How could we ever explain the birth of such prodigies as Jeremy Bentham, who already in his fourth year could read and write Latin and Greek; or John Stuart Mill, who at the age of three read Greek and at the age of six wrote a history of Rome; or Babington Macaulay, who in his sixth year wrote a compendium of world history; or Beethoven, who gave public concerts when he was seven; or Mozart, who already before his sixth year had written musical compositions; or Voltaire, who read the fables of Lafontaine when he was three years old. Should all these prodigies and geniuses, who for the most part came from illiterate parents, not already in previous births have laid the foundations to their extraordinary faculties? "Natura non facit saltus: nature makes no leaps.
I don't mean to be negative, but the above is really a bogus argument. Plenty of research has been done on child prodigies and the evidence points to genetics in combination with environmental factors. It's simply not true that the phenomenon is unexplainable without rebirth.
The examples he provides are misleading, to say the least. Mozart and Beethoven came from musical families and were educated by their fathers, who saw an opportunity to make a buck. (Beethoven actually wasn't much of a prodigy and his parents were disappointed). John Stuart Mill was the son of the philosopher James Mill (a friend of Jeremy Bentham) and was subjected to an intense education designed to produce a genius. Macaulay was the son of a governor and prominent anti-slavery activist, and received private tutoring.
If anything, what these cases demonstrate is that family background plays a key role, together with education and a genetic predisposition. Contrary to what is claimed, none of these prodigies came from illiterate parents, except maybe Beethoven.
So what he's saying is just plain inaccurate. And even if it wasn't, the argument "well, we can't explain this, so therefore it must be proof of rebirth" is inherently fallacious. That rebirth proponents resort to such sloppy arguments doesn't, to my mind, make rebirth more plausible. On the contrary, when people can't get their facts straight or show a lack of critical thinking, it makes me question their credibility.
There is nothing against a permanently surviving spirit-individuality being in some way given off at death, as a definite wireless message is given off by a sending apparatus working in a particular ways. But it must be remembered that the wireless message only becomes a message again when it comes in contact with a new, material structure - the receiver.
"Permanently surviving spirit-individuality"?!? Is this even in accord with the Buddha's teachings?