Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Humans evolved from chimp pig hybrid

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 4:29:33 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
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.

Read more at: http://phys.org...

bicornuate uterus is a malformed uterus uncommon in primates but common in pigs.

Pigs are often used in lab experiments for human health concerns. And better indicators of health threats than chimpanzees in some cases. Plus human organs are grown in pigs for transplantation.

Humans are hairless. have whites of the eyes visible, have subcutaneous fat, thick eyelashes and protruding sloping noses. These are characteristics NOT seen in primates but seen in one other animal on planet Earth. Pigs.

Genetically chimps and humans are related by maternal line. But a paternal linkage is unfounded. That's because the paternal ancestry is porcine.

Dr. McCarthy has a PhD and geneticist and believes in evolution. But any search of how other evolutionist see him is startling. He is often ridiculed on atheist websites. And called a crackpot on Evolution websites. It as if no matter who you are, to go against the status quo and accepted narrative of Evolution makes a scientist lose all credibility.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 7:46:32 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 4:29:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
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.

Read more at: http://phys.org...

bicornuate uterus is a malformed uterus uncommon in primates but common in pigs.

Pigs are often used in lab experiments for human health concerns. And better indicators of health threats than chimpanzees in some cases. Plus human organs are grown in pigs for transplantation.

Humans are hairless. have whites of the eyes visible, have subcutaneous fat, thick eyelashes and protruding sloping noses. These are characteristics NOT seen in primates but seen in one other animal on planet Earth. Pigs.

Genetically chimps and humans are related by maternal line. But a paternal linkage is unfounded. That's because the paternal ancestry is porcine.

Dr. McCarthy has a PhD and geneticist and believes in evolution. But any search of how other evolutionist see him is startling. He is often ridiculed on atheist websites. And called a crackpot on Evolution websites. It as if no matter who you are, to go against the status quo and accepted narrative of Evolution makes a scientist lose all credibility.

If this was true, then some humans would be born with trotters instead of hands and feet. Some humans would have pointy ears, walk on all fours and would have flat noses. This not the case. Thus, the theory is not worth considering.
Note - That doesn't mean that humans haven't got a lot in common with pigs in general though! lol Oink! Oink!
keithprosser
Posts: 2,029
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 9:09:10 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Cranks can sound quite plausible if all you have to go on is their side of the story. I could probably tell if an article on - say - computer programming was written by a crank because I do know quite a lot about computer programming. I wouldn't be relying on what the crank said. On biological matters I don't have the same level of background knowledge.

But PZ Myers is a trained biologist and put together an article on some issues.
http://scienceblogs.com...
To which Dr, McCarthy responded
http://www.macroevolution.net...

I didn't find McCarthy rebuttal convincing. McCarthy seems to have very little hard data. He relies on a small number of morphological similarities between pigs and people and ignores any inconvenient differences or difficulties. He simply doesn't mention them, leading the lay or casual reader to think there are no significant differences or difficulties.

On balance I think McCarthy is a crank - that is a well meaning, sincere individual who thinks he's on to something big but isn't really on to anything at all. That is, I repeat - my current opinion, not something I insist everyone must agree with.

Some of the treatment McCarthy's theory has received may be a tad harsh, but he's got himself caught in the cross-fire of the evo/creationist war. Many evolutionists - despite their bluster - are still not totally confident of victory (nor should they be) and are unwilling to give any ground whatsoever, even if (as in this case) the ground is not sought by the enemy.

I think Dr McCarthy's theory can be filed along side all the perpetual motion machines that are constantly being invented. I think its a weak theory with no experimental support to speak of. It does not indicate that evolutionists are more dogmatic than other scientists.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 9:42:47 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 7:46:32 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 5/2/2016 4:29:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
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.

Read more at: http://phys.org...

bicornuate uterus is a malformed uterus uncommon in primates but common in pigs.

Pigs are often used in lab experiments for human health concerns. And better indicators of health threats than chimpanzees in some cases. Plus human organs are grown in pigs for transplantation.

Humans are hairless. have whites of the eyes visible, have subcutaneous fat, thick eyelashes and protruding sloping noses. These are characteristics NOT seen in primates but seen in one other animal on planet Earth. Pigs.

Genetically chimps and humans are related by maternal line. But a paternal linkage is unfounded. That's because the paternal ancestry is porcine.

Dr. McCarthy has a PhD and geneticist and believes in evolution. But any search of how other evolutionist see him is startling. He is often ridiculed on atheist websites. And called a crackpot on Evolution websites. It as if no matter who you are, to go against the status quo and accepted narrative of Evolution makes a scientist lose all credibility.

If this was true, then some humans would be born with trotters instead of hands and feet. Some humans would have pointy ears,
https://en.wikipedia.org...

walk on all fours

https://en.wikipedia.org...(human)

and would have flat noses.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...

This not the case. Thus, the theory is not worth considering.
Note - That doesn't mean that humans haven't got a lot in common with pigs in general though! lol Oink! Oink!
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 10:04:31 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 4:29:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
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.

Read more at: http://phys.org...

bicornuate uterus is a malformed uterus uncommon in primates but common in pigs.

Pigs are often used in lab experiments for human health concerns. And better indicators of health threats than chimpanzees in some cases. Plus human organs are grown in pigs for transplantation.

Humans are hairless. have whites of the eyes visible, have subcutaneous fat, thick eyelashes and protruding sloping noses. These are characteristics NOT seen in primates but seen in one other animal on planet Earth. Pigs.

Genetically chimps and humans are related by maternal line. But a paternal linkage is unfounded. That's because the paternal ancestry is porcine.

Dr. McCarthy has a PhD and geneticist and believes in evolution. But any search of how other evolutionist see him is startling. He is often ridiculed on atheist websites. And called a crackpot on Evolution websites. It as if no matter who you are, to go against the status quo and accepted narrative of Evolution makes a scientist lose all credibility.

Why are you surprised? The reason why something becomes a status quo in science is because there already exists a surmountable amount of evidence that supports it. If youre going to bring something that challenges that, youd better bring some damn good evidence, or youre going to face a lot of scrutiny. And if you cant face and properly respond to said scrutiny, youre going to be laughed out of the community.

Its no different than if someone were to try to challenge the status quo on the current stance of Gravity in the field of physics.

It has nothing to do with dogma, as you often point out, but with evidence and reasoned arguments.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 10:35:07 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 9:42:47 AM, tkubok wrote:

If this was true, then some humans would be born with trotters instead of hands and feet. Some humans would have pointy ears,

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Can't see his ears?

walk on all fours

https://en.wikipedia.org...(human)

In adulthood, childhood doesn't count.

and would have flat noses.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...

This person is obese. The nose looks normal to me. Certainly nothing like a pig!

Oink! Oink! I win!
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 10:37:49 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 10:04:31 AM, tkubok wrote:

Its no different than if someone were to try to challenge the status quo on the current stance of Gravity in the field of physics.

Gravity pushes. Thus, the status quo is wrong! Oink! Oink!
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 10:41:39 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 10:35:07 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 5/2/2016 9:42:47 AM, tkubok wrote:

If this was true, then some humans would be born with trotters instead of hands and feet. Some humans would have pointy ears,

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Can't see his ears?

https://books.google.co.jp...


walk on all fours

https://en.wikipedia.org...(human)

In adulthood, childhood doesn't count.

You dont think that adults dont crawl?


and would have flat noses.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...

This person is obese. The nose looks normal to me. Certainly nothing like a pig!

Obese people arent humans?

Oink! Oink! I win!

Fail.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 10:47:36 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 10:41:39 AM, tkubok wrote:


You dont think that adults dont crawl?

Only when they are sucking up to the boss! lol


and would have flat noses.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...

This person is obese. The nose looks normal to me. Certainly nothing like a pig!

Obese people arent humans?

YOU have implied that this person looks like a pig. Not ME!
Fail! Very true!
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 1:03:47 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 4:29:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
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.

Read more at: http://phys.org...

bicornuate uterus is a malformed uterus uncommon in primates but common in pigs.

Pigs are often used in lab experiments for human health concerns. And better indicators of health threats than chimpanzees in some cases. Plus human organs are grown in pigs for transplantation.

Humans are hairless. have whites of the eyes visible, have subcutaneous fat, thick eyelashes and protruding sloping noses. These are characteristics NOT seen in primates but seen in one other animal on planet Earth. Pigs.

Genetically chimps and humans are related by maternal line. But a paternal linkage is unfounded. That's because the paternal ancestry is porcine.

Dr. McCarthy has a PhD and geneticist and believes in evolution. But any search of how other evolutionist see him is startling. He is often ridiculed on atheist websites. And called a crackpot on Evolution websites. It as if no matter who you are, to go against the status quo and accepted narrative of Evolution makes a scientist lose all credibility.

We do share some characteristics with pigs but share far more with apes as we are far more related to apes than we are to pigs. For example humans have 46 chromosomes, apes have 48, and pigs have 38.

Humans have more similar arms, legs, feet, hands, hips, heads, and face to apes. We also share far more social habits, and apes are more intelligent like humans. Apes have some toll-making abilities, and we have gotten some to use sign language. I could go on about how humans are more similar to chimpanzees.

Chimps are not able to hybridize with pigs because they are in completely separate families. Such a hybrid if there is one would be far less human-like than chimpanzees themselves and would be some perversion of apes and pigs and would be unlikely to be able to reproduce much less get an animal to mate with it. Plus you are never going to get an ape to mate with a pig.

People are not laughing at this guy because he is contradicting evolution but because his ideas are plainly ridiculous.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,029
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 2:32:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Plus you are never going to get an ape to mate with a pig.

You've never been to Norfolk, have you?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 1:23:30 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 11:32:45 PM, slo1 wrote:
I guess that is why God doesn't want us to eat pork, the flesh of our brothers and sisters.

I think you might be on to something.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 1:27:11 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 10:37:49 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 5/2/2016 10:04:31 AM, tkubok wrote:

Its no different than if someone were to try to challenge the status quo on the current stance of Gravity in the field of physics.

Gravity pushes. Thus, the status quo is wrong! Oink! Oink!


There you have it peopple. Akhenaten doesnt believe that gravity is real.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 1:48:27 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
He's just comparing morphological features. You'd think a guy with a PhD in genetics would think to look at genomes.

At 5/2/2016 10:04:31 AM, tkubok wrote:
Why are you surprised? The reason why something becomes a status quo in science is because there already exists a surmountable amount of evidence that supports it.
Not really. In various occasions, it has a lot more to do with political convenience. Look at all the cr@p the social "sciences" churn out on a regular basis.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 1:52:49 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 1:48:27 AM, someloser wrote:
He's just comparing morphological features. You'd think a guy with a PhD in genetics would think to look at genomes.

At 5/2/2016 10:04:31 AM, tkubok wrote:
Why are you surprised? The reason why something becomes a status quo in science is because there already exists a surmountable amount of evidence that supports it.
Not really. In various occasions, it has a lot more to do with political convenience. Look at all the cr@p the social "sciences" churn out on a regular basis.

I dont really consider social sciences as the same as natural science.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 4:04:25 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 4:29:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
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.

Read more at: http://phys.org...

bicornuate uterus is a malformed uterus uncommon in primates but common in pigs.

Pigs are often used in lab experiments for human health concerns. And better indicators of health threats than chimpanzees in some cases. Plus human organs are grown in pigs for transplantation.

Humans are hairless. have whites of the eyes visible, have subcutaneous fat, thick eyelashes and protruding sloping noses. These are characteristics NOT seen in primates but seen in one other animal on planet Earth. Pigs.

Genetically chimps and humans are related by maternal line. But a paternal linkage is unfounded. That's because the paternal ancestry is porcine.

Dr. McCarthy has a PhD and geneticist and believes in evolution. But any search of how other evolutionist see him is startling. He is often ridiculed on atheist websites. And called a crackpot on Evolution websites. It as if no matter who you are, to go against the status quo and accepted narrative of Evolution makes a scientist lose all credibility.

Out of curiosity, do you accept micro-evolution?
Meh!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 5:11:36 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 4:04:25 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 5/2/2016 4:29:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
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.

Read more at: http://phys.org...

bicornuate uterus is a malformed uterus uncommon in primates but common in pigs.

Pigs are often used in lab experiments for human health concerns. And better indicators of health threats than chimpanzees in some cases. Plus human organs are grown in pigs for transplantation.

Humans are hairless. have whites of the eyes visible, have subcutaneous fat, thick eyelashes and protruding sloping noses. These are characteristics NOT seen in primates but seen in one other animal on planet Earth. Pigs.

Genetically chimps and humans are related by maternal line. But a paternal linkage is unfounded. That's because the paternal ancestry is porcine.

Dr. McCarthy has a PhD and geneticist and believes in evolution. But any search of how other evolutionist see him is startling. He is often ridiculed on atheist websites. And called a crackpot on Evolution websites. It as if no matter who you are, to go against the status quo and accepted narrative of Evolution makes a scientist lose all credibility.

Out of curiosity, do you accept micro-evolution?

I certainly do.

There is only one kind of Evolution. Evolution. Which means change over time.

Anyone can see evolution in progress when making rock candy. The crystals Evolve out of the water as the temperature cools.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
"These results clearly exemplify that the morphology of inorganic crystals will evolve with the change of local chemical environment"

I can pop a hole in a balloon and see it race around the room, and react to different currents. Just like a newly evolving life form. because locomotion is a characteristic of life.
http://pubs.acs.org...

Do you disagree that things change over time?

Obviously Evolution is true.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 5:33:12 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 5:11:36 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:04:25 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 5/2/2016 4:29:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
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.

Read more at: http://phys.org...

bicornuate uterus is a malformed uterus uncommon in primates but common in pigs.

Pigs are often used in lab experiments for human health concerns. And better indicators of health threats than chimpanzees in some cases. Plus human organs are grown in pigs for transplantation.

Humans are hairless. have whites of the eyes visible, have subcutaneous fat, thick eyelashes and protruding sloping noses. These are characteristics NOT seen in primates but seen in one other animal on planet Earth. Pigs.

Genetically chimps and humans are related by maternal line. But a paternal linkage is unfounded. That's because the paternal ancestry is porcine.

Dr. McCarthy has a PhD and geneticist and believes in evolution. But any search of how other evolutionist see him is startling. He is often ridiculed on atheist websites. And called a crackpot on Evolution websites. It as if no matter who you are, to go against the status quo and accepted narrative of Evolution makes a scientist lose all credibility.

Out of curiosity, do you accept micro-evolution?

I certainly do.

There is only one kind of Evolution. Evolution. Which means change over time.

Anyone can see evolution in progress when making rock candy. The crystals Evolve out of the water as the temperature cools.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
"These results clearly exemplify that the morphology of inorganic crystals will evolve with the change of local chemical environment"

I can pop a hole in a balloon and see it race around the room, and react to different currents. Just like a newly evolving life form. because locomotion is a characteristic of life.
http://pubs.acs.org...

Do you disagree that things change over time?

Obviously Evolution is true.

So therefore you agree with one aspect of the theory of evolution then?
Meh!
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 8:41:13 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 4:29:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Dr. McCarthy has a PhD and geneticist and believes in evolution. But any search of how other evolutionist see him is startling. He is often ridiculed on atheist websites.
Well, the implication of piggies having sex with chimps to make peeples is funny in its own right, Mhykiel. True or false, it's hilarious, regardless of religious affiliation (except perhaps for Muslims and Jews.)

But in the interests of scientific probity, let's take it more seriously for a moment.

Firstly, it's only a conjecture and not an hypothesis, because hypotheses make specific, significant, falsifiable and potentially testable predictions, and McCarthy's pages aren't close doing to that yet.

Secondly, it's on a web-site and not in a peer-reviewed journal (or else McCarthy should have linked it) which means it's presently an idle talking-point and not a formally reviewed scientific conjecture. So there's no obligation to take it very seriously as yet.

In order to get into a peer-reviewed journal as a serious idea some additional ground-work would normally need to be done (at the expert judgement of editors and reviewers.) Indicatively, the proponent would need to:
* Specify the time and place this is most likely to have occurred;
* Based on such information, Identify the species of pig ancestor with which this is most likely to have been viable;
* Based on best knowledge of ethology, explain how (for example) a female, tree-dwelling chimp would let a dangerous, omnivorous boar anywhere near her, or else explain how a band of chimps (who today, seldom hunt anything bigger than a monkey), might have brought down a sow long enough to have sex with her, without getting slaughtered for their pains -- and would have left her alive anyway, rather than killing her for meat;
* Reconcile the likelihood of fertility from a single encounter, with how many times these interspecies encounters should have occurred to make offspring likely;
* Find supporting evidence of modern primates having sex with other large, dangerous omnivorous wild mammals, or explain why they no longer do;
* Comment on how infant raising would have been viable, and how adult fertility would have occurred;
* Address current evidence for thinking that chimps are not human ancestors; and finally
* Make significant, specific predictions that verify the event conjectured, while falsifying other, simpler, alternatives (like parallel development, or non-sexual exchange of genetic material.)

In short, scientific conjectures have to be specific, detailed and accountable to all current knowledge, and not simply the knowledge that makes an idea seem plausible.

If all that were detailed to a high degree of specificity, with reasonable probability and appeared in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal, I'd happily read about it. But until that happens, I'll be snickering too. :)

And called a crackpot on Evolution websites.
A website devoted to communicating ideas on evolution has no scientific status in itself. Essentially, science communications are only valid when they reference current, peer-reviewed papers (or respected monographs themselves referencing those papers), in the established traditions of science journalism.

That applies to McCarthy's published ideas, along with those sites commenting on them. It's a conversation, but not a very accountable one scientifically. And moreover, McCarthy's arguments -- replete as they are with endorsements and apologetics -- fall far short of the kind of systematic, transparent, accountable conjectures one sees published from time to time in reputable scientific journals.

It as if no matter who you are, to go against the status quo and accepted narrative of Evolution makes a scientist lose all credibility.
Or alternatively, if non-scientists conflate biology with irreligion, they get confused themselves by how science progresses, vs what journalists and other members of the public think.

My take: this is a funny idea regardless, and I doubt that McCarthy could develop it well enough to make a real, peer-reviewed hypothesis out of it. But it's interesting too, in that it helps illustrate why science uses the protocols it does.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 9:15:08 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 8:41:13 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
In order to get into a peer-reviewed journal as a serious idea some additional ground-work would normally need to be done (at the expert judgement of editors and reviewers.) Indicatively, the proponent would need to:
* Validate the conjecture genetically, and not just morphologically;

I should have included this, and probably mentioned it first.

With modern gene-sequencing now as good as it is and the human genome mapped, it's no longer hard to see just how much we've got in common with other species genetically. In fact, it's becoming easier to see the points at which different species diverged, and so if pig DNA were reintroduced into the human genome after primates and pigs diverged from other mammals, one would hope that a geneticist could identify evidence of that.

If they did find evidence of that, then the question would arise how it occurred. You'd still have to explore how pigs and primates mated -- or else conjecture some other means for exchanging genetic material.

On the other hand, if you don't find evidence of that, there's not a lot of point making up stories for how chimps dated pigs -- lack of pig DNA in a human genome is a pretty strong falsification of the conjecture, since it's pig DNA meant to be creating pig-like morphology in humans.
Dragon_of_Christ
Posts: 1,293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 1:14:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 7:46:32 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 5/2/2016 4:29:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
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.

Read more at: http://phys.org...

bicornuate uterus is a malformed uterus uncommon in primates but common in pigs.

Pigs are often used in lab experiments for human health concerns. And better indicators of health threats than chimpanzees in some cases. Plus human organs are grown in pigs for transplantation.

Humans are hairless. have whites of the eyes visible, have subcutaneous fat, thick eyelashes and protruding sloping noses. These are characteristics NOT seen in primates but seen in one other animal on planet Earth. Pigs.

Genetically chimps and humans are related by maternal line. But a paternal linkage is unfounded. That's because the paternal ancestry is porcine.

Dr. McCarthy has a PhD and geneticist and believes in evolution. But any search of how other evolutionist see him is startling. He is often ridiculed on atheist websites. And called a crackpot on Evolution websites. It as if no matter who you are, to go against the status quo and accepted narrative of Evolution makes a scientist lose all credibility.

If this was true, then some humans would be born with trotters instead of hands and feet. Some humans would have pointy ears, walk on all fours and would have flat noses. This not the case. Thus, the theory is not worth considering.
Note - That doesn't mean that humans haven't got a lot in common with pigs in general though! lol Oink! Oink!

*facepalm*

Wat?
Jesus loves you.

////////////

-Funny Links-
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...

Stupid atheist remarks #: 6
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 5:37:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 9:15:08 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/3/2016 8:41:13 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
In order to get into a peer-reviewed journal as a serious idea some additional ground-work would normally need to be done (at the expert judgement of editors and reviewers.) Indicatively, the proponent would need to:
* Validate the conjecture genetically, and not just morphologically;


So just looking similiar is not enough to infer genetic relationship?

The presence of uniquely human characteristics like hairless skin, subcutaneous fat, ... you are saying is not enough to infer common ancestry?

Curious because in another thread morphology was used to infer common anscestry of human and fossil hominids.

I should have included this, and probably mentioned it first.

With modern gene-sequencing now as good as it is and the human genome mapped, it's no longer hard to see just how much we've got in common with other species genetically. In fact, it's becoming easier to see the points at which different species diverged, and so if pig DNA were reintroduced into the human genome after primates and pigs diverged from other mammals, one would hope that a geneticist could identify evidence of that.

If they did find evidence of that, then the question would arise how it occurred. You'd still have to explore how pigs and primates mated -- or else conjecture some other means for exchanging genetic material.

On the other hand, if you don't find evidence of that, there's not a lot of point making up stories for how chimps dated pigs -- lack of pig DNA in a human genome is a pretty strong falsification of the conjecture, since it's pig DNA meant to be creating pig-like morphology in humans.

And there is genetic similarities as well.
http://www.mnn.com...

In this paper it's said 95% of pug genome is like humans and 60% of human genome us like pigs. The kind of numbers one would expect if humans were chimp pig hybrids.
https://www.researchgate.net...

Same evidence people were providing in the chimp human thread.

Now personally I think the similarities with pigs is from cross contamination by retroviruses and gut bacteria. But endosymbiotic evolution is fringe. And (que conspiracy theory) held down because of GMO backing.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 10:26:43 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/4/2016 5:37:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/3/2016 9:15:08 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/3/2016 8:41:13 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
In order to get into a peer-reviewed journal as a serious idea some additional ground-work would normally need to be done (at the expert judgement of editors and reviewers.) Indicatively, the proponent would need to:
* Validate the conjecture genetically, and not just morphologically;
So just looking similar is not enough to infer genetic relationship?
Precisely, because we see time and again that traits are selected by function, and function selects according to behaviour and the challenges of environment -- that's the model of selection, so if we're using that model, that's how it has to be used.

So if humans lived like pigs, inhabited mostly places pigs could inhabit, and also had a lot of pig-like organs, it'd be a safe bet (not certain, but pretty likely) that they had recent common ancestry with pigs. But if they live in places pigs can't, lived in ways that pigs never could, and have only a few isolated similarities to pigs, then that's not much support for the conjecture. Rather than propping up a strained conjecture with an even more strained story of an unlikely cross-species mating that nobody has ever witnessed and is improbable to model, he'd do better seeking direct evidence from genetic analysis.

The presence of uniquely human characteristics like hairless skin, subcutaneous fat, ... you are saying is not enough to infer common ancestry?
By itself, no, according to other geneticists. Disturbingly, McCarthy declares himself a geneticist and should know it. Doubtless, if he ever did the diligence of submitting his ideas to peer review, they'd remind him.

Curious because in another thread morphology was used to infer common ancestry of human and fossil hominids.
Addressed above.

But sure. It's reasonable to check the human genome and see if we had improbably long sequences of pig-like DNA that aren't adequately explained by having a distant common ancestor with pigs. That's the sort of hunch a scientist might play, and we want them to play hunches like that because that's how new knowledge is discovered. It might not play out, but if we found such sequences, then something put it there, and it'd be fair to ask what.

I'm not aware of that result genetically yet, but let's suppose it were found.

Like you, I'd be looking at some sort of non-sexual DNA exchange first. This isn't my field, but I think a conjecture of pig/chimp hybridisation is strained, not just because the ethological modelling looks silly, but because it seems not to fit well-established timelines for bonobo, chimp and human divergence.

But regardless, that's getting ahead of the evidence.

McCarthy's conjecture might have been respectable in the 19th century maybe, when all life scientists had were geological, environmental and morphological correlations. But he's obliged to use the best practice models, methods and evidentiary criteria available today. It's unethical not to, unless you have something more precise, accurate and comprehensive.

One difference between science and pseudoscience is that science responds to skepticism by lifting the bar for evidence and accountability. Pseudoscience always wants to lower the bar.

As a geneticist, McCarthy ought to be thinking about correlating gene sequences as a first resort, rather than creating ethological fantasies outside his expertise. That's what any diligent, accountable modern scientist should do. Instead he's using 19th century arguments as though the genetic methods and evidence haven't been improved.

That alone should make us smell a rat -- or at least a ratbag. :)