results are in can only hurt your credibility..

That pretty much sums it up for me.

Paul