Leading geneticist says we are a hybrid of Pigs and Chimps

reply to post by peter vlar


Not sure what point you mean to make. ...Since the first cell, evolution has been all about divergence - any apparent convergence is always and only superficial? Is that it?

reply to post by peter vlar


Even assuming the claim is true.

.... the fact that we can trace when where and how much is pretty undisputable.

funny that you said "how much" and not just "how". Would you be willing to entertain the ideas put forward by Rupert Sheldrake ? if not please tell me why. Sheldrake talks about exactly what we are discussing at around the 23:00 mark so you can skip the rest which I expect you will do, and that will prove my point about you being an intellectual elitist

or the work of Dr. Peter Gariaev? no? they didn't teach you about his work? have any of you laureates heard of anything like this: "Is DNA an energy wave that assembles life? In 2011, Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier demonstrated “DNA teleportation,” where ordinary water molecules in a sealed test tube assembled intoDNA. A tube with ordinary water was placed next to another tube that had water with trace amounts of DNA in it. Both tubes were electrified with a weak 7Hz current. Some of the hydrogen and oxygen molecules in the tube with pure, sterile water transformed into DNA — by a process still unknown to Western science." source do you know what a source field is? Know anything about Lynne McTaggert's work and the work she bases her work on?

soficrow

Cross-species mating is common and so are fertile offspring.

From the mouth of the scientist who is the Source of the OP:

"For example, one widespread, but erroneous, belief is that all hybrids are sterile. This idea keeps a lot of people from even considering the possibility that humans might be of hybrid origin. This assertion is absolutely false — though I have in fact heard lots of people make it. For instance, in reviewing the reports I collected for my book on hybridization in birds (Handbook of Avian Hybrids of the World, Oxford University Press, 2006), which documents some 4,000 different kinds of hybrid crosses among birds, I found that those crosses producing partially fertile hybrids are about eight times as common as crosses known to produce sterile ones. The usual result is a reduction in fertility, not absolute sterility."

...partially sterile??

He goes on to explain what that means:

"Therefore, such differences between the parents in a cross do not in any way guarantee an absolute sterility in the hybrid offspring. (For those readers who do not know, backcross hybrids are produced when hybrids from a first cross mate with either of the two types of parents that produced them. When the resulting progeny mate again with the same parental type, the result is the second backcross generation, and so forth.) "


SUMMARY
The crossed progeny (half chimp/half pig) can sometimes mate with the same parental type (either chimp or pig)... so the "partially fertile" hybrid can only "partially" mate (sometimes) with one of the same parental type... but CANNOT mate with another hybrid.

How does this fit with Natural Selection?
How is the hybrid better suited to survive (adaptation) then the parental type?

This theory goes against the natural laws observed regarding Mutation Causation, Natural Selection and Adaptation; resulting in a being less fit to survive then it's parents.

In my opinion.

God Bless,

reply to post by ElohimJD

SUMMARY
The crossed progeny (half chimp/half pig) can sometimes mate with the same parental type (either chimp or pig)... so the "partially fertile" hybrid can only "partially" mate (sometimes) with one of the same parental type... but CANNOT mate with another hybrid.

NONONONO

Pigs and chimps can NOT make a hybrid at all. As far as any can tell. Only closely related species can hyrbridise, chimps and pigs are topo far apart. Mccarthy is having sort of brain fart suggesting they can.

reply to post by bottleslingguy

wow so very elitist of you.

I've noticed the uninformed often use the term elitist when arguing with someone who's bothered to get an education before they start arguing a point.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff



Pigs and chimps. More mind screw hate language spewing out from the dark underbelly.

Antigod
reply to post by bottleslingguy

 

wow so very elitist of you.

I've noticed the uninformed often use the term elitist when arguing with someone who's bothered to get an education before they start arguing a point.

funny how you chose to focus on that instead of the subject of morphic resonance. your attitude towards things you haven't spent time studying is what is elitist and an especially ignorant form of elitism. Ignorant because you chose to ignore the subject and decided to try and engage in verbal combat. Were you the one who mentioned "magical thinking"? That mocking mindset is a symptom, a way of ignoring your nagging suspicion that your education was a waste of time and money.

Not saying it's not good to get an education. Education=good, ignoring subjects that you never studied or were told not to study=bad

reply to post by soficrow


Soficrow, it was a match in size and shape, not genetically or immunologically. If they had put it in him they would have to have killed his immune response deader than a dodo.A miniature sheep heart would also match.

I am not afraid of thinking outside the box. My points are:

AFAik and all science knows, pigs and chimps haven't produced a hybrid. I checked.

AFAIK and as far as observation can tell us, only very closely related species can produce a hybrid. I also checked this. Felids and felids, canids and canids, lepidoptera and lepidoptera. Apes and suidae.. no.

There's no evidence for pig DNA in humans. Didn't need to check this in as years of reading papers on genetics (mainly on human evolution and population genetics) no-one once mentioned it as even remotely possibly.


As for my manner.... Don't like having to repeat myself. If you provide an example of species from a different family producing young outside of a lab dish. Then I'll be engaged and charming.

Antigod
reply to post by ElohimJD

 

SUMMARY
The crossed progeny (half chimp/half pig) can sometimes mate with the same parental type (either chimp or pig)... so the "partially fertile" hybrid can only "partially" mate (sometimes) with one of the same parental type... but CANNOT mate with another hybrid.

NONONONO

Pigs and chimps can NOT make a hybrid at all. As far as any can tell. Only closely related species can hyrbridise, chimps and pigs are topo far apart. Mccarthy is having sort of brain fart suggesting they can.

I agree with you fully, I just wanted to give McCarthy the benefit of the doubt that it CAN happen (which it can't); and even if it COULD happen; this does not pass the "does this theory fit into current laws?" test.

God Bless,

reply to post by Antigod


So you do acknowledge these hybrids can happen in a lab?
Having read as extensively on genetics as you say you have you will be aware that human and animal DNA have been and still are being spliced together, it is possible and we have been doing it for awhile.

We share 50% of our DNA with bananas if another post on this thread is correct (yours I believe) you telling me we share 50% of our DNA with bananas but none with pigs?

I find that hard to believe.

As for magical thinking, every single theory we have as humans on our creation and the creation of the universe requires some "magic" or miracle to make it work.

The big bang and singularity which Im sure you have no trouble believing requires faith and "magic" to work.

Maybe my mind is so open that its in danger of falling out but yours seems so crammed with what you "know" to be true that theres no room for anything else.

I personally think my way is healthier

reply to post by bottleslingguy

Were you the one who mentioned "magical thinking"?

No, it was I.

That mocking mindset is a symptom, a way of ignoring your nagging suspicion that your education was a waste of time and money.

On the contrary, I feel I have done very well out of my education. When I see people still parroting the ravings of Rupert Sheldrake in the twenty-first century, I positively glow with self-congratulation.

reply to post by soficrow


No, what Im saying is that an organ is going to be rejected because it has live cells in it with proteins created by the original host body for the recipients immune system to ferret out and destroy. When transplanting a bovine or porcine valve, all living cells are stripped from the valve. There is no autoimmune response from the body of the recipient. the valve is not tied into the vascular system, it is simply reattached to the Chordae tendineae and Papillary muscle and you're all set. no antirejection drugs. perhaps some blood thinners at worst.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

So you do acknowledge these hybrids can happen in a lab?
Having read as extensively on genetics as you say you have you will be aware that human and animal DNA have been and still are being spliced together, it is possible and we have been doing it for awhile

Lke I have a problem withat idea. Artificially created genetically engineered chimeras are a fact now, although to date no-one has managed an actual 50/50 cross breed of different families, AFAIK and my checking could find out. A few inserted genes seems to be the limit right now.

My point is that assuming these things happen in nature is a bit barking as we've never ever seen one, and attempts to create them in the lab haven't even got that far yet as they don't want to match genetically. Putting down this kind of inter family hybridisation as a major player in evolution has nothing behind it, and plenty against it.

As for magical thinking, every single theory we have as humans on our creation and the creation of the universe requires some "magic" or miracle to make it work

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's magic. So far, no magic has been ever measured in anything. There's a reason there's no SI unit for magical energy. Thunder and lightening used to be angry gods, sickness was caused by demons. Nope and nope, we know now it's static electricity on a massive scale and bacteria etc. Magic has no place in reality.

reply to post by peter vlar

all living cells are stripped from the valve

i've seen an African doctor in the Sahel using camel bone to replace a lost bit of a guys skull after it was sterilised. Made a full recovery. Bizarre huh?

reply to post by Antigod

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's magic. So far, no magic has been ever measured in anything. There's a reason there's no SI unit for magical energy. Thunder and lightening used to be angry gods, sickness was caused by demons. Nope and nope, we know now it's static electricity on a massive scale and bacteria etc. Magic has no place in reality.

Can you give me one example of a scientific paper on the beginning of the universe that doesnt involve faith or "magic" (pls note inverted commas) and is based purely on established scientific fact?

The singularity that led to the big bang is totally unexplainable so to accept that it happened is to believe in "magic" or miracles.

Right now all I am getting from you is what the guy is talking about is not possible based on what you have been educated to believe. I havent actually seen a rebuttal of the guys findings yet.

reply to post by Antigod


while in the west using bone from a camel would come off as unusual or even bizarre, using cadaverous bone is not at all uncommon. everything from small grafts to full femurs are used. Animal bone isn't a huge stretch of the imagination in a similar fashion that a heart valve graft works. Because it's not living tissue and not linked into any other systems(vascular, limbic etc.) there is nothing for the immune system to react to. In the west you would be more likely to have surgical steel plates inserted to cover up the missing skull fragment but I imagine that in some countries its more cost effective to use the camel. It's pretty interesting nonetheless.

On the contrary, I feel I have done very well out of my education. When I see people still parroting the ravings of Rupert Sheldrake in the twenty-first century, I positively glow with self-congratulation.

would be nice if you pointed out where he and the morphic resonance/source field people are wrong. but again there's that intellectual elitism rearing its ugly head. did you watch that lecture? what parts didn't you agree with and why? come on if it's so raving mad it should be easy for someone of your intellectual stature to crush it out of the gate. Please be specific and not obfuscatory.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

The singularity that led to the big bang is totally unexplainable so to accept that it happened is to believe in "magic" or miracles.

Not relevant here. Although I have a basic grasp of theoretical physics, I'm not well read enough to debate it. However, I do know the theory comes from the obervation that everything is flying away from each other so logically was all at one point once. Beyond that, not my forte. I think it says masses about you that any theory you can't understand must be magic or faith based.I've noticed a tendency for religious people to believe science is faith based like religion, and this seems to be where you are coming from.

Science is the observation of facts and using observed facts to construct theories which you then test the hell out of. It has nothing to do with faith, although a certain amount of trust in fellow scientists is necessary. But people routinely repeat experiments to test the veracity of the original work. Religion is the opposite. You are told what to believe and then not to question or test it. Which is probably for a reason asno holy book holds up
to close scrutiny.

I'm curious, do you accuse everyone with a better understanding of a subject than you of having a closed mind? I'm well informed, not blinkered. The fact there has never been a known cross family hybrid and we can't even make a short lived embryo of one in a lab by introducing the gametes of different families of animals artificially in a dish, kills his theory dead aa dodo.

like I said in a previous post; find me some, any evidence that animals of different families can create viable embryos, even in vitro, and you'll have a starting point. Until that bridge is crossed nothing's happening.

Antigod

So you do acknowledge these hybrids can happen in a lab?
Having read as extensively on genetics as you say you have you will be aware that human and animal DNA have been and still are being spliced together, it is possible and we have been doing it for awhile

Lke I have a problem withat idea. Artificially created genetically engineered chimeras are a fact now, although to date no-one has managed an actual 50/50 cross breed of different families, AFAIK and my checking could find out. A few inserted genes seems to be the limit right now.

My point is that assuming these things happen in nature is a bit barking as we've never ever seen one, and attempts to create them in the lab haven't even got that far yet as they don't want to match genetically. Putting down this kind of inter family hybridisation as a major player in evolution has nothing behind it, and plenty against it.

You're pretty spot on with your assessment. We have mice with human genes inserted into their brains. it's 1% human dna 99% mouse. while the eventual goal is to get a mouse with a 100% human brain( I won't get into my own ethical issues with this) it is still a very small percentage over all at present and its at the upper limits of our current ability. Comparing a laboratory environment with strictly controlled and sterile conditions to the real world is unreasonable and I'm sure that statement will come back to haunt me when someone tries to use it to discredit Lenski and his ongoing experiment but I digress... comparing a proof of concept experiment in a lab to real world applications is hazardous especially when you're talking about preselected genomes being applied very specifically because that simply doesn't happen in nature. 1 experiment of this nature is equitable to tens of 1000's of generations of evolution. Even at that, for something like a porcine/hominoid chimera to exist it would have had to occur at a stage of evolutionary development in which both species were at a similar stage. Suidae came to be in the Oligocene approx. 32 MYA and if you go back as far as Gibbons and Orangutan that only brings us back approx. 12 MYA. It just doesn't work, in my opinion. As always, I'm certainly open to new evidence to the contrary but until it is produced I'm sticking to my guns here.