Leading geneticist says we are a hybrid of Pigs and Chimps

reply to post by Antigod

...The last common ancestor/example of cross breeding with ancient huans with chimps is about 7 million years ago,

Okay. What precipitated that split? What DNA appeared in hominids at that time to distinguish us from chimps?

Pigs and chimps have a massive amount of time between them.

Not true - both were certainly present 7 million years ago. Artiodactyla first appeared during the Early Eocene (about 54 million years ago) - by the Late Eocene (46 million years ago), the three modern suborders had already developed, including Suina (the pig group). McCarthy suggests a bonobo or chimp mated with a forest boar (Genus: Hylochoerus).

reply to post by soficrow

Text Not true - both were certainly present 7 million years ago. Artiodactyla first appeared during the Early Eocene (about 54 million years ago) - by the Late Eocene (46 million years ago), the three modern suborders had already developed, including Suina (the pig group). McCarthy suggests a bonobo or chimp mated with a forest boar (Genus: Hylochoerus).

How long ago they had their last common ancestor, was what I meant. I should have been more precise.

Text Okay. What precipitated that split? What DNA appeared in hominids at that time to distinguish us from chimps?

Typically the date is worked out from Y chromosome divergence, and a little fossil data to back it up. At least it was last time I looked.

I have to say, I've read a LOT of papers on human genetics and I've never seen this Mccarthy publish any in the field. I'd like to see someone like Cavalli Sforza or Niell Risch respobnd to this. It would be a n academic massacre. Maybe Mccarthy has a book to sell? It would explain this bizarre claim.

soficrow
reply to post by elysiumfire

 

Nature abhors inter-species breeding and does not allow it.

Erm. Not true. Many examples, here are two.

Hybrids between common and Antarctic minke whales are fertile and can back-cross

This study clearly demonstrates, for the first time, that hybrids between minke whale species may be fertile, and that they can back-cross. Whether contact between these species represents a contemporary event linked with documented recent changes in the Antarctic ecosystem, or has occurred at a low frequency over many years, remains open.

A NEW HYBRID BETWEEN A BLUE WHALE, BALAENOPTERA MUSCULUS, AND A FIN WHALE, B. PHYSALUS: FREQUENCY AND IMPLICATIONS OF HYBRIDIZATION

…Either species may act as father or mother, and there does not appear to be a selection for a given sex among the hybrids. The reproductive capacity of these hybrids remains unknown, although incidence of reproductive impairment appears to be higher in hybrid males than in hybrid females.

Also of interest:

Cross-Domain

…the Mv1751 gene was able to complement an essential gene in another domain of life. It is rare to find two genes from different domains of life, especially essential genes, that are interchangeable. Because of the conservation of many aspects of the N-linked glycosylation systems in bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes, the deciphering of the roles and interchangeability of various components may be advanced by consideration of the use of cross-domain complementation.

Cross-Kingdom

Putative cross-kingdom horizontal gene transfer in sponge (Porifera) mitochondria

…We suggest that the horizontal gene transfer of a mitochondrial intron was facilitated by a symbiotic relationship between fungus and sponge. Ecological relationships are known to have implications at the genomic level. Here, an ecological relationship between sponge and fungus is suggested based on the genomic analysis.

Polypurine (A)-rich sequences promote cross-kingdom conservation of internal ribosome entry

…Presumably, such IRES elements can overcome kingdom-specific barriers to translation of the second gene because of their unique capability to exploit only those translation initiation factors and noncanonical transacting proteins that are able to express their function universally in different types of cell. It is possible that the ribosome per se, as the most conserved element of the eukaryotic translation apparatus, is responsible for cross-kingdom IRES activity.

…Analysis of European Molecular Biology Laboratory databases showed that the 5′UTRs of numerous cellular mRNAs contain PARSs that could be regarded as putative plant IRESs. Our preliminary results indicate that two additional mRNAs of this type, i.e., those encoding the tobacco poly(A)-binding protein (43) and 48-kDa mitogen-activated protein kinase (44), also promote internal translation. The approach could thus be used to identify IRES elements in eukaryotic genomes.

A bacterial cell–cell communication signal with cross-kingdom structural analogues

Extracellular signals are the key components of microbial cell–cell communication systems. … As prokaryote–eukaryote interactions are ubiquitous, such cross-kingdom conservation in cell–cell communication systems might have significant ecological and economic importance.

Cross-Phylum

Cross-phylum regulatory potential of the ascidian Otx gene in brain development in Drosophila melanogaster.

The origin of molecular mechanisms of cephalic development is an intriguing question in evolutionary and developmental biology. …These results support the notion that basal chordates such as ascidians have the same molecular patterning mechanism for the anterior structures found in higher chordates, and suggest a common genetic program of cephalic development in invertebrate, protochordate and vertebrate.

Conserved genetic programs in insect and mammalian brain development

These studies also show that the genes of the otd/Otx family can functionally replace each other in cross-phylum rescue experiments and indicate that the genetic mechanisms underlying pattern formation in insect and mammalian brain development are evolutionarily conserved.

…a novel family of proteins of presumably nuclear localization, with a characteristic highly basic motif, KRR-R, transcends various phyla, and plays an important role in cellular processes. We propose to call this essential gene KRR1.

Cross-Class

To hard to search quickly due to over-abundance of research reports on genetic modification.

Cross-Order

CRISPR loci reveal networks of gene exchange in archaea

Spacers reveal gene transfer events across species boundaries

….This work demonstrates that there is much gene exchange within and between archaeal genera, and that anti-viral spacers, especially cross-protective ones, are preferentially retained. While the primary role of CRISPR/Cas systems appears to be to provide immunity against invading DNA, many spacers that are acquired can target ran- dom, presumably harmless, genes, just as vertebrate immune systems often recognize harmless antigens.

Your first two examples are the only ones involving interspecies hybridization and those examples are between species in the same Order.

Your other examples are merely about horizontal gene transfer (not reproductive) and genes that different lifeforms have that appear to have the same expressions.

Sure, some species can hybridize, if they are already very closely related.

This does not apply to pigs and humans, however.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


Just butting in for a second; lateral gene transfer could hypothetically occur during meiosis. But the chances of anyone being able to talk about this rationally on ATS would be like...





^there is a bunch of good reading on this subject which can be found under "transplastomic plants". That's ta good place to start reading.

reply to post by Harte

...Sure, some species can hybridize, if they are already very closely related.

This does not apply to pigs and humans, however.

Given that all life branched from the same bits, is there no time in evolutionary history when Suidae and chimps were closely related enough to interbreed? Even now, after millions of years of divergence, pig parts are used for human transplants...




PS. Horizontal gene transfer is astounding imho - and not a "mere" thing. Granted, it's relevance to our genetic profile remains in the time before the evolution of sexual reproduction. I'm curious about those stats.

Scene from Dumbo? You risk being called racist around here.

I like your bravado.

Harte

reply to post by Antigod

...I have to say, I've read a LOT of papers on human genetics and I've never seen this Mccarthy publish any in the field. I'd like to see someone like Cavalli Sforza or Niell Risch respobnd to this. It would be a n academic massacre. Maybe Mccarthy has a book to sell? It would explain this bizarre claim.

McCarthy's background is in hybrids with a focus on birds - and his hypothesis results from that data. I doubt the "rules" change substantially from one species to the next. But yes, it's revolutionary.

PS. How do you explain the evolution of the platypus? Was there rape involved?

Gene map proves platypus is part bird, mammal and reptile

reply to post by Harte


PS. How do you explain the evolution of the platypus? Was it rape? Horizontal gene transfer? What?

Gene map proves platypus is part bird, mammal and reptile

reply to post by soficrow

The analysis confirms that the platypus was the earliest offshoot of the mammalian family tree, Graves noted.

The group of animals called monotremes—which includes the platypus and the closely related echidna—is thought to have split from other mammals at least 166 million years ago.

That early divergence means platypus genes carry information from a transitional point on the evolutionary time line leading from reptiles to mammals, said project leader Wesley Warren of Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri.

NatGeo

The article explains it at least as well as I could.

Harte

reply to post by soficrow

Text PS. How do you explain the evolution of the platypus? Was it rape? Horizontal gene transfer? What?

LOL... no the article doesn't say that these animals hybridized to create a platypus.

reply to post by Antigod


I didn't ask what the article said, I asked How YOU explain the platypus' evolution.

reply to post by soficrow

Text
McCarthy's background is in hybrids with a focus on birds - and his hypothesis results from that data. I doubt the "rules" change substantially from one species to the next. But yes, it's revolutionary.

He's talking about creatures from different parts of the tree reproducing, which has never been seen, and as far as we know is impossible and not backed up at all by genetics. What cross species hybrids we have observed are normally sterile to boot. It's not revolutionary it's ridiculous, and he has zero evidence to back him up. So far the only hybrids we have seen have been amoung very closely related species of the same family.

I'm familiar with his background. Like I said, no background in human genetics.

reply to post by Harte


Great link. Thanks. S& : up : Seems the analysis is based on a few assumptions though. ...McCarthy's main claim postulates inter-breeding between chimps and forest hogs a few million years ago - which contradicts current dogma. You are defending that dogma. I can't argue it with you, much as I might like to. But - can you comment on this paper?

Inter-species hybridization among Neotropical cats of the genus Leopardus, and evidence for an introgressive hybrid zone between L. geoffroyi and L. tigrinus in southern Brazil Molecular Ecology 2008.

Natural hybrid zones between distinct species have been reported for many taxa, but so far, few examples involve carnivores or Neotropical mammals in general. In this study, we employed mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences and nine microsatellite loci to identify and characterize a hybrid zone between two Neotropical felids, Leopardus geoffroyi and L. tigrinus, both of which are well-established species having diverged from each other c. 1 million years ago. ...We also corroborate and extend previous findings of hybridization between L. tigrinus and a third related felid, L. colocolo, leading to an unusual situation for a mammal, in which the former species contains introgressed mtDNA lineages from two distinct taxa in addition to its own.

Introduction
The role of hybridization in the evolution of living organisms has been extensively discussed among evolutionists (e.g. Arnold 1992; Harrison 1993; Dowling & Secor 1997; Barton 2001; Fitzpatrick 2004). The classical view of zoologists is that the evolutionary significance of hybridization is small, in most cases consisting of occasional sterile hybrid individuals with no relevant contribution to future generations. In contrast, botanists frequently see hybridization as a common phenomenon, acting as an important source of new variation and potentially new species (Harrison 1993). This apparent dichotomy has been challenged in recent decades, with the development and implementation of diverse molecular techniques allowing for in-depth genetic analyses of natural populations. These approaches have led to the conclusion that interspecies hybridization is quite common in animals and frequently include the production of fertile hybrids which may have considerable importance for future adaptation and even speciation (Barton & Hewitt 1985; Harrison 1993; Allendorf et al. 2001). Several hybrid zones have recently been documented in vertebrates, ranging from cases in which few hybrid individuals are detected (Schwartz et al. 2004) to extensive introgressive zones leading to the production of hybrid swarms (Nolte et al. 2006), or even suggested as possibly responsible for the formation of new species (Roy et al. 1994; Reich et al. 1999).

Even though it appears that natural hybridization is more common in animals than previously thought, it is still unclear how widespread its occurrence is, and whether some zoological groups or biogeographical regions may be more prone to foster such processes. Moreover, very few cases of animal hybridization have been described in detail, so that the investigation of the underlying causes and evolutionary significance of these processes remains in its infancy. …

reply to post by soficrow

Text
I didn't ask what the article said, I asked How YOU explain the platypus' evolution.

Platypuses are not my speciality, I do physical anthropology (fossils, genetics, archaeology and some medical for humans).

However, knowing a fair bit about biology as precursor to the anthropology... it's a very primitive type of mammal that had a very early split date from the rest of the order, and had plenty of time to evolve along it's own unique path.

I could equally challenge you to expain how some stray mammal hybridised with two other animals of different orders (never seen and as far as anyone knows impossible).

I'd say until someone shows up with a naturally occuring animal hybrid of different order animals this one is for the crazy files.

reply to post by soficrow


You insult Platypussians everywhere to treat such a serious topic so callously with humor!

Antigod
reply to post by soficrow

 

Text
McCarthy's background is in hybrids with a focus on birds - and his hypothesis results from that data. I doubt the "rules" change substantially from one species to the next. But yes, it's revolutionary.

...What cross species hybrids we have observed are normally sterile to boot. It's not revolutionary it's ridiculous, and he has zero evidence to back him up. So far the only hybrids we have seen have been amoung very closely related species of the same family.

Do you dismiss this paper and the references? Could you comment, please?

...The role of hybridization in the evolution of living organisms has been extensively discussed among evolutionists (e.g. Arnold 1992; Harrison 1993; Dowling & Secor 1997; Barton 2001; Fitzpatrick 2004). The classical view of zoologists is that the evolutionary significance of hybridization is small, in most cases consisting of occasional sterile hybrid individuals with no relevant contribution to future generations. In contrast, botanists frequently see hybridization as a common phenomenon, acting as an important source of new variation and potentially new species (Harrison 1993). This apparent dichotomy has been challenged in recent decades, with the development and implementation of diverse molecular techniques allowing for in-depth genetic analyses of natural populations. These approaches have led to the conclusion that interspecies hybridization is quite common in animals and frequently include the production of fertile hybrids which may have considerable importance for future adaptation and even speciation (Barton & Hewitt 1985; Harrison 1993; Allendorf et al. 2001).

reply to post by soficrow


Cats, rorquals, hominims... members of families, close genetic relations that can and do often hybridise.

Nothing even remotely approaching pigs doing it with chimps.

You have no evidence strong enough to prove, or even make seem likely, this bizarre and ridiculous claim. I would stop now, if I were you.

reply to post by soficrow

Text which contradicts current dogma. You are defending that dogma. I can't argue it with you, much as I might like to. But - can you comment on this paper?

It's not dogma.. it's the oberved facts at this time

This paper is about hybridisation between two closely related species of cat. I don't see it's relevance. Maybe you mean the part referring top how hybrids form new species... yes they do. Closely related species hybridise only. Happens a fair bit with insects and plants, as I recall. When a new niche habitat opens up, offspring species often fare better than their parents.

reply to post by soficrow

Do you dismiss this paper and the references? Could you comment, please?

You seeing to be missing the point that all the species they are talking about are closely related members of the same family.

reply to post by Astyanax

...You have no evidence strong enough to prove, or even make seem likely, this bizarre and ridiculous claim. I would stop now, if I were you.

I am not attempting to "prove" any claim. Even McCarthy does not make the "claim." He just says that too much is NOT explained by current theory and offers an alternative line of query based on what his observations.

For my own part, curiosity has carried me away from my old idea of reality. I no longer know what to believe. Is it possible that so many biologists might be wrong about the nature of human origins? Is it possible for a pig to hybridize with a chimpanzee? I have no way of knowing at present, but I have no logical or evidential basis for rejecting the idea. Before dismissing such a notion, I would want to be sure on some logical, evidentiary basis that I actually should dismiss it. The ramifications of any misconception on this point seem immense. As Huxley put it long ago, "The question of questions for mankind — the problem which underlies all others, and is more deeply interesting than any other —is the ascertainment of the place which Man occupies in nature."

My observation is that strong emotional resistance proves the questions are worthy.