is modern Humans more like pigs than Primates?

is the Anatomically modern Humans(Homo Sapiens Sapiens) is more like Pigs and Swines than any other species and Subspecies of Primates and Hominids Largely in terms of Intelligence and Diet?

[edit on 24-1-2010 by masonicon]

Dude, the grammar is appalling!

Humans share many parallels with pigs. We have a similar social order, they are intelligent (think 3 year old child). We can accept some organ transplants from pigs and the growing use of stem cells will see that increase. Conversely, organs of our genetically closer cousins...chimps, bonobos...would be rejected.

In terms of diet, I think we share more in common with our primate cousins. Pigs wouldn't naturally eat meat in the wild. Chimps actively kill for meat. Both pigs and primates are omnivorous, but we are much more like the primates.

Some years ago, I was working on a new barn for a pig farmer. I went into the stalls to get water for the concrete footings. I saw a huge pig in a stall just big enough for it to stand or lie down. The pig looked at me and it seemed clearly sentient. Anthropomorphising? Maybe. A half hour later I walked off the job. I thought the farmer was a #### and seeing the pigs like that was an uncomfortable thing. Never forgotten it...no matter how many bacon and sausage sandwiches I eat

reply to post by masonicon


Funny you should say tha - I remember reading a book years ago which was discussing one of the reasons Atlantis was destroyed. It was stated that the Atlanteans were involved in genetic engineering involving pigs and people.

Many organs from pigs can be transplanted into human beings. Also pigs I believe are the only other creature besides man who can get a sun tan. Also the book stated that the flesh of man tasted like that of a pig. Pigs are also believed to be intelligent.



[edit on 24-1-2010 by keldas]

Maybe that's the reason why the Bible warms against eating pork.
Maybe because Man and pig are closer genetically to each other than originally thought?
Looks like science continues to discover what the Bible has known for hundreds of years.


[edit on 24-1-2010 by Alxandro]

This is an interesting one.

Humans and apes share a common ancestor, unless you are Creationist, but let’s not go down that road.

The human genome is 96% to 98% similar to the chimpanzee.

Cats are around 90% similar (I believe) and cows are c. 80%. I think the fruit fly shares about 60% of its DNA with the average human, as does a chicken.

I thought that pig organs were useful to humans (e.g. heart) because they are similar in size, design and biochemistry and not genetics – after all, pigs have been used well before the genetic make-up of the respective species was mapped.

Human genome

Regards

reply to post by Alxandro


No. Not even close. The bible was a survival manual for desert civilisations, and as such contained the message to not eat pork because of trichinosis.

The bible has taught us nothing. Science is the only method for learning. The bible contains exactly 0% actual knowledge.

reply to post by davesidious


I'm sorry but you actually contradict yourself by claiming the Bible has taught us nothing.
You claim it was nothing more than a survival guide for semi-primitive man, yet it warms against eating something that wouldn't be discovered until 1845.
Perhaps we should allow a Jew or a Muslim to comment on why they don't eat pork.

Speaking of Jews and Muslims, the Bible also warns us that the two shall always be in conflct against each other.

How do you explain the extreme accuracy of the prediction that is an actual fact?

reply to post by davesidious


I've always thought Prion disease was an even larger reason for various diets in the region...

I wouldn't at all be surprised if all pork led to some kinds of Prion disease we just haven't identified most but the wasting kids to date...


As for Pigs and Human similarities...

That Pig genes could have been used by Alien intervention to create us wouldn't be all that surprising... we like to think highly of ourselves but if there was manipulation, far from having crossed us with themselves... another race from a different world I'd say it is highly likely they used other creatures here...

(not saying that's what happened...just IF)

reply to post by Alxandro


Wow. You really don't get it. Just because we don't know what causes a disease, we can know where it comes from. Epidemiology was discovered before we even knew what germs were. Ask a Jew or Muslim - they'll say the same. To quote the wikipedia article:

It has been suggested that trichinosis may be one of several factors that led to religious prohibitions in Islam and Judaism against eating pork products, such as in the kashrut and dhabiĥa halal dietary laws. The medieval Jewish philosopher Maimonides advocated such a theory in The Guide for the Perplexed, as did medieval Islamic authorities.

Even if that pap is in the bible, as we've not travelled through time to judgement day, how do you know they will always be fighting? You don't know if that 'prediction' will come true.

Your 'logic' is strange to say the least.

reply to post by mopusvindictus


Yup, it could be. It could be any number of disease-related reasons, as eating pork in that climate, without refrigeration, and without sufficient irrigation and agriculture to rear quality animals, will significantly increase your risk of getting lots of different diseases and conditions. My point is there is just as much reason to suspect the 'law' is man made advice, as opposed to divine information. If it was information from God, why did he bother making desert pigs so prone to diseases we can get? That sounds like a bit of a dick move to me.

[edit on 25-1-2010 by davesidious]

reply to post by davesidious

The bible was a survival manual for desert civilisations, and as such contained the message to not eat pork because of trichinosis.

Yes, this is the usual explanation given. I prefer a different one.

The sanction against pork-eating may have been introduced because, for the Mesopotamian ancestors of both the Hebrews and the Arabs, a point had been reached where either the pigs or some of the people had to go.

Pigs and human beings eat similar diets, you see. When food is plentiful, we feed them our leftovers and later consume those leftovers ourselves in the form of pork. But in environments where food resources are scarce, pigs and humans end up competing with each other for sustenance.

Pigs also eat a lot. That makes them expensive to raise. Despite this, the temptation to keep them is very strong, because pork is about the tastiest meat there is.

Combine tastiness with high cost and what do you get? A status symbol.

Richer people - tribal leaders, for example - would keep pigs if they were allowed to. They would delight in serving pork at feasts and tribal ceremonies to show off their wealth, status and munificence. But these displays of conspicuous consumption would be mounted at the expense of the tribe's poorer members, who would find it harder than ever to feed themselves with much of the available food being scoffed up by rich folks' pigs.

In an arid environment, poor people would probably starve to feed the tribal chiefs' pampered porkers. Obviously that shouldn't be allowed - but how do you stop the chiefs of a primitive tribe from doing whatever the hell they like?

Simple: you threaten them with the wrath of God.

This, I believe, explains the religious sanction against pork. Hunger, especially for a desert tribe, is a much more familiar - and loathed - companion than trichinosis.

*

You may not agree with me, but the inhabitants of the Pacific island of Tikopia* certainly do. This Polynesian society, which controls its population and resource use in order to make life on its tiny island sustainable, killed off all its pigs about four hundred years ago, having realized that the beasts were using up resources that could be better utilized.

On many other Pacific islands where pigs were introduced by humans, environmental devastation has resulted. Hawaii's infamous feral pigs are a case in point.

I am indebted to Collapse, a book by the author and scientist Jared Diamond, for the information about Tikopia, which first set me thinking about this subject.

*Scroll down to the section entitled 'Lessons from Tikopia'. Also see Wikipedia

[edit on 24/6/10 by Astyanax]

I remember, when I was little I was infected by those little worms.
The doctor said it was common for children to get infected by them.

Playing outside in the sand a children hand comes in contact with animal feces. While most parents know children don't wash their hands if they are not told. Well, most of them anyway.

Eating raw meat was also a no go area. The idea that this was the reason not to eat porc is strange. As you can get from beef to.

The signs that lead me to the discovery of those little critters were :

1 An itching butt hole.
2 They were actually crawling around in my fresh deposit of feces.

1 pill did the trick. Never seen them back. I do occasionally feel itchy in the back.

reply to post by masonicon

masonicon, Are you saying that previous or genetically older, humans are more related to different apes and monkeys and that the most recent version of humans are more related to pigs??? Im just trying to understand clearly friend...

So the Pigs are parahumans because it created by splicing gene between Humans and Boars, that's why Muslims and Jews don't eats pig for this reason(other reason includes it so dirty), and additionally Pig carcasses are the perfect substitute for ballistic gelatin in the weapon testing because it more like human that most other animals

Well, I think it's pointless to say that the bible predicted that the Muslims and Jews would constantly be opposing each other, when it is only because of the ancient scriptures that they are even fighting in the first place.

My point is, and the reason I even made an account to begin with, that I think it's possible humans are the product of a primate breeding with a member of the swine family. We are so similar to both animals that if you slam together in your mind, you might just be able to picture a human.

I think testing on this theory should be conducted, if it has not been done already. I, personally, have not read any sort of documentation on the subject.

reply to post by cjansen


Apes and swine can't interbreed. There is, and always has been, too great a genetic difference.

Humans share 96% of their DNA with chimpanzees.

Humans evolution can be traces back, via fossil and genetic evidence, to a small lemur-type critter which the ape family evolved from. None of our ancestors had trotters.

reply to post by masonicon


while apparently pigs organs and sometimes bllod are extremly compatible(if you were desperate enough you could have transplants with them)
Also humans and pigs are the only animals that do not have this film on backs of thier eyes that reflect light which can create that glowing effect in pictures

reply to post by masonicon


Primates. Definitely. We are apes through and through. Hell, just check out your genome. It is incredibly similar to an ape, the only difference is we have this odd fused chromosome and some mutations here and there.

reply to post by masonicon


Many organs of mammalia are shared primitive traits, that is those traits humans and pigs shared with a common ancestor and have been canalized. If the other variants would have more contributed to the pigs reproductive fitness, then it would have different organs. Change is primarily a function of selection pressure. A sufficient organ will remain as is so bio-mechanical energy can be spent elsewhere. Therefore some parts are intercompatible and some are not. For example, most animals have two eyes, a primitive trait shared with a common ancestor of all animals with two eyes. and the"eyeless" gene is interchangeable from fruitfly to mice to human being. Doesn't mean we are any more related to a mouse than a chimpanzee because of the "eyeless" gene.

Originally posted by cjansen
Well, I think it's pointless to say that the bible predicted that the Muslims and Jews would constantly be opposing each other, when it is only because of the ancient scriptures that they are even fighting in the first place.

They aren't fighting because of what their books say. They're fighting because of how the modern state of Israel came to be.

reply to post by Alxandro


Sorry to go off topic, but this rather caught my eye:

"Speaking of Jews and Muslims, the Bible also warns us that the two shall always be in conflict against each other."

Alxandro, I don't suppose you could quote me the exact scripture that says this. Referencing the book, passage & verse it comes from so I can find it for myself. There is something that confuses me about it:

-The old testament was written between circa 1450 B.C & 300 B.C.
-The new testament was written between circa 40 A.D. & 95 A.D.
(source: www.allabouttruth.org...)

Muhammed the prophet of Islam was born in 570 A.D.
(source: en.wikipedia.org...)

So does the bible actually predict a religion that wouldn't exist for at least another 500 years or so after the bible was written? And that the followers of this future religion would forever after be in conflict with the Jews? That would be a miracle!