A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans?

Jul 03, 2013 by John Hewitt report
A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans?
Comparison of human and chimp chromosomes. Credit: science.kqed.org/quest/2008/05/12/chromosome-fusion-chance-or-design/

(Phys.org) —These days, getting a Ph.D. is probably the last thing you want to do if you are out to revolutionize the world. If, however, what you propose is an idea, rather than a technology, it can still be a valuable asset to have. Dr. Eugene McCarthy is a Ph.D. geneticist who has made a career out of studying hybridization in animals. He now curates a biological information website called Macroevolution.net where he has amassed an impressive body of evidence suggesting that human origins can be best explained by hybridization between pigs and chimpanzees. Extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence and McCarthy does not disappoint. Rather than relying on genetic sequence comparisons, he instead offers extensive anatomical comparisons, each of which may be individually assailable, but startling when taken together. Why weren't these conclusions arrived at much sooner? McCarthy suggests it is because of an over-dependence on genetic data among biologists. He argues that humans are probably the result of multiple generations of backcrossing to chimpanzees, which in nucleotide sequence data comparisons would effectively mask any contribution from pig.

Generally speaking, hybrids—like mules, ligers (lion-tiger hybrids), or zedonks (-donkey hybrids)—are less fertile than the parents that produced them. However, as McCarthy has documented in his years of research into hybrids, many crosses produce hybrids that can produce offspring themselves. The mule, he notes, is an exceptionally sterile hybrid and not representative of hybrids as a whole. When it comes time to play the old nuclear musical chairs and produce gametes, some types of hybrids do a much better job. Liger females, for example, can produce offspring in backcrosses with both lions and tigers. McCarthy also points out that fertility can be increased through successive backcrossing with one of the parents, a common technique used by breeders. In the case of - pig hybridization, the "direction of the cross" would likely have been a male boar or pig (Sus scrofa) with a female chimp (Pan troglodytes), and the offspring would have been nurtured by a chimp mother among (shades of Tarzan!). The physical evidence for this is convincing, as you can discover for yourself with a trip over to macroevolution.net.

When I asked McCarthy if he could give a date estimate for the hybridization event, he said that there are a couple broad possibilities: (1) It might be that hybridization between pigs and apes produced the earliest hominids millions of years ago and that subsequent mating within this hybrid swarm eventually led to the various hominid types and to modern humans; (2) separate crosses between pigs and apes could have produced separate hominids (and there's even a creepy possibility that hybridization might even still be occurring in regions where Sus and Pan still seem to come into contact, like Southern Sudan).

This latter possibility may not sound so far-fetched after you read the riveting details suggesting that the origin of the gorilla may be best explained by hybridization with the equally massive forest hog. This hog is found within the same habitat as the gorilla, and shares many uncommon physical features and habits. Furthermore, well-known hybridization effects can explain many of the fertility issues and other peculiarities of gorilla physiology.

It is not yet clear if or when might support, or refute, our origins. The list of anatomical specializations we may have gained from porcine philandering is too long to detail here. Suffice it to say, similarities in the face, skin and organ microstructure alone are hard to explain away. A short list of differential features, for example, would include, multipyramidal kidney structure, presence of dermal melanocytes, melanoma, absence of a primate baculum (penis bone), surface lipid and carbohydrate composition of cell membranes, vocal cord structure, laryngeal sacs, diverticuli of the fetal stomach, intestinal "valves of Kerkring," heart chamber symmetry, skin and cranial vasculature and method of cooling, and tooth structure. Other features occasionally seen in humans, like bicornuate uteruses and supernumerary nipples, would also be difficult to incorporate into a purely primate tree.

McCarthy has done extensive research into the broader issues, and shortcomings, of our currently incomplete theory of evolution. As the increasing apparent, magnificent, speed with which morphological change can occur continues to present itself for us to comprehend, the standard theory of random mutation followed by slow environmental selection, seems to stall. In my own opinion, female choice undoubtedly provides much of the functional "speed-up" we observe, but other mechanisms of mutation, or pathways for acquired characteristics to be fed back to the gonads (through retroviral transfer?), now need to be considered anew. The role of hybridization in driving morphological change, as McCarthy has observed time and time again, particularly in his studies of avian species (Oxford University Press, 2006), may be the most powerful mechanism of all.

Follow-up story: Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
Jul 11, 2013: Jimmy Kimmel Live - Human Species Created From Pigs and Chimps


Explore further: How cancer spreads: Metastatic tumor a hybrid of cancer cell and white blood cell

Related Stories

Maize hybrid looks promising for biofuel

Feb 20, 2012

Scientists at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have identified a new contender in the bioenergy race: a temperate and tropical maize hybrid. Their findings, published in GCB Bioenergy, show that the maize hybrid ...

Recommended for you

Male monkey filmed caring for dying mate (w/ Video)

8 hours ago

(Phys.org) —The incident was captured by Dr Bruna Bezerra and colleagues in the Atlantic Forest in the Northeast of Brazil.  Dr Bezerra is a Research Associate at the University of Bristol and a Professor ...

Orchid named after UC Riverside researcher

Apr 17, 2014

One day about eight years ago, Katia Silvera, a postdoctoral scholar at the University of California, Riverside, and her father were on a field trip in a mountainous area in central Panama when they stumbled ...

In sex-reversed cave insects, females have the penises

Apr 17, 2014

Researchers reporting in the Cell Press journal Current Biology on April 17 have discovered little-known cave insects with rather novel sex lives. The Brazilian insects, which represent four distinct but re ...

Fear of the cuckoo mafia

Apr 17, 2014

If a restaurant owner fails to pay the protection money demanded of him, he can expect his premises to be trashed. Warnings like these are seldom required, however, as fear of the consequences is enough to ...

User comments : 169

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

lonewolfmtnz
2.9 / 5 (13) Jul 03, 2013
Ough Ough Eeek Eeek Oink Oink
FKN bonkers
hyongx
4.8 / 5 (17) Jul 03, 2013
manbearpig!!!
tpb
3.9 / 5 (16) Jul 03, 2013
I would say that this was an April fools joke even though it's not April, but he seems serious.
Lions and tigers have the same number of chromosomes.
Chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans have 48, and I've never heard of a cross between any of them.
Pigs have 38 and chimpanzees have 46.
A cross between them seems very unlikely.

Hard to believe
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 03, 2013
I would say that this was an April fools joke even though it's not April, but he seems serious.
Lions and tigers have the same number of chromosomes.
Chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans have 48, and I've never heard of a cross between any of them.
Pigs have 38 and chimpanzees have 46.
A cross between them seems very unlikely.

Hard to believe
Perhaps it was aliens. Or this
http://www.youtub...N3QoN-q8
Subach
4.4 / 5 (8) Jul 03, 2013
It seems your calender is a bit off the mark. April 1st was several months and a few days ago, please adjust your calender to the current date July 3rd 2013.
tekram
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2013
Eugene M. McCarthy, Director, Macroevolution.net:
"My evolving manuscript on evolution, repeatedly rejected, continued to grow and change as I revised it and passed it around to colleagues. Finally it became a book, which I submitted to Oxford University Press in the summer of 2007. After peer review, it was accepted for publication and we signed a contract. The working title for the manuscript was On the Origins of New Life Forms...there were reviews that raised objections, all of the same ilk — that my claims were inconsistent with one tenet or another of accepted theory....Be that as it may, such objections weighed increasingly on the mind of my editor. Eventually, after the book had been under contract for nearly a year, he requested that we terminate our contract"
jsdarkdestruction
3.5 / 5 (22) Jul 03, 2013
Wow, that's 5 wasted minutes I wont be getting back. phys.org, why do you post such garbage? whats next, awt and electric universe/plasma cosmology?(you already posted an article about neutron repulsion.)
fmfbrestel
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 03, 2013
@tpd First off, we didnt evolve from chimps, we evolved from something that also evolved into chimps. That something could have had a different number of chromosomes.
Lions and Tigers have the same number of chromosomes, but other hybrids don't -- horses and donkeys do not have the same number of chromosomes (62 and 64) of course most mules are sterile, but female mules with donkey fathers are sometimes fertile.

Chromosome match is not required for hybridization or for fertility.

I think Oxford was smart to cancel the book. Strong claims require strong evidence, and all this guy has is circumstantial and hearsay. But the claim isn't completely impossible.
jscroft
2.2 / 5 (20) Jul 03, 2013
I'm not sure I got the "how" of it. Did a boar rape a female chimp? Is Scott Nudds still living in their basement?
Bogey
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 03, 2013
And of course, the fossil records a full of ponkeys, or should that be monkigs.
Hang on, I will have another go.
Chigs, and Pimps.
Claudius
2.8 / 5 (23) Jul 03, 2013
Alcohol had to be involved. Lots of it.
Telekinetic
2 / 5 (20) Jul 03, 2013
@Vendicar:
Homo Republicanus?
Xynos21
2.2 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2013
While this idea is repulsive and almost depressing it does seem to hold more water than all other theories available for humans divergence from other primates.

This argument will get attention due to sensationalism, it will then be discredited by the public for the same reason.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 03, 2013
A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans
It could provide the alternative for Aquatic ape theory, in which the humans are hairless, because they adopted to water environment during genetic bottleneck in the past. Frankly, I don't see any reason, why they couldn't f*ck some pig during it.
Telekinetic
2.3 / 5 (19) Jul 03, 2013
While this idea is repulsive and almost depressing it does seem to hold more water than all other theories available for humans divergence from other primates.

This argument will get attention due to sensationalism, it will then be discredited by the public for the same reason.

Why is it so repulsive? Pigs are extremely intelligent animals as are chimps. Pigs respond to affection and verbal commands when raised as pets. Their behavior in pens, an unnatural environment, is no indication of their nature. Modern humans exhibit similar behavior when forced into crowded and competitive circumstances. I now have another reason not to eat them- it may be construed as cannibalistic.
Urgelt
4.3 / 5 (8) Jul 03, 2013
Whew, talk about a theory that goes against the consensus.

It ought to be a testable hypothesis, though, which is good. What's needed now is evidence, preferably stronger than circumstantial (e.g. genetic).

Pretty good write-up.
ValeriaT
2 / 5 (12) Jul 03, 2013
needed now is evidence, preferably stronger than circumstantial (e.g. genetic)
Genetic evidence is the strongest one. You may appear like your father or you may not, but analysis DNA will tell it with certainty.
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 03, 2013
Genetic evidence is the strongest one. You may appear like your father or you may not, but analysis DNA will tell it with certainty.


But doesn't that go beyond the constraints of the dense aether model? The AWT can only model the DNA using uncertainty.
Koolokamba
2.1 / 5 (14) Jul 03, 2013
Why should sequence data be the best criterion? Different jobs require different tools. For some screws you need a screwdriver, for others you need a wrench. It seems unlikely that everything can be solved, everything proven with sequence data. At least in some cases, maybe many you'd expect a different approach to be better. His anatomical approach is much more convincing than anything I've seen from the sequence boys. Basically they've told us zilch about why chimpanzees and humans are so different. McCarthy makes it CLEAR with his anatomical approach. Amazingly clear! Also he explains why sequence data is particularly useful in resolving this question. And it's not as if it isn't testable. You could easily get a pig and a chimp, and evaluate it. Let the inseminations begin!
MrVibrating
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 03, 2013
Ooh i once read a translation of an old Arabic book that claimed certain folks were descended from pigs and monkeys...

Funny old book it was.. i forget what it was called...
menssana216
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2013
The theory overcomes the creationist's objection to gradualism and the evidence for pig ape hybridity has no stronger scientific competition.
Open your mind and look at the facts. Consider how it might be true. Let go of your prejudices and misinformations. Not all hybrids are sterile. Examples of hybrid crosses are common in nature, including fertile ones. Admittedly transordinal crosses are unusual, but then we are extraordinary...

P.S. Jakob was a smooth man and Esau was an hairy man:)

addvaluejack
3.1 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2013
I would say that this was an April fools joke even though it's not April, but he seems serious.
Lions and tigers have the same number of chromosomes.
Chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans have 48, and I've never heard of a cross between any of them.
Pigs have 38 and chimpanzees have 46.
A cross between them seems very unlikely.

Hard to believe


Well analysing!
meerling
3.8 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2013
The anatomical similarities between humans and pigs has long been known. There's more than one reason pig heart valves are often use in human heart valve surgeries.
Gmr
2.5 / 5 (21) Jul 04, 2013
Oh for f... Any anatomist of the last century would discredit this - and by "last" I mean 1800's. Yeah, we have similar structures - oddly enough, pigs are generalist omnivores as well - a similar metabolism and vaguely similar environments coupled with similar adult mass leads to oddly convergent features. It does not in any way imply relatedness, any more than a Tasmanian Wolf is related to a Gray Wolf - though they look vaguely similar!

That's as far as it goes. Any other fantasies this man entertains would have been laughed out of the ancient societies prior to Charles Darwin on their merits alone - childish comparison of bone structures and anatomical similarities when both are mammals of roughly the same mass with a similar diet. It honestly sounds like a joke similar to "A Modest Proposal"
Koolokamba
2.6 / 5 (18) Jul 04, 2013


No. You're wrong, Gmr. He has it all worked out in detail and documented. Take a look at what he's done before you just blow him off.
Sinister1811
2.4 / 5 (17) Jul 04, 2013
What we know is that two animals that are distantly related, and genetically different can't produce survivable offspring. That'd be like breeding a giraffe with an elephant. This is interesting, but I think it needs a bit more research.
dan42day
2.9 / 5 (17) Jul 04, 2013
The Muslims aren't going to like this.
FainAvis
3.8 / 5 (10) Jul 04, 2013
http://www.macroe...nts.html
Read the whole site before you reject the idea. The author, "Eugene M. McCarthy, PHD Genetics," has some good points. He is not joking. This is a serious well thought out hypothesis and he is putting his reputation on the line.
Eikka
3.1 / 5 (11) Jul 04, 2013
Well, that can be easily tested out by crossing a chimp with a pig.

If they produce a hybrid, then the question is, in what circumstances could it ever happen? If a boar gets hold of a chimp, it will most likely eat it.

Also, wild pigs aren't hairless. The domestic variety is, because we've bred them that way. It wouldn't explain why humans lack bodily hair.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (11) Jul 04, 2013
Pigs have 38 and chimpanzees have 46.
A cross between them seems very unlikely.

There are very few crossing capable animals wher the resulting chromosome number differs - but only by 2 at most. And those are almost exclusively sterile. A jump from 38 to 46 seems extremely unlikely in the timeframe he suggests.

Even if we posit that both species started out with a similar number of chromosomes and then somehow humans aquired more in time that makes the mentioned 'backcrossing' even more unlikley.

But McCarthy seems to have fallen prey to the idea that convergent evolution necessarily means "of common stock" - which isn't so.
Tachyon8491
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 04, 2013
One does wonder what the ethological motivation for the hybridization act itself then could have been - it would seem that the normal species-recognition is bypassed and over-ridden by another motivational impulse - this does seem like only a remote possibility and highly exceptional.
jsdarkdestruction
3.5 / 5 (13) Jul 04, 2013
Ok, so I have an idea for a test, this guy and his team should go f*ck a bunch of pigs and cows and horses and dogs and sheep and see if they get any successful inseminations and then full term stable pregnancies resulting in functioning/capable of living hybrid creatures being born.
MrVibrating
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 04, 2013
One does wonder what the ethological motivation for the hybridization act itself then could have been - it would seem that the normal species-recognition is bypassed and over-ridden by another motivational impulse - this does seem like only a remote possibility and highly exceptional.

You mean like, say, a Jack Russel vs a teddy bear, or trouser leg?

And if you know ANYTHING about bonobos, well, lock up your Jack Russells, that's all i'm saying..
Valik
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2013
More curious scandal to add: ET DNA entangled with primitive animals or hominids to produce the actual human product... and then there is a new sunrise!
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (15) Jul 04, 2013
http://www.google.com/search?num=20&newwindow=1&nota=1&q=pig%20born%20with%20human%20face quite often. Don't ask me, how is it possible...

People are also born with pig faces.
http://en.m.wikip...ed_women

-What does that prove? More often they are born with dog faces and horse faces.
http://en.m.wikip...Thatcher
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (17) Jul 04, 2013
Well, that can be easily tested out by crossing a chimp with a pig.

If they produce a hybrid, then the question is, in what circumstances could it ever happen? If a boar gets hold of a chimp, it will most likely eat it.

Also, wild pigs aren't hairless. The domestic variety is, because we've bred them that way. It wouldn't explain why humans lack bodily hair.
And feral pigs start to regain their hair. But hairlessness is a byproduct of domestication, not a goal.

This is one more indication that humans are a domesticated species, of living amidst technology in the unnatural social structure of the tribal dynamic. Our development and interaction is best understood from this perspective. We are distinctly unnatural.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (15) Jul 04, 2013
Wassamatter tk I thought you would have at least agreed with the 'aliens' hypothesis.

As you may recall from many many of my previous posts, Darwin and many many others have postulated that tribes whose members were willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the tribe, could be expected to prevail over others in battle.

Dawkins would tell you that this is distinctly unnatural as it is surrendering reproductive rights. Dogs have also been selected for this sort of behavior.

Other indications of domestication: the ability to take orders and do tricks, the willingness to suspend reason and thought, and the ability to perform boring repetitive tasks like plowhorses.

We have been unnaturally selected for timidity, compliance, and herd mentality.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (14) Jul 04, 2013
Here Tk read this again and see if it makes some sense to you this time
http://rechten.el...RID2.pdf

-Tribalism is not a popular concept among soft scientists because it indicates that things like street gangs, prejudice, and the restrictions of a womans natural desire to choose the best available mate for each and every child she wishes to bear, are NORMAL.

Science would much prefer we believe we are wild animals, not domesticated ones.
Chase_O_
3.3 / 5 (12) Jul 04, 2013
Just read the linked article on the guy's website.... It was just as ludicrous as this article, and the "similarities" are a joke. What is this story doing on Physorg? I thought physorg was somewhat reputable?
Neinsense99
2.8 / 5 (16) Jul 04, 2013
Miss Piggy, what have you been up to behind Kermit's back?
SmokedBort
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 04, 2013
Pigs and chimps!! What's next?. Whales and hippos !!!
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.4 / 5 (10) Jul 04, 2013
This looks like a 1st of April posting. Or seeing the many links to a crackpot site, a paid advertisement. Oink, oink.

Crackpot theories have no place on a site devoted to science news. Crossings between species that diversified ~ 90 million years ago [ http://www.timetr...t=Search ] are so unlikely that it closes the case. McCarthy's mule story is bogus, mules (representing a 10 million year split) are representative of what happens, infertility. Here we are discussing another order of magnitude diversification.

"It is not yet clear if or when genetic data might support, or refute, our hybrid origins."

It already does per above. But also as our genetic phylogeny supports chimps as our closest ancestor, to the exclusion of pig intermixing.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.8 / 5 (11) Jul 04, 2013
[cont] "extensive anatomical comparisons, each of which may be individually assailable, but startling when taken together. Why weren't these conclusions arrived at much sooner?"

Already a Linnean would have laughed at this, as already noted.

The similarity between pig anatomy and human anatomy is well known and used by medicine, forensics, and military. It appends best to the artificially selected domestic pig, which is bred to thrive in the same conditions and the same omnivore lifestyle as domestic humans. Not coincidentally, it is the digestive system that is most like ours.

Notably missing in humans are corkscrew tails, cloves or other exclusive pig traits. Also more generic traits like quadrupedality shows that no mixing has occurred. Here is a pig dissection guide, discussing the pig, sheep and human commonalities and differences. Short take: more differs than is common. Not unsurprisingly, seeing how deep the split between the species go.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.1 / 5 (10) Jul 04, 2013
@fmbrestel: Good catch on the chromosome counts, albeit note they can't differ too much as mentioned by others. But the claim is _sufficiently_ impossible.

@Xynos21: BS. Evolution main mechanisms predicts speciation, and of course much more likely so, as speciation happens all the time.

In our case, we have thorough genetic evidence of the diversifications and intermixings (not with pigs).

@ValeriaT, menssana: "Aquatic ape theory" and creationism are both as crackpot and rejected by evidence as this is. Google it.

@Telekinetic, Urqelt, Koolakamba, FainAvis: "Repulsion" or "good writeup" or "clear approach [which it isn't, see the Linnean objection]" or "well thought out [which it isn't, see the Linnean objection]" is not relevant, facts are. And they say "no go".

@SmokedBort: You refer to a diversification, I think, as hippos are the whales closest living species. That is happening all the time.
Telekinetic
1.9 / 5 (18) Jul 04, 2013
@torbjornlarsson:

You, like so many others with heels dug into "known turf" actually know so little. The "facts" that you cling to out of fear rather than scientific curiosity are only interpretations of what is known and supposedly understood presently. Here's a major discovery that surprisingly was unknown until very recently-
http://news.disco...0207.htm
Osiris1
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 04, 2013
Good catch Tbp. However no statement, including the allegation of the descent of republicans has hit on the the idea of our species being genetically engineered test tube/DNA splicing/nucleic modification style like we do now like when we create lab chimeras. Such careful matings/backcrossings become plausible only in a lab setting.

How about if we were bioengineered, say about 12,000 years ago on a site now under the waters of the Persian Gulf near where the Book of Genesis said the four rivers crossed in the 'Garden of Eden'. Suppose this 'garden' was really a lab; Lilith was among the failures, and Adam and Eve were the first Homo Sapiens with dominant genes for intelligence.

Use of pig DNA only logical if used as graft stock for non-Earth DNA. As God created the Universe, he also our bio-engineers created who passed on the gift of a soul to US. We are God's children no matter how we came to be. The Pentateuch, world's oldest book, was our manual...do not eat pigs!
SmokedBort
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 04, 2013
@torbjorn maybe the government will read your highly Intellimegent post and give you the authority you finally deserve.
Neinsense99
3.2 / 5 (21) Jul 05, 2013
Even if it's complete bunk, it is still a welcome change from the climate wars and personal sniping.
tpb
5 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2013
@fmfbrestel wrote,
@tpd First off, we didnt evolve from chimps, we evolved from something that also evolved into chimps.

Whats your point, I didn't say that, the article did.
"where he has amassed an impressive body of evidence suggesting that human origins can be best explained by hybridization between pigs and chimpanzees."

@fmfbrestel wrote,
Chromosome match is not required for hybridization or for fertility.

However, a difference in chromosome count of 8 between pigs and chimps producing a hybrid, much less a fertile hybrid is unheard of.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (8) Jul 05, 2013
The similarity between pig anatomy and human anatomy is well known and used by medicine, forensics, and military

It's also interesting to note that for different areas of medicine there are other animal models that are closer to humans (e.g. for studying effects of the human immune, respiratory, and nervous systems the guinea pig is the best model - not the pig).

And I would be surprised if he'd posit gentic exchanges with rodents as the cause of that.
Smithder
2.1 / 5 (21) Jul 05, 2013
If we step away from the highly emotional topic of human origin and consider the work that this proposal has been based upon, we see that McCarthy's conclusions are nothing short of explosive. They will shake the very foundations of evolutionary theory.

McCarthy is playing the role of mythbuster.

First he is destroying the widely held belief that species only mate with their own kind. He shows that in the plant and aquatic kingdoms where gametes are broadcast upon the currents, then hybridisation is de rigueur. He demonstrates with many examples, that within the bird kingdom where mating is necessary, again, cross species fertilisation is commonplace in hybridisation zones and he even demonstrates the hybrid parentage of several species.

In his latest work - Mamalian Hybrids - he again shows commonplace examples of cross species mating and the establishment of populations of F1 hybrids. It seems the belief that species only breed 'like with like' is a uniquely human fiction.
Smithder
2.1 / 5 (18) Jul 05, 2013
cont...

Second, he is destroying the widely held belief that hybrids are sterile. The F1 hybrid is a unique state in that it is a life form which contains two genomes, a copy from each parent. The resultant creature often demonstrates this duality by being part one parent and part the other - head and feet of one parent, body of the other, forebody one parent, hindbody the other - they are chromosomal chimeras, strong and vigorous, but with an inbuilt issue.

When the F1 attempts to create its gametes, the process of meiosis splits the two parental genomes apart and attempts to pair up the mismatching halves. The mismatch causes the meiosis machinery to create a storm of change and mutation with the consequence that a large proportion of non viable gametes will be produced. Many will fail to be fertilised, those that do fertilise will produce a proportion of 'monsters' that fail to survive, only a small proportion will be capable of forming a totally new viable life form.
Smithder
2.1 / 5 (19) Jul 05, 2013
cont...

Finally, McCarthy has given us Stabilisation Theory - the process by which the newly formed hybrid with its low fertility and tumultuous genome, rapidly (in geological time scales) becomes a species. Natural selection inexorably eliminates the less advantageous genomic variants while retaining any mutations which proffer reproductive advantage. Genetic variability is quickly eliminated and a highly fertile stabilised 'species' is formed, which, due to the absence of inherent genetic diversity, remains essentially unchanging for potentially millions of years.

We have all been brought up to the mindset that cross species sex is an abomination and that evolution is a continual process of refinement to perfection, pandering to our arrogance that we occupy that pinnacle.
Smithder
2 / 5 (20) Jul 05, 2013
cont...

But those of you who are thinking instead of dismissing this new perspective, will be coming to the realisation that natural selection and the production of species is in fact the road to extinction. Those species which give up genetic diversity in favour of fertility, are exposing themselves to the inevitable fate of eventual extinction. The very opposite of classical Darwinian thinking.
jsdarkdestruction
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 05, 2013
smithder, does this mean I can have my pig + elephant hybrid I always wanted? how about a wolf and a porcupine hybrid? how about a horse and a bat hybrid?
with all the people who rape animals(beastiality) ya know ive yet to hear of a single hybrid, can you shed some light on that?
also, could this be the source of werewolves?
Smithder
2 / 5 (16) Jul 05, 2013
@jsdarkdestruction

I am surprised your attempt at humour did not extend to asking for a salmon x owl hybrid - but that would be silly wouldn't it - because they both occupy different environments.

If you go read McCarthy's publication - Forms of Life - you will see he describes in detail the concept of 'Hybridisation Zone'. A geographical place where two species co-habit, whose sexual patterns are compatible, allowing them to indulge in cross species intercourse, leading to the opportunity of producing the all important F1 hybrid.

Without the chance of producing the F1, your wishful hybrids will remain but a figment of your fertile imagination.
Neinsense99
3.2 / 5 (20) Jul 05, 2013
cont...

We have all been brought up to the mindset that cross species sex is an abomination and that evolution is a continual process of refinement to perfection, pandering to our arrogance that we occupy that pinnacle.

Actually, I was brought up to believe it was all made in six days and Noah's Ark is literal truth. I think real evolutionary science is a huge improvement over that because there is actual evidence for it, evidence which doesn't get tossed out by a straw man or dismissed with a Galileo gambit argument.
Neinsense99
3.1 / 5 (22) Jul 05, 2013
@torbjornlarsson:

You, like so many others with heels dug into "known turf" actually know so little. The "facts" that you cling to out of fear rather than scientific curiosity are only interpretations of what is known and supposedly understood presently. Here's a major discovery that surprisingly was unknown until very recently-
http://news.disco...0207.htm

An unrelated discovery (still in question) such as the one you link to, cannot be used as evidence to prove the hypothesis in question. That's just playing the "We don't know everything, so I can make up any s*** I want" game.
Neinsense99
2.8 / 5 (17) Jul 05, 2013
The similarity between pig anatomy and human anatomy is well known and used by medicine, forensics, and military

It's also interesting to note that for different areas of medicine there are other animal models that are closer to humans (e.g. for studying effects of the human immune, respiratory, and nervous systems the guinea pig is the best model - not the pig).

And I would be surprised if he'd posit gentic exchanges with rodents as the cause of that.

Unfortunately, there is apparent anatomical similarity between pigs and most of what you'll actually find on many dating web sites. I don't plan on advancing any new hypotheses because of it.
Smithder
2.6 / 5 (18) Jul 05, 2013
@Neinsense99

No one is dismissing Darwinian Theory.

McCarthy is stating that random micro mutations are not enough to explain the realities demanded by the fossil record.

The McCarthy theory is an addition to Darwinian Theory by allowing the reality of hybridisation to provide the instantaneous jumps in complexity that the fossil record demands. Darwinian natural selection and random micro mutation remain proven facts and are not dismissed in any way by the McCarthy theory.
Telekinetic
1.9 / 5 (17) Jul 05, 2013
@torbjornlarsson:

You, like so many others with heels dug into "known turf" actually know so little. The "facts" that you cling to out of fear rather than scientific curiosity are only interpretations of what is known and supposedly understood presently. Here's a major discovery that surprisingly was unknown until very recently-
http://news.disco...0207.htm

An unrelated discovery (still in question) such as the one you link to, cannot be used as evidence to prove the hypothesis in question.

The discovery I linked to has everything to do with the topic- the origin of humans. My point is that evolutionary information is in a state of flux: new information replacing or amending previous declarations. Whether cross-breeding was more possible millions of years ago is an open question- Could the relative ease of cross-breeding back then have been a survival mechanism that has since been lost?
loneislander
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 05, 2013
Balls! What balls! This is why free speech is worth defending.
Neinsense99
3.1 / 5 (15) Jul 05, 2013
@torbjornlarsson:

You, like so many others with heels dug into "known turf" actually know so little. The "facts" that you cling to out of fear rather than scientific curiosity are only interpretations of what is known and supposedly understood presently. Here's a major discovery that surprisingly was unknown until very recently-
http://news.disco...0207.htm

Claim you didn't write it, but you did. It's still rhetorical BS no matter how far the goal posts move or how much lipstick goes on the pig.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 05, 2013
I am not understanding you here tk
Here's a major discovery that surprisingly was unknown until very recently
What was unknown - the specifics of this particular little animal and its place in our lineage, or the fact that we are the end result of a progression of many such little animals? And what does that have to do with us being crossbred with pigs?
The discovery I linked to has everything to do with the topic- the origin of humans
No, the topic is the crossbreeding of humans and swine. Not the descent of both swine and humans and all other placental animals from this creature of yours.
Whether cross-breeding was more possible millions of years ago is an open question
-And how could you possibly know this? It is not in your article which has NOTHING to do with crossbreeding.
Could the relative ease of cross-breeding back then have been a survival mechanism that has since been lost?
AGAIN WTF does that have to do with your link?? EXPLAIN yourself.
evercurious
2.6 / 5 (7) Jul 05, 2013
First two thoughts?
"Meh.. I'd do her."

"But... I really REALLY like bacon."

And yes, I can believe Bonobos would hump anything.
Smithder
2 / 5 (12) Jul 05, 2013

@TheGhostofOtto1923

Picking up an important point here before folks go off at a tangent - the topic is not the cross breeding of humans and swine.

The topic is the cross breeding of swine with Bonobo forming an F1 hybrid, which then backcrossed into the Bonobo troop forming the proto human colony.

Nowhere is there a suggestion that humans have been mating or hybridising with swine. If that had been the case we should have expected to have seen a far stronger genetic similarity between humans and swine, instead of the very close match we share with Pan.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (10) Jul 05, 2013

@TheGhostofOtto1923

Picking up an important point here before folks go off at a tangent - the topic is not the cross breeding of humans and swine.

The topic is the cross breeding of swine with Bonobo forming an F1 hybrid, which then backcrossed into the Bonobo troop forming the proto human colony.

Nowhere is there a suggestion that humans have been mating or hybridising with swine.
Sorry nowhere in the article is there a suggestion that bonobos have been mating or hybridising with swine either. Try again.
MrVibrating
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 05, 2013

@TheGhostofOtto1923

Picking up an important point here before folks go off at a tangent - the topic is not the cross breeding of humans and swine.

The topic is the cross breeding of swine with Bonobo forming an F1 hybrid, which then backcrossed into the Bonobo troop forming the proto human colony.

Nowhere is there a suggestion that humans have been mating or hybridising with swine. If that had been the case we should have expected to have seen a far stronger genetic similarity between humans and swine, instead of the very close match we share with Pan.


Precisely.

Besides, i've heard puppies are more like the real thing...
Smithder
2.3 / 5 (12) Jul 05, 2013
I stand corrected,

I took that reference from the extensive essay McCarthy has published and from which the above article was based.

The point however stands, the article is not about humans and swine cross breeding.
MrVibrating
2.7 / 5 (14) Jul 05, 2013

@TheGhostofOtto1923

Picking up an important point here before folks go off at a tangent - the topic is not the cross breeding of humans and swine.

The topic is the cross breeding of swine with Bonobo forming an F1 hybrid, which then backcrossed into the Bonobo troop forming the proto human colony.

Nowhere is there a suggestion that humans have been mating or hybridising with swine.
Sorry nowhere in the article is there a suggestion that bonobos have been mating or hybridising with swine either. Try again.

Read McCarthy's site (linked in the article). It's really very good.. He also makes the compelling point that convergent evolution of incidental and redundant features (such as a cartilaginous nose, unique amongst primates) is inconsistent - what would be the pressure for such traits; perhaps a particular ape ancestor rooted for truffles, or something? There's myriad other examples listed on the site, and as the article here states, when taken together...
MrVibrating
2.8 / 5 (15) Jul 05, 2013
Like Smithder said, this is dynamite. It's daring, unabashedly challenging, dangerous, sexy and i like it.

I'm often sceptical about such sweeping shortcuts, too, but in this instance it's precisely the kind of revelation Occam would favour... besides being the ultimate insult to the major religions, a porcine 'missing link' would be an optimal explanation for our accelerated development. If it didn't tip so many sacred cows most folks would agree it's kick-yourself obvious, a real "doh!" moment..
Smithder
2 / 5 (12) Jul 05, 2013
If it didn't tip so many sacred cows most folks would agree it's kick-yourself obvious, a real "doh!" moment..


Exactly how I felt when I first read 'Forms of Life'
komone
5 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2013
It's fun to consider. I don't immediately see any scientific reason to discount it (and I'm sure somebody would have posted a contradictory reference if there was one). I'd guess that this work is worthy of research to find the "one ugly fact".
Smithder
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2013

@komone
Do you have thoughts as to what to go look for?

As attractive as the idea is, it is only going to grow roots when people go looking for uglies and fail to find them.

This cross is clearly a rare event, perhaps a combination of the distance of the cross and the rare occurrence of the formation of a hybrid zone.

It is not my field, but I am told genomic evidence of the second parent is thoroughly shredded by multiple back crosses, but then we have no idea as to how many back crosses were involved before the proto colony broke away from the parent troop.
Skepticus
2.5 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2013
Pure genius. The author of the research managed to offend two major religions in one stroke!
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2013
Cartilaginous nose
It is also easy to break and unsuitable for rooting. It does however shed water well. Much of our present configuration can be explained by the aquatic ape theory - hairless swimmers and wading spear fishers. Google it.
MrVibrating
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2013
The idea's reminiscent of Lane and Martin's bioenergetics theory for the origins of multicellularity, in that the successful symbiosis of eukaryotes and the mitochondrial progenitor (insofar as fitness of the resulting form despite its increased complexity and energy requirements) would be a similar kind of 'black swan' event - having taken some 3 billion years to arise.

Similarly with respect to symbiosis (as opposed to hybridisation) is the fact that 90% of the cells we carry around with us do not contain any of our own DNA; it's a real ego check to any self-righteous notions a predestined superiority via incremental honing of an ancestral genome.

There's even tentative evidence of genetic development through absorption and assimilation of material through both the stomach lining and cell wall - and that's without the intermediary of say, retroviral intercession.

Ditto the blasphemy of Lamarckian 'horizontal' transfer via epigenetics.

None of this contradicts Darwin, of course..
MrVibrating
2.3 / 5 (12) Jul 06, 2013
aquatic ape theory - Google it.


I'm familiar with the idea, if skeptical. Again though, you'd need to go through all of these morphological anomalies - things we share with pigs but not other apes - and invoke different explanations for each. McCarthy does mention the aquatic ape theory, if only to note that his neatly obviates and surpasses it.

Of course the ultimate arbiters of this will be paleoanthropologists, down the line. Maybe they'll hit a taxonomic wall that only a hybrid could scale. Or maybe they'll dredge up an aquatic ape off the coast somewhere..

AAT tho remains a kind of 'god of the gaps' hypothesis, whereas McCarthy's is offering a tangible alternative.

It's also the more wickedly, deliciously subversive of the two.. For some reason i get the impression THAT should appeal to you...?
Smithder
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2013
A hypothesis that predicts species stabilisation and eventual extinction.

A model which predicts the instantaneous creation of new life forms exactly as demanded by the fossil record

A model which predicts the creation of complexity without the intermediary steps

A model which predicts genetic diversity and low fertility in new hybrid species

A model which predicts the presence of traits which should have been eliminated by natural selection.

Is the earth moving for you yet?

But watch out, because it also predicts that the genetic rate of change clock is meaningless and the 'Tree of life' is only part of the story.
MrVibrating
1.7 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2013
unsuitable for rooting


And, lol, i was being sarcastic but seriously? Animals that root DO have cartilaginous snouts! Not only are you suggesting such adaptations are futile but also that we had an ancestor under pressure to get on all fours and rummage with its face in the dirt? Was this before or after Captain Seaman (oops, i meant sea-man)?
MrVibrating
2.3 / 5 (12) Jul 06, 2013
Re. stabilisation, one particular paradox this might answer to is that of the horseshoe crab, limulus, which a few years back was shown to have one of the greatest rates of genetic change yet found, despite being almost unchanged physiologically over a geological epoch. As if one of the most stable lifeforms was somehow running to stand still, genomically. Where we'd previously considered morphology to be beholden to genetics, here's an apparent example of role reversal, where the morphological solution to the ecological niche is stable, and subsequent genetic development subservient to that homeostasis.

It turns the whole catalogue of 'happy accidents' on its head...
betterexists
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2013
A Chimpazee can produce....say a Million Spermatozoa....There are a Million Female Pigs! Why Not simply try it in the Wild or in the Lab? If they do not get pregnant, Just Eat'em! PorkySense
betterexists
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2013
Pure genius. The author of the research managed to offend two major religions in one stroke!

Just like Apollo Landing! Why Not Repeat it Now? So, many Nations have become Adept in these Decades....Space-wise!
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2013
I read thru some of this guys website and 2 things jumped out:

"...the pygmy chimp [bonobo] is the best extant representative of what chimpanzees probably were like prior to the hybridization events leading to the production of the human race."

-So a bonobo-type creature WAS the possible hybrid candidate.

"No systematic attempts to cross distantly related mammals have been reported. However, in the only animal class (Pisces) where distant crosses have been investigated scientifically, the results have been surprisingly successful"

-The author cites many hybrids among closely-related birds for example but nothing like a hawk/sparrow cross. But humans must have tried breeding dissimilar species for useful traits before.
betterexists
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2013
Which Carried the Language Gene? The Chimp or the Pork? If it is a Language Hybrid....how come so many languages?
Are there so many varieties of Chimps & Pigs? Common sense questions OR not. Very sensetific, though.
Smithder
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2013
@MrVibrating

Re limulus. Do you have a reference you can point us to regarding the claimed high rate of genetic change.

If it is a hybridisation event, then it begs the question - just what could hybridise with an animal which runs a copper based blood chemistry?

Perhaps the limulus are only still with us because they have found a way to maintain genetic diversity?
Smithder
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2013


@betterexists

I have read that chimps have extremely well developed capacity for language, but no vocal chords.
Pigs on the other hand have vocal chords and are very vocally communicative but I have not read of any attempt to demonstrate language - perhaps we do not want our food to have a conversation with us or understand what it is screaming before we kill it.

Why so many languages? - try 'Founder Effect'
Smithder
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2013
@MrVibrating

Giving the Limulus question a moments more thought - with a creature classified as a living fossil, what did the researches find to compare the sequences with, in order to determine the rate of change?

The following quote though from McCarthy may eliminate the question all together, depending how the 'rate' was determined -

"Rates of genetic change over evolutionary time are generally measured by setting up phylogenetic trees and drawing conclusions from them about implied rates. If, however, dichotomous phylogenetic trees are mere figments, and do not reflect any underlying pattern of evolutionary descent (as is the assumption under ST), then they certainly cannot be used to measure rates. So it becomes nonsense to talk about an organism having the greatest rate. " E McCarthy -Private communication 2013
Sean_W
2.1 / 5 (15) Jul 06, 2013
While tigons and ligers are fertile when mated in captivity they are ill suited to either the tiger or the lion habitat and social structures. They either die from confused hunting strategies or fail to successfully attract a mate. When artificially housed with a hybrid, a regular species like a lion or tiger might give it a go but in the wild the freaky ape-pig is not likely to get much action even if it has really cool hooves and can swing from a tree.

I'm not surprised this theory involves claiming that biologists rely too heavily on genetic analysis. Genetic information would be impossible to reconcile with this fantasy.
Laars__
4 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2013
Grandma needed a new heart valve, but a primate heart valve would have been rejected by her human body. She needed a porcine valve transplant. It's a pig's heart valve which is more like the human's. I also have noticed that in the face we look mostly like pig meat - not monkey-like in so many ways - especially visible in the Caucasian is this porcine ancestry. There has to be evidence of hog in our genotype. Look at mens' beards. It's more like a hedge hog - this nasal hair run amok - unlike the smooth, long hair of the colobus. - Cornelius Stylander
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2013
I'm not surprised this theory involves claiming that biologists rely too heavily on genetic analysis. Genetic information would be impossible to reconcile with this fantasy
If you read his site you see he does have a lot of evidence and quite a few supporters.

The idea that a mechanism exists in which species might seek to acquire favorable traits from other species, suggests that one more 'deviant' sexual practice might serve a useful purpose in some situations.

"11 He has made everything beautiful in its time." ecc3

A genetic basis for prejudice by temperate-adapted populations toward tropicals may also make sense in this context. A population which has migrated north and invested the effort over hundreds of generations to develop traits which aid survival in those climes, might naturally resist incursion into their gene pool by individuals who would mitigate these adaptations.

But the interlopers would have much to gain for their offspring by borrowing from this pool.
VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2013
Wasn't George Bush Jr. a chimp, pig hybrid?

http://www.democr...himp.jpg
Smithder
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2013
@TheGhostofOtto1923

Interesting concept you have there, that one species realises its short comings and so seeks to compensate for this by hybridising with a species which is not so lacking.

When a male horse mounts a female donkey, I think it is more likely that their actions are being driven by what is between their legs, rather than what is between their ears - don't you?

Or is that too much an anthropocentric viewpoint?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2013
@TheGhostofOtto1923

Interesting concept you have there, that one species realises its short comings and so seeks to compensate for this by hybridising with a species which is not so lacking.

When a male horse mounts a female donkey, I think it is more likely that their actions are being driven by what is between their legs, rather than what is between their ears - don't you?

Or is that too much an anthropocentric viewpoint?
Sex is enjoyable BECAUSE reproduction is the most important thing we can do as animals. We are guided by the specifics of this desire. Certainly some of it is pathological, but maybe far less than we are led to believe.

I think homosexuality for instance is an epigenetic response to overpopulation which would explain its prevalence in cities. And then there is this
http://aftermathn...rothels/

-Why so popular unless there is a genetic reason for it?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2013
And our aversion to certain practices could be genetically driven as well.

'There is a time to embrace and a time to refrain' ecc3

The religions which have survived are better at outgrowing and overrunning their less prolific counterparts. They do this by maintaining the illusion that the earth is not already full. And they also deem all non-procreative sex as evil.

People in a pioneering frame of mind, who perceive that they are living in a wilderness, would FEEL that non-procreative sex was as repulsive as procreative sex was pleasurable. And so the religions would not have much convincing to do if they were able to maintain this illusion of a chosen people on a mission to populate a promised land by any and all means.
MrVibrating
1.7 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2013
@MrVibrating

Re limulus. Do you have a reference you can point us to regarding the claimed high rate of genetic change.

If it is a hybridisation event, then it begs the question - just what could hybridise with an animal which runs a copper based blood chemistry?

Perhaps the limulus are only still with us because they have found a way to maintain genetic diversity?

Apologies on two counts - after an hour's searching, i cannot find a reference, but IIRC it was from a minor report in New Scientist about 3-4 years ago (i recall taking the article to a friends for discussion). As such you may disregard the claim for now, however the point kind of still stands in that there's numerous sources describing their mutation rate as being 'average' - this despite 500my of outward stasis.

Also i didn't mean to imply a hybridisation link - merely the point that the rate of genetic change and morphology are perhaps only loosely correlated.
MrVibrating
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2013
@MrVibrating

Giving the Limulus question a moments more thought - with a creature classified as a living fossil, what did the researches find to compare the sequences with, in order to determine the rate of change?

The following quote though from McCarthy may eliminate the question all together, depending how the 'rate' was determined -
(snip)

His point there is that if ancient and extant examples only share 'convergently similar' morphologies then, obvioushly, they're seperate phylogenies and there IS no direct path between them, at any rate of change. However i suspect (though not sure) that the report i'm remembering was based on mtDNA mutation rates... alas without the original reference we can only speculate... probably best forgotten for now...
MrVibrating
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2013
@Otto - so homophobia is another Jewish conspiracy? Wow, fascinating what you can learn here..

Still, as a Jew, at least, i can understand your feelings of disenfranchisement. It's not nice to be reviled for any reason i guess, let alone those beyond our control.. ;)

a chosen people on a mission to populate a promised land by any and all means


Right. Except by marrying out. Or non-consensual sex. Or 'laying with animals'. Or incest. Or adultery. Hell, there's even solemn restrictions on marital sex. In fact rabbinic law associates our very libido with "yetzer hara" - the evil inclination. Etc.

I've wondered in the past why judeophobia's so prevalent amongst gay folks, but you seem to have gone some way towards explaining that here... kudos.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2013
As a Jew
Ahahaahaa so you think Jews are the only religionists who think they are gods favorites?? You are a little too jewocentic I think. Two things: 1) Since archeology has told us that none of the bible stories happened, then all judeo/Xian/Islam belief systems are bogus. And 2) the British royal family are the rightful heirs to the throne of David. Too bad.

Religions are all one thing and it is all bad.

No, the people who wrote your books were not stupid. They knew a great deal about husbandry and how this applied to their human flock. Your books contain useful descriptions on breeding, herding, culling, and of course overrunning your enemies with a song in your hearts.

They cared nothing about what might happen to your nonexistent souls after you were dead, but everything about what you thought and did while you were alive. They understood the power in the lies of wish-granting and immortality. They understood the POWER of the tribal dynamic.

They knew how to conquer.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2013
non-consensual sex
Another godder who has no idea what's in his book.

""Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin."  Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan." judges21

-Where they were RAPED. can we assume it was something else because your god required it? Many examples. They even hid in an orchard and kidnapped the wives and daughters of fellow Jews.
with animals
Yes, any and all flavors of non-procreative sex were the most serious of sins BECAUSE the mandate to outgrow the enemy and replace battle losses faster, is the most important. Because the tribes which weren't as good at this as their neighbors, were annihilated.

Your book writers were the first to record this successful formula for conquest. Later on, Romans added the NT which enabled it to be used to consolidate entire regions. Then came Islam.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (12) Jul 06, 2013
Wassamatter opentootlite, something about the direction of this thread you find objectionable?

Religion has kept us from exploring explanations for some of the most puzzling aspects of sex. But as to criticism of Judaism itself, perhaps dr shlomo sand of tel aviv university is better able to address the nonsense. Blink if you agree.
http://www.youtub...a_player

The bible is full of wisdom. It's just not religious wisdom.
MrVibrating
1.7 / 5 (10) Jul 07, 2013
lol, my fault, i lit the touch paper..

FWIW tho, again, i'm not religious. And bingo, yes, most if not all religionists consider themselves the chosen ones, or else what would be the point? If your religion's right, and conflicts with another, then the other must be wrong and its devotees as damned as you are saved.

Which is just one of the many reasons i want nothing to do with it. But i don't rail against it either, because as you so amply demonstrate there's nothing so hypocritical as a sanctimonious atheist.

If i had a habit of derailing threads to agonise over the ethics of homosexuality you'd rightly suspect my motives, too. Besides, i'm of the opinion that female homosexuality is one of the best proofs of God there is; counterpointed only by my innate exclusion from that demographic. But hey i feel your pain... it sucks when you can't beat 'em OR join 'em, eh..?
Guy_Underbridge
5 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2013
Wassamatter opentootlite, something about the direction of this thread you find objectionable?
the high point of his week is down-voting everyone on the forum. Have pity.
grondilu
5 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2013
A cross between them seems very unlikely.

Unlikely events can happen if you give them a few million years.
HeloMenelo
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 07, 2013
Aaah..... Long Pig....!
grondilu
5 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2013
Whether or not there was such an hybridization, this author raises interesting questions about how to take this kind of interbreeding in phylogenics. I mean, in a phylogenic tree all species derive from a single ancestor. There is no such thing as two species merging together n order to form an other species. Perhaps the binary tree in philogenics are too simplified a model.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (13) Jul 07, 2013
sanctimonious atheist
Huh. Did you find dr sand sanctimonious, or only genuinely concerned about the future of his country and the world? How about this guy
http://www.youtub...a_player

I am not an atheist. Atheists believe there is some validity to the question. I am an antireligionist who understands that religion cannot be separated from what it does. Religion CANNOT be reformed as the books cannot be rewritten. But this fact does mean they can be disproved and discredited, and in time ended.

I don't like to see buses full of schoolgirls getting firebombed or land and lives getting stolen from anybody over the cause of religion. Does that make me sanctimonious?

But I do find it fascinating that the bible contains so much pertinent info on the human condition. It is evidence that the ancients knew far more than we give them credit for, and this is why I like to quote scripture when relevant, to elucidate this obvious truth.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 07, 2013
no such thing as 2 species merging together
-But indeed there are.

"There are many examples of symbiosis in nature, but lichens are unique because they look and behave quite differently from their component organisms. So, lichens are regarded as organisms in their own right and are given generic and species names. However, for taxonomic purposes the names are actually fungal names: lichens are regarded as a special group of fungi - the lichenised fungi."

-In addition, scientists find obviously foreign but functional DNA in genomes. Species have been borrowing from one another since life began. Here is one way this can happen:
http://en.m.wikip...ollution
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (18) Jul 07, 2013
This "scientist" is a hybrid in his own right, a bit of a cross between a jack and an ass.
Smithder
1.8 / 5 (12) Jul 07, 2013
" It is evidence that the ancients knew far more than we give them credit for, and this is why I like to quote scripture when relevant, to elucidate this obvious truth" @The GhostofOtto1923

One of the predictions which falls out of the McCarthy hypothesis, is that intelligence will decline with time.

The hypothesis is based on the conjecture that natural selection will favour increases in fertility, and while intelligence may assist survivability, it cannot be shown to increase fertility.

This leaves us with the conclusion that our species was far more intelligent (but not necessarily more knowledgeable) at its genesis than we are now, and that our intelligence will continue to decline as our fertility increases.

The film Idiocracy is a wonderful humorous prediction of exactly this effect.

There is also substantial demonstration from some of the posters that this process is well on its way...
FainAvis
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2013
After reading a lot of McCarthy's website I went for a walk to ponder how a pig and a chimp got together. McCarthy suggests the appeasement gesture of the female chimp is to present her sexy bits. The natural inclination of the male pig is to mount anything that presents, even a plastic jug.
I was roused from my reverie by a bull dog, only partially restrained by its mistress. It was certainly eager to mount me, a grown man.
I can imagine after a great worldwide catastrophe there would be many lonely critters of all disparate kinds looking for a bit of nooky with whatever is available.

grondilu
5 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2013
no such thing as 2 species merging together
-But indeed there are.


I meant that this aspect is not translated in the phylogenic tree, and it can not with a binary tree.
FainAvis
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2013
Many of you have objected to mismatched chromosome numbers. McCarthy goes into some detail to explain that this is not a problem in many natural and artificial hybridizing circumstances. He asserts that the F1 hybrid is often not fertile to a second F1 individual, but that the "backcross" (F1 x parental type) recovers some fertility, and more backcrossing recovers more fertility. He shows examples.

This stabilization theory will be revolutionary.
tkjtkj
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2013
Good work, Dr. McCarthy ... well-thought out with multiple details ...

Naturally, we have not progressed much as a society from the days of Galileo and we expect rejection, condemnation, and rage. .. but not of that changes the rules of nature.

Bravo!
Smithder
2.3 / 5 (12) Jul 07, 2013
@FainAvis

The catastrophe would probably have been nothing more that the young male boars being ejected from their family pack, or sounder, when they reached sexual maturity, destined to 'enjoy' a solitary life until mating season the following year.

Devoid of the opportunity to relieve his sexual needs with his mother, sisters or aunties, the young male is in a near perpetual state of arousal, seeking gratification from anything - a bush, a rock, or any accommodating female not intimidated by his strength and not seeking him as lunch. A Bonobo would seem a near perfect opportunity.

In fact the comparison between teenage male humans and newly matured boars, both in a near state of priapism, should perhaps feature highly on the comparisons list.
FainAvis
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2013
McCarthy is saying that pig crossed to chimp. Then the offspring (F1), most often female, is cared for by the chimp mother, is crossed to another male chimp, to create (F2) and successively F3 ... F#
Perhaps simultaneously more pig x chimp -> F1, F2 ... F#
Very soon there is a stable population of F# individuals of both sexes who are fertile to each other and can start a new group of proto humans, equipped with greater variability for regular neo Darwinian selection pressures to work with. He calls that stabilization and has shown numerous examples in other organisms, still occurring in our present day, in some detail.
Clearly, with all that back crossing to the chimp, the amount of pig DNA is reduced.
FainAvis
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2013
This stabilization theory is more general than merely being about pigs and chimps. He means most newly emerging life forms are the result of hybridization and stabilization. That is why above I mentioned catastrophe. It is well known that after a global near extinction event new life forms emerge. Neo-Darwinianism is not up to the task of explaining that. Stabilization theory is up to that task.

Jeddy_Mctedder
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 07, 2013
Isle of doctor moreau?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (12) Jul 07, 2013
intelligence will decline with time...natural selection will favour increases in fertility
Well not only that, but the process of our unnatural selection in the context of tech-fueled tribal war has forced our brains to become unsustainably large and fragile.

They are energy-hungry and critically prone to damage and defect. Their function begins to decline shortly after adolescence. There is a wide range of intellectual capacity not found in the animal world and this indicates that well-functioning brains are the exception rather than the rule.

We ARE being selected for intellectual capacity as Herrnstein described in 'the bell curve', and this is in no way spontaneous. Kids are being separated according to intellectual capacity, and the smarter are sent away to university where they are encouraged to breed.

Again - natural selection for our species ended when we became able to hunt those animals which had kept our numbers in check. The tribal dynamic is what created us.
Smithder
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2013
Have you watched Idiocracy?

http://watch32.co...ull.html

clever x clever = my career first.
dumb x dumb = lets make babies.

Many a true word spoken in jest just claimed real meaning.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (12) Jul 07, 2013
Have you watched Idiocracy?

http://watch32.co...ull.html

clever x clever = my career first.
dumb x dumb = lets make babies.

Many a true word spoken in jest just claimed real meaning.
Haha what a stoopid moobie. That was so dum I don no whut.

So joes family were the beginnings of a class of Leaders which saved the world in spite of the people upon it.

Just like today.
Smithder
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 07, 2013
Perhaps saved humanity for a short time, but Idiocracy Rules - OK, so shortly after Joe puts a small bump in the global IQ, its not long before dumb x dumb = dumber x 4.

Of course, the big risk is that Dumb in charge of Nukes or other serious technology = global extermination.

Bring back the F1's we need their intelligence to show us the way.
Smithder
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 07, 2013
@TheGhostofOtto1923

Re 'The Bell Curve'

It supports my point perfectly in the statement :-

"Intelligence is a better predictor of many personal dynamics, including financial income, job performance, chance of unwanted pregnancy,"

Intelligence actually works against being selected for fertility.
betterexists
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2013
Were they Both Blind? I mean Dad Chimp & Mom Pig?
Who reared the Baby?
The Tree Dweller OR the Snouted Lady?
betterexists
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2013
If the Chimp reared the baby, where did it get the milk? Did it's Blindness not interfere with its arboreal life? What a Combo!

Tough to accept such Science...Whether it is loose or perfectly logical one.
FainAvis
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 08, 2013
It is apparent from reading all your sniping comments, bereft of any rational consideration of the points made by McCarthy, that very few of you have actually read his work.
Here is the main point: Neo Darwinism, that is gradual change by accumulated single nucleotide changes, accompanied by selection for the fittest, cannot explain that most transitional forms are absent. New life forms suddenly appear in the fossil record, stay quite the same for millions of years, then suddenly disappear.
Yet, if you admit the simple mechanism employed by cattle breeders, F1 is of low fertility. You can increase the fertility by repeated backcross to one side of the parental stock. That gives the genes and chromosomes a chance to rearrange sufficiently to get improvements in fertility. He calls that 'stabilization'.
Then the new form can separate of as a new life form.
FainAvis
2.9 / 5 (7) Jul 08, 2013
@ betterexists Follow the sequence. While out in the woods little miss chimp got laid by a pig. She brought up the offspring, even though it was an ugly little monster, because that is what mothers do. The offspring, as is usual for F1, monster or not, was very likely female, mated to another chimp, and brought up the next generation. Ad infinitum. The female chimp is well able to look after the monster without any help from either the boar or the male chimp.
For a while all the monster generations are accepted into the chimp society, without prejudice to their monsterness. But after a while some fertile male offspring occur in the F# hybrids. That is when the new life form can reproduce on its own, if they choose.
FainAvis
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 08, 2013
As for intelligence and big brains. Brain size for chimps is constrained by the need for cooling. Their anatomy is not up to cooling a larger brain.
A gift from the pig is a way to improve that cooling mechanism. I kid you not. Read the website.
UKMervSanders
5 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2013
Ignoring the examples of Idiocracy running amok, it seems apparent to me that the main objection to Dr Mccarthy's speculative hypothesis is the belief that different "species" do not mate with each other, and if they do, and should offspring result which survive to reproductive age, they themselves will be sterile. This "fact" must first be recognised as myth.
Before even considering whether man is a hybrid or not, I fully recommend first taking the time to read "Forms of Life". The research carried out by Dr Mccarthy is thorough and well-presented. It opens up the possibility that we ourselves may be hybrids. Hybridisation and Stabilisation explain the gaps in the fossil record of the gradual evolutionary processes to "create" new species - a flaw in NeoDarwinism.
This article hardly captures the extent of research into why pig and chimp are likely suspects.
if one accepts the possibility of us being hybrids but finds this coupling improbable, are their more suitable candidates?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 08, 2013
@TheGhostofOtto1923

Re 'The Bell Curve'

It supports my point perfectly in the statement :-

"Intelligence is a better predictor of many personal dynamics, including financial income, job performance, chance of unwanted pregnancy,"

Intelligence actually works against being selected for fertility.
There have always been more dumb people than smart people. Bell curve describes a way of separating wheat from chaff and ensuring that smart people propagate.

Smart People have been busy for millenia dividing dumb people up and setting them against one another in Predictable and Constructive ways. This is the only reason why we still exist.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 08, 2013
See, smart people from different tribes got together long long ago to discuss their mutual problems and try to put an end to constant tribal war which was endangering their existence.

They realized that dumb people were the true enemies of smart people everywhere. Dumb people had no concept of moderation or of planning for the future. So unless something was done, dumb people would indeed ruin the earth by their propagating and gluttony and fighting, and enduring order would never ever be established.

And so smart people devised a Plan whereby they would divide the people up and set them against one another in Constructive, and not destructive, Ways. This too is described in the holy books.

Smart people intermarried and became a tribe unto themselves. They became a Tribe of Leaders dedicated to the preservation of all that is good. They would ensure a future for Themselves and Their offspring in spite of all the dumb people in the world who would only destroy it.

Evidence abounds.
WillieWard
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 08, 2013
You are what you eat.
You are what you hate.
Arrogant and presumptuous humans are what they are, just filthy pigs.
marraco
1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2013
Virus are known for mixing genes from different species.

Maybe we are the product of swine flu. That doesn't require hybridization, and explains a lot.
bizwiz
4.8 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2013
It took me about 15 minutes with Google Scholar to find similar ideas. Try "Origin and evolution of animal hybrid species" and read the section "Stabilized recombinant species in animals".

I am no biologist, but the idea that hybrids play a role in evolution seems incredibly obvious. Now, whether pigs and apes mated to create pre-humans ... that's a different question.
bizwiz
5 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2013
Here's another one: Hybrid speciation, Mallet, J. Nature 2007.

"Botanists have long believed that hybrid speciation is important, especially after chromosomal doubling (allopolyploidy). Until recently, hybridization was not thought to play a very constructive part in animal evolution. Now, new genetic evidence suggests that hybrid speciation, even without polyploidy, is more common in plants and also animals than we thought."

Chimp+ape = human aside, I'm surprised this McCarthy guy isn't getting more criticism for his lack of originality (not saying he hasn't made an innovation!).
Gmr
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 08, 2013
Species as we define it is pretty frungable. It is in truth quite arbitrary.

However.

One cannot swap parts between a Yugo and a Gremlin. The two are smaller cars, but because of the long separation in logistical chain development and engineering, one cannot simply whip up a monstrous combination without a lot of welding, and the result won't look like some blending of the two. You might pull this off with a beetle and a porsche of the right kind... but they share some similar support chains and engineering.

As much as this fantasy might appeal to some minds - keep in mind that you wouldn't have a smooth blend. A lot of it would be either or - like the Yugo/Gremlin - genes tend to use one or the other in inheritence. Rarely both.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 08, 2013
As much as this fantasy might appeal to some minds - keep in mind that you wouldn't have a smooth blend. A lot of it would be either or - like the Yugo/Gremlin - genes tend to use one or the other in inheritence. Rarely both
You only think this way because 1) You havent read the thread, 2) You havent visited this guys website, and 3) You obviously know little about the subject in general.

And yet you feel you have something useful to add. Can you explain why that is?
Neinsense99
3.1 / 5 (15) Jul 08, 2013
There must have been some kind of primordial Jerry Springer show...
Gmr
2 / 5 (12) Jul 08, 2013
@TGOO1923
Biology works like it does. Not how somebody wishes it to. A lot of kids who like biology go down rabbit holes of defining relatedness by one or two features, but a little research and observation can quickly put these ideas to rest. These ideas are pre-Lamarckian, unsupported by centuries of field observation, definitely not supported by genetics which explains why there is a preemptive attempt to discount genetic evidence.

If you choose to personally take offense and attempt to offend me in turn, please note that this will have a similar effect on reality and cogent argument as wishing. I.e. none at all.
UKMervSanders
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2013
Sigh
FainAvis
3 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2013
Hybridization and stabilization makes better sense to me than neo Darwinism.
For the origins of human McCarthy makes a case for a chimp + pig cross. I readily concede that I could be persuaded to accept some other animal functioning as pig. But what animal, or animals do you suggest?
Gmr
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 08, 2013
Hybridization and stabilization makes better sense to me than neo Darwinism.
For the origins of human McCarthy makes a case for a chimp + pig cross. I readily concede that I could be persuaded to accept some other animal functioning as pig. But what animal, or animals do you suggest?

So, 100+ years of science: unacceptable
Random crossings of animals to get humans: just not a pig

Your standards are just /too damn high!/
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 08, 2013
Biology works like it does. Not how somebody wishes it to
Wow. Source please?
A lot of kids who like biology go down rabbit holes of defining relatedness by one or two features, but a little research and observation can quickly put these ideas to rest. These ideas are pre-
... cue pretentious word...
Lamarckian, unsupported by centuries of field observation, definitely not supported by genetics which explains why there is a preemptive attempt to discount genetic evidence
If you had visited this guys website, or merely read the fucking article, you would have seen that EUGENE M. MCCARTHY is a PHD in GENETICS whose work focuses on hybrids
If you choose to personally take offense
I am offended by people who act like they know what they are talking about, when they dont.
Your standards are just /too damn high!/
-And your standards are 'making things up all by yourself'. I suppose in your world, thats as high as one can get.
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (8) Jul 08, 2013
There is little doubt that hybridization probably played a role in human evolution, but there is no evidence to suggest that inter-ordinal hybridization is even possible. And despite this PhD geneticist's claims, there are ways to use genetic sequencing and mapping to investigate claims of genetic introgression through hybridization.

This guy also apparently believes that armadillos and pangolins are descended from ankylosaurus and stegosaurus. http://www.macroe...life.pdf (p239 +) He's hardly setting himself up to be taken seriously.

This website ought to be included in classes that teach online research methods and critical thinking, similarly to how the "save the tree octopus" website http://zapatopi.n...octopus/ is used.
Gmr
2.1 / 5 (14) Jul 08, 2013
Wow. Otto is taking a lot of this dissection of a fairy tale rather seriously. Is this the norm for Otto?

I can make a website, too.

And what kind of genetecist says don't look at the genetics?

He could have a PhD in everything everywhere - without any kind of - say - genetic basis for his bizarre claims - heck, anything other than the original hypothesis of "it looks like so it must be so"and I might give it some credence. What kind of genetics I wonder? And did he fall asleep in anatomy/physiology? Did he ever take a course in zoology or basic evolutionary theory?
Gmr
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 08, 2013
the main objection to Dr Mccarthy's speculative hypothesis is the belief that different "species" do not mate with each other, and if they do, and should offspring result which survive to reproductive age, they themselves will be sterile.


Not really. We know some cross species activity occurs. Just that carrying out a basic experiment such as attempting cross fertalization of this kind /in vitro/ to see if any basic blastula results is apparently overlooked. Simple thing to try - can a spermatozoa even begin the process.
Shelgeyr
2 / 5 (12) Jul 08, 2013
I'm not sure I got the "how" of it. Did a boar rape a female chimp? Is Scott Nudds still living in their basement?


ha HA hahahaha HAHA (snnnnnooooork!) (cough - spit) BWAHAHAHAhahahaha

Thanks! I *really* needed to read that! Completely made my evening!
Shelgeyr
2.3 / 5 (12) Jul 09, 2013
First off: I don't believe it. Now that THAT's out of the way, let's see if we can approach this unbiased...

Q: Is interfamilial hybridization possible?
A: Yes, but it is vary rare.

Q: Can you cite examples?
A: No, because I like to sleep at night. But feel free: http://en.wikiped...biology)

Q: What about mismatching gene counts? Does that pose a problem?
A: Not really . Example: Voles have from 17 to 64 chromosomes, amongst visually similar individuals, and some strains have different chromosome counts by gender.

Q: Wait a minute - with pig/chimp are we talking "interfamilial" or "interordinal" hybridization?
A: Interordinal.

Q: Can you cite any examples of that?
A: No, but only because we* don't know of any.

Q: So I guess you don't really have much to add to the topic, do you?
A: Again, no, but it's a hoot to brainstorm over!

Q: Thanks a whole stinking lot. That's five minutes I'll never get back!
A: You must be a very slow reader.

-----
*Wikipedia and I
Shelgeyr
2 / 5 (12) Jul 09, 2013
Q: Hey wait - after a few minutes' research I have to ask: Could pig/chimp be an "Interordinal chimera"? Those do exist...

A: Mmmmmmmeh, No - not as a human ancestor and for pig/chimp probably not at all. And since I know you're going to ask "Why not?" let me just skip ahead to answering that:
1) Ew! Gross!
2) Chimeras don't breed true (if they can breed at all, which some indeed can). Regarding mammalian chimeras, each of their individual haploid eggs or sperm would be all-of-one-or-the-other of their parental species, not both.
3) How would that work anyways? In the case of human chimeras, you're dealing with fused twins sharing the same mother and maybe/maybe not the same father, but in either case true matings have occurred. Not naturally possible here.
4) Even if you manually fused fertilized pig and chimp zygotes (which might be impossible), and pig/chimp was successfully born, you've still got to deal with #2 above.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (14) Jul 09, 2013
This guy also apparently believes that armadillos and pangolins are descended from ankylosaurus and stegosaurus
-Except it kind of makes sense doesnt it? That is if you read the whole thing and not just the title you know? I think it makes at least as much sense as - say - metaphysics yes?
He could have a PhD in everything everywhere - without any kind of - say - genetic basis for his bizarre claims - heck, anything other than the original hypothesis of "it looks like so it must be so"and I might give it some credence. What kind of genetics I wonder?
Still havent visited the website I see.
http://www.macroe...-me.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 09, 2013
Anything else I can look up for you? Treatment for narcolepsy perhaps? How about this
http://www.thefre...atalepsy
Gmr
2 / 5 (12) Jul 09, 2013
Well, Otto - when you declare "a wizard did it" as your trumping triumphant riposté to questions about why no experiments, I can see this conversation is as barren as a pig-chimp hybrid.

You may have the beflecked floor. I yield.
Gmr
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 09, 2013
...
betterexists
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2013
It is high time creating HYBRIDS from close species, particularly using the test tube in vitro fertilization technique published last week.
Get as many Hybrids as possible.
Sooner or Later, we can start importing useful genes from them (a far fetched notion, though).
Is copying nature wrong....NO. Not at all.... Like that NeverWet ad copying lotus leaves for $20
All Hybrids Everywhere. In fact Americons lost the opportunity already!
betterexists
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 11, 2013
Ice, Intelligence confusion...So, many letters difference. It is true there are so many view points. But, when it comes to utility...only a few work. Like that Boson, holy grail thing. They had to work so hard to prove that there is gad particle!
betterexists
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2013
I need a Chimp walking like a pig with oinking grunts.
Also, I need a pig climbing trees and chattering.
Chinese are going to be soon into American pork. Hope they will get to be more innovative. Horrible Meat it will be, I swear. You get what you pay for!
betterexists
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2013
How about Chimp delivering twins....1 pig & 1 chimp babies.
Similarly, Pig doing the same thing... 1 chimp & 1 pig babies.

Their dads take care of 1 and their moms take care of another!
betterexists
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2013
Were they Both Blind? I mean Dad Chimp & Mom Pig?
Who reared the Baby?
The Tree Dweller OR the Snouted Lady?

I mean Species-blind.
EarthlingX
not rated yet Jul 22, 2013
IIRC, viruses could also transfer genetic material between different species, though i wonder if in extent sufficient for similarities described on the linked page.

Beside other known problems with this kind of hybridization, there's also
Junk DNA Mechanism That Prevents Two Species From Reproducing Discovered
http://www.scienc...0018.htm

but there's smoke and it's good someone checked.
Stop
not rated yet Jul 25, 2013
Even if this turned out to be true, I will never feel bad for eating bacon.

Of course, now when I look at someone who looks like a pig, I'm going to bring this idea up.
GaryB
5 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2013
Most of the changes we get in bacteria or virus is a result of direct gene sharing between species, an equivalent of hybridization. If you look into your own cells, you see hybrids -- mitochondria and other joining of dissimilar organisms. Moreover, bit flipping only by mutation is a limited optimization strategy -- it will hit local optimums from which it can't escape. Creating hybrids is a good way to make a larger jump and it does seem to explain the normal thing we see -- quick jumps to new forms which stay reasonably stable.

Now, move up to ancient chimps and ancient pigs. I have no doubt that males will attempt to breed with just about anything. Can this lead to pregnancy let alone fertile creatures? Certainly we can genetically engineer in disparate genes, but how far can hybrids be stretched. Bear in mind, the "attempt" may have been made 100000's of times, but it only takes once, if backcross breading is viable, for a new species to emerge. Not crazy, not proven.
drjackson
not rated yet Jul 27, 2013
The multilobar kidneys are common to humans, pigs and most large ruminant animals so based on that we could just as easily have been hybridized from cows or other ruminants like the Sable Antelope, which has 46 chromosomes- much closer to humans and chimps than the 36 chromosomes of the wild pigs.
Smithder
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2013
@drjackson

Indeed the Sable may well be a match in that one characteristic, but have you considered all the aspects wherein humans differ from Pan? And have you, as McCarthy has, researched the possession of these attributes by the Sable as McCarthy has for the Pig?

The point that McCarthy is making is not that you can match one or two differences with another animal, but that pigs match ALL the differences, and that it is conceivable that the all too critical Hybridisation Zone would have practically existed.

When all the evidence suggests that it was the pig who 'did it', then there is a very high probability that the pig is the daddy.
Arten
1 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2013
The banksters might have a lot of pig in them, but the evidence that we are more Saurian than Simian is overwhelming. Even the late great Dr Carl Sagan wrote about our Reptilian heritage in his excellent book The Dragons of Eden:

It is striking how much of our actual behaviour - as distinguished from what we say and think about it - can be described in reptilian terms. We speak commonly of a "cold-blooded" killer. Machiavelli's advive to his Prince was "knowingly to adopt the beast."
In an interesting partial anticipation of these ideas, the American philosopher Susanne Langer wrote: "Human life is shot through and through with ritual, as it also with animalian practices. It is an intricate fabric of reason and rite, of knowledge and religion, prose and poetry, fact and dream.....Ritual, like art, is essentially the active termination of a symbolic transformation of experience. It is born in the cortex, not in the old brain'; but it is born of an elementary need of that organ,....
Smithder
2 / 5 (8) Jul 29, 2013
@Arten

'Overwhelming?'

Hey man, you are sweating like a lizard...

Wow there, eating like a lizard... nah, they just don't seem to be apt descriptions.

I wonder, have you compiled a list of human differences from Pan and looked to see if these match a reptile characteristics - loose a leg and grow a new one, lay eggs...

Somehow 'overwhelming' just doesn't seem to be the right word here.
Kir Komrik
1 / 5 (1) Aug 03, 2013
It took me several minutes to stop laughing and yes, I also thought it was a joke. But taking him seriously, how does a chimp and a pig land on the moon? That's the part I'm not getting.
- kk
Kir Komrik
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2013
Smithder wrote

"Rates of genetic change over evolutionary time are generally measured by setting up phylogenetic trees and drawing conclusions from them about implied rates. If, however, dichotomous phylogenetic trees are mere figments, and do not reflect any underlying pattern of evolutionary descent (as is the assumption under ST), then they certainly cannot be used to measure rates. So it becomes nonsense to talk about an organism having the greatest rate. "

The problem you have here is that these bp rates of mutation are linked to fossils which are linked to stratigraphy which is linked to radiometric dating. There is a co-dependency web here and I would suspect that, if correct, hybridization would occur with any long term hybrid successes being highly episodic. Thus, the time intervals indicated from bp mutations and what-not are really just background mutation rates that still are good indicators of time.
tbc - kk
Kir Komrik
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2013
Orphan genes suggest that genes were not "invented" in the primordial past, only to be reorganized and duplicated when natural selection needed them. Rather, they are constantly be invented. This could be better explained with hybridization, I think. However, I'm still trying to figure out if this is a hoax or not. If you thought Darwin's ideas were a lot to swallow, try telling everyone that not only do they descend from "chimps" but that they descend from "pigs". And not only that but that they descend from PERVERT pigs. It's hard to stop laughing ... poor homo sapiens.
Finally, the author should consider the possibility that ancestral pigs are only one species in the chain; if the time intervals are long enough and the mating is frequent enough, it does stand to reason that, probabilistically, successful hybridization must be occurring. And if for "pig" and "chimp" then what about other species?
Kir Komrik
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2013
Back to my first point, the biggest weakness of this theory, imo, is one common in "academic" speak, for lack of a better phrase: there is still no plausible mechanism to explain human cognition. I think academics understate or underestimate the qualitative difference and simply having a biological system more _capable_ of encephalization doesn't imply greater encephalization. Even in the hybrid version of evolution, something should be present to compel and inhere very costly, large brains that, not only are morphologically larger, but are more complex (layer 5 Betz cells being one example). Contrary to popular myth, the "size" of the brain is not the "miracle", it's the complexity.
Speaking of miracles, I'm afraid this is only going to exacerbate my repulsion to biology that stems from the destructive nature of creationist's attacks on the theory of evolution for the last 100 years. The "creationist" debate is a big turnoff and this going to make it worse; even if it is right.
- kk

More news stories

Researchers successfully clone adult human stem cells

(Phys.org) —An international team of researchers, led by Robert Lanza, of Advanced Cell Technology, has announced that they have performed the first successful cloning of adult human skin cells into stem ...

Plants with dormant seeds give rise to more species

Seeds that sprout as soon as they're planted may be good news for a garden. But wild plants need to be more careful. In the wild, a plant whose seeds sprouted at the first warm spell or rainy day would risk disaster. More ...

Researchers develop new model of cellular movement

(Phys.org) —Cell movement plays an important role in a host of biological functions from embryonic development to repairing wounded tissue. It also enables cancer cells to break free from their sites of ...

Male monkey filmed caring for dying mate (w/ Video)

(Phys.org) —The incident was captured by Dr Bruna Bezerra and colleagues in the Atlantic Forest in the Northeast of Brazil.  Dr Bezerra is a Research Associate at the University of Bristol and a Professor ...