Generally speaking, interspecies hybrids—like mules, ligers (lion-tiger hybrids), or zedonks (zebra-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 chimp - 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 chimpanzees (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 genetic data might support, or refute, our hybrid 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
Explore further:
Chimps use touches and noisy gestures when trying to get another chimps attention, researcher finds
lonewolfmtnz
2.9 / 5 (15) Jul 03, 2013FKN bonkers
hyongx
4.8 / 5 (17) Jul 03, 2013tpb
3.8 / 5 (18) Jul 03, 2013Lions 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
2.1 / 5 (15) Jul 03, 2013http://www.youtub...N3QoN-q8
Subach
4.4 / 5 (9) Jul 03, 2013tekram
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2013"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 (24) Jul 03, 2013fmfbrestel
4.5 / 5 (17) Jul 03, 2013Lions 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, 2013Bogey
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 03, 2013Hang on, I will have another go.
Chigs, and Pimps.
Claudius
3 / 5 (25) Jul 03, 2013Telekinetic
2 / 5 (23) Jul 03, 2013Homo Republicanus?
Xynos21
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2013This argument will get attention due to sensationalism, it will then be discredited by the public for the same reason.
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 03, 2013Telekinetic
2.3 / 5 (21) Jul 03, 2013Why 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 / 5 (10) Jul 03, 2013It 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, 2013Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (15) Jul 03, 2013But 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, 2013MrVibrating
2.3 / 5 (12) Jul 03, 2013Funny old book it was.. i forget what it was called...
menssana216
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2013Open 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, 2013Well analysing!
meerling
3.8 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2013Gmr
2.6 / 5 (23) Jul 04, 2013That'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
2.7 / 5 (19) Jul 04, 2013No. 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, 2013dan42day
2.9 / 5 (19) Jul 04, 2013FainAvis
3.5 / 5 (13) Jul 04, 2013Read 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
3.3 / 5 (12) Jul 04, 2013If 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
3.8 / 5 (13) Jul 04, 2013There 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
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 04, 2013jsdarkdestruction
3.5 / 5 (16) Jul 04, 2013MrVibrating
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 04, 2013You 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, 2013TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (17) Jul 04, 2013People 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
2.3 / 5 (19) Jul 04, 2013This 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
2.1 / 5 (18) Jul 04, 2013As 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
2 / 5 (16) Jul 04, 2013http://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_
3.1 / 5 (13) Jul 04, 2013SmokedBort
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 04, 2013Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.3 / 5 (12) Jul 04, 2013Crackpot 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 (13) Jul 04, 2013Already 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
4.2 / 5 (11) Jul 04, 2013@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
2 / 5 (21) Jul 04, 2013You, 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
1.4 / 5 (19) Jul 04, 2013How 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
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 04, 2013tpb
5 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2013@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
3.7 / 5 (10) Jul 05, 2013It'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
2.2 / 5 (23) Jul 05, 2013McCarthy 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 (19) Jul 05, 2013Second, 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 (21) Jul 05, 2013Finally, 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 (21) Jul 05, 2013But 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
3 / 5 (12) Jul 05, 2013with 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, 2013I 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.
Smithder
2.9 / 5 (20) Jul 05, 2013No 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
1.8 / 5 (18) Jul 05, 2013The 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, 2013TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (13) Jul 05, 2013evercurious
2.6 / 5 (7) Jul 05, 2013"Meh.. I'd do her."
"But... I really REALLY like bacon."
And yes, I can believe Bonobos would hump anything.
Smithder
2.4 / 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. 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
1.8 / 5 (12) Jul 05, 2013MrVibrating
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 05, 2013Precisely.
Besides, i've heard puppies are more like the real thing...
Smithder
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 05, 2013I 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, 2013Read 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
2.9 / 5 (16) Jul 05, 2013I'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, 2013Exactly how I felt when I first read 'Forms of Life'
komone
5 / 5 (7) Jul 05, 2013Smithder
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, 2013TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (12) Jul 06, 2013MrVibrating
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2013Similarly 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, 2013I'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
2.6 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2013A 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, 2013And, 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, 2013It turns the whole catalogue of 'happy accidents' on its head...
betterexists
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2013betterexists
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2013Just like Apollo Landing! Why Not Repeat it Now? So, many Nations have become Adept in these Decades....Space-wise!
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (15) Jul 06, 2013"...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 (10) Jul 06, 2013Are there so many varieties of Chimps & Pigs? Common sense questions OR not. Very sensetific, though.
Smithder
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2013Re 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
2.3 / 5 (12) 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, 2013Giving 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
2.3 / 5 (16) Jul 06, 2013I'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__
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2013TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (12) Jul 06, 2013The 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
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2013http://www.democr...himp.jpg
Smithder
2.7 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2013Interesting 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
2 / 5 (12) Jul 06, 2013I 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
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2013'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, 2013Apologies 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, 2013His 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
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2013Still, 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.. ;)
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
2.6 / 5 (17) Jul 06, 2013Religions 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
2.1 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2013""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.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
2.1 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2013Religion 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, 2013FWIW 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
4 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2013grondilu
5 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2013Unlikely events can happen if you give them a few million years.
HeloMenelo
1.9 / 5 (14) Jul 07, 2013grondilu
5 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2013TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (15) Jul 07, 2013http://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
2.1 / 5 (15) Jul 07, 2013"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
1.7 / 5 (20) Jul 07, 2013Smithder
1.9 / 5 (14) Jul 07, 2013One 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
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2013I 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, 2013I meant that this aspect is not translated in the phylogenic tree, and it can not with a binary tree.
FainAvis
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2013This stabilization theory will be revolutionary.
tkjtkj
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2013Naturally, 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
2.2 / 5 (13) Jul 07, 2013The 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
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2013Perhaps 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
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2013Jeddy_Mctedder
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 07, 2013TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (14) Jul 07, 2013They 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
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 07, 2013http://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
2 / 5 (14) Jul 07, 2013So 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
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 07, 2013Of 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
2.2 / 5 (13) Jul 07, 2013Re '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, 2013Who reared the Baby?
The Tree Dweller OR the Snouted Lady?
betterexists
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 07, 2013Tough to accept such Science...Whether it is loose or perfectly logical one.
FainAvis
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 08, 2013Here 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
2.4 / 5 (9) Jul 08, 2013For 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
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 08, 2013A gift from the pig is a way to improve that cooling mechanism. I kid you not. Read the website.
UKMervSanders
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2013Before 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
2.2 / 5 (13) Jul 08, 2013Smart 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
2 / 5 (12) Jul 08, 2013They 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
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 08, 2013You are what you hate.
Arrogant and presumptuous humans are what they are, just filthy pigs.
bizwiz
4.8 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2013I 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"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 (12) Jul 08, 2013However.
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
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 08, 2013And yet you feel you have something useful to add. Can you explain why that is?
Gmr
2 / 5 (12) Jul 08, 2013Biology 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 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2013FainAvis
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 08, 2013For 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, 2013So, 100+ years of science: unacceptable
Random crossings of animals to get humans: just not a pig
Your standards are just /too damn high!/
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (14) Jul 08, 2013Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (8) Jul 08, 2013This 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, 2013I 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, 2013Not 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
2.2 / 5 (13) Jul 08, 2013ha HA hahahaha HAHA (snnnnnooooork!) (cough - spit) BWAHAHAHAhahahaha
Thanks! I *really* needed to read that! Completely made my evening!
Shelgeyr
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 09, 2013Q: 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
2.2 / 5 (13) Jul 09, 2013A: 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
2.3 / 5 (15) Jul 09, 2013http://www.macroe...-me.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (14) Jul 09, 2013http://www.thefre...atalepsy
Gmr
2.2 / 5 (13) Jul 09, 2013You may have the beflecked floor. I yield.
Gmr
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 09, 2013betterexists
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 11, 2013Get 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
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2013betterexists
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 11, 2013Also, 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 (10) Jul 11, 2013Similarly, 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, 2013I mean Species-blind.
EarthlingX
1 / 5 (1) Jul 22, 2013Beside 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
3 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2013Of 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, 2013Now, 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, 2013Smithder
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 28, 2013Indeed 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
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2013It 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
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2013'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 (3) Aug 03, 2013- kk
Kir Komrik
1 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2013"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
2 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2013Finally, 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
2 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2013Speaking 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