Are Humans the result of Hybridization?

As many of us are aware evolutionary theory does not explain macro-evolution. Inherent to evolution is respectively the matter of the Hybrid, Which, in the context of animal life cannot reproduce. I would
offer the example of reproduction between Horses and Donkeys, that result in Mules (a better animal
for moving across mountains that cannot reproduce). Could humans have developed in the same way
and eventually evolved into a form that could reproduce??

Any thoughts?

Of all theories as to how humans originated, some degree of "hybridization" makes the most sense to me. I feel like history provides enough clues, and I just feel it innately. Wish I had the detailed answers though

Originally posted by Kashai
As many of us are aware evolutionary theory does not explain macro-evolution.

Why doesn't it?

Anyway,

There's evidence to suggest we bred with Neanderthals and possibly another recent species, before that I expect our ancestors were hybrids of previous species.

reply to post by SpearMint


That would relate to Mendel's Genetic Law .


Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by SpearMint

 

That would relate to Mendel's Genetic Law .


Any thoughts?

Only that Mendelian genetics deal with traits that are via a single locus. Evolution is a hell of a lot more complicated than that.

Originally posted by Kashai
As many of us are aware evolutionary theory does not explain macro-evolution. Inherent to evolution is respectively the matter of the Hybrid, Which, in the context of animal life cannot reproduce. I would
offer the example of reproduction between Horses and Donkeys, that result in Mules (a better animal
for moving across mountains that cannot reproduce). Could humans have developed in the same way
and eventually evolved into a form that could reproduce??

Any thoughts?

Yes. Your first sentence is incorrect. Evolution doesn't distinct between micro and macro evolution. This is just creationist nonsense. First they claimed that there was no evolution, period. Then, after it was 100% crystal clear that evolution was very much real, they came up with this artificial micro vs. macro divide, as to admit that "fine, it's real", but still insist that overall the thing must be wrong, since it's of course impossible to directly observe "macro" (would be nice to get specific definition of it) as it takes 100s of thousands or millions of years (depending again on what counts as macro).

Originally posted by Kashai
As many of us are aware evolutionary theory does not explain macro-evolution. Inherent to evolution is respectively the matter of the Hybrid, Which, in the context of animal life cannot reproduce. I would
offer the example of reproduction between Horses and Donkeys, that result in Mules (a better animal
for moving across mountains that cannot reproduce). Could humans have developed in the same way
and eventually evolved into a form that could reproduce??

Any thoughts?

no...

we were created from the dust of the earth.. however, other species attempted to hybrid our DNA back in Genesis and succeed .. somewhat.. but.. we're meant to be human.. period.. pure and nothing else but human..

Originally posted by Komodo
we were created from the dust of the earth..

Humans are mostly made from water. There is no water in dust. Explain this inconsistency.

A small number of the genes (roughly 5%) of non-African modern humans are Neanderthal. So that means most of the white world are 5% hybrid of the two species of humans.

When Homo-Sapiens started moving out of Africa they interbred with the Neanderthals and some of that genome is still present today.

Probably more presesnt in the hairy buggers like myself.

reply to post by Kashai


In the great movie Independence Day Jeff Goldblum's father asks a sage question when someone questioned if the US govrnment knew about UFOs before the attack. His response was in regard to our attempts to build our own UFOs. He says, "You don't believe that they really spent $500 on a hammer do you?" That was referrence to the DOD's reported esspenses in the 1980s on the Star Wars program (SDI).

I'll rephrase that in regard to the "medical test" reported widely as done on human abdductees by their "hosts.":

"You don't really believe that those were mere "medical test" do you?

reply to post by Kashai


Are we talking nature or hybridization of specific genes? And not all natrule hybrids are sterile just a large percentage of them once in a while you do get fertility. But genetic engineering on the human genome is starting to look more and more plausible to me. We have the Human accelerated regions which are uniquely and not found any where else in the animal kingdom.

There are 18 base pair mutations different between humans and chimpanzees, far more than expected by its history of conservation.[1] HAR2 includes HACNS1 a gene enhancer "that may have contributed to the evolution of the uniquely opposable human thumb, and possibly also modifications in the ankle or foot that allow humans to walk on two legs".

drakenberg.weebly.com...

Originally posted by Kashai
As many of us are aware evolutionary theory does not explain macro-evolution. Inherent to evolution is respectively the matter of the Hybrid, Which, in the context of animal life cannot reproduce. I would
offer the example of reproduction between Horses and Donkeys, that result in Mules (a better animal
for moving across mountains that cannot reproduce). Could humans have developed in the same way
and eventually evolved into a form that could reproduce??

Any thoughts?

I can't see how this could be the case. If there are two distinctly different species, the strongest of the two would dominate. I think different species might have evolved from our early ancestors after they left Africa, maybe as a result of "cross-breeding". But they have been wiped out or bred out, by the more dominant humans. Many island dwelling culture had vastly different anatomy to mainlanders.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Kashai
As many of us are aware evolutionary theory does not explain macro-evolution. Inherent to evolution is respectively the matter of the Hybrid, Which, in the context of animal life cannot reproduce. I would
offer the example of reproduction between Horses and Donkeys, that result in Mules (a better animal
for moving across mountains that cannot reproduce). Could humans have developed in the same way
and eventually evolved into a form that could reproduce??

Any thoughts?

Yes. Your first sentence is incorrect. Evolution doesn't distinct between micro and macro evolution. This is just creationist nonsense. First they claimed that there was no evolution, period. Then, after it was 100% crystal clear that evolution was very much real, they came up with this artificial micro vs. macro divide, as to admit that "fine, it's real", but still insist that overall the thing must be wrong, since it's of course impossible to directly observe "macro" (would be nice to get specific definition of it) as it takes 100s of thousands or millions of years (depending again on what counts as macro).

edit on 28-8-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

Creationism and Evolution are proverbially in the same boat. this meaning that until someone walks on water or a flightless animal develops wings, well I am sure you understand. As we have discussed before I treat evolutionary theory as a valid construct. In relation to God I consider that the statements "God cannot exist" is effectively a Fallacy of Logic. Punctuated Equalibria was actually postulated, in relation to what can be coined as Evolutionary Theories "hard problem". If as you suggest the issue was some kind of ploy why would such a conclusion even be considered?

Any thoughts?

Ok I will try this a different way.

There is still debate over whether we (Homo sapiens) breed with neanderthals (Homo neanderthalus) or we just retained some genes from the last common ancestor, that were better adaptions. The level of "sharing" for neanderthals and Denisovians is quite low (between 3 and 5 for neanderthals, and 3 and 6% in Melenesians for Denisovians), Homo floresiensis ("the hobbit") probably did not contribute to our genome (we don't know as they are still trying to analyse the little bugger), despite having been around up to 12000 years ago. (I will talk about DNA analysis at the end of this).

Yes we probably breed with both Neanderthals and Denisovians, and offspring likely resulted. It is obvious from the DNA studies that some genes gave an advantage for some environments (ie it is thought that pale skin and red hair may have come from neanderthals, but it also could have been Denisovians). But it is not a huge amount that has survived, we also do not share SNP (Single nucleotide polymorphisms) in either Y chromosomes (from daddy, and only to males) or mitochondrial DNA (from mummy and can only be handed on by females). Does that make us hybrids? Possibly, but not really at the same time. We vary more within what was called "race" (a poor idea scientifically it turns out) than between them, and then it's not very much. We also do not know what our ancestors breed with to get to Homo sapiens.

So the idea of "hybrids" only really applies to the generations following interbreeding. H. sapiens has done a good job thus far removing competition (perhaps if N Essex, E. Lensher and C. Xavier are right, Homo superior is amonst us?)

Ok so DNA analysis. Since the Human genome project put the first genome out, we have managed to come ahead leaps and bounds in technology. We are approaching the "$1000 genome in under a week" mark, where it costs $1000 (USD) or less and takes less than a week to analyse a genome. This is an important mark, because it makes it a competitive technique for insurance companies to pay for. At the moment you take 2-3 weeks, and costs around $5000 (numbers change a lot, and I've not looked this up since march). We have over 1000 genomes of individuals now. The problem with ancestors is DNA degrades, it is why we here about Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA studies ahead of full genomes. They are cheaper and faster (smaller things to analyse) and they talk about "genetic clans" for each. But that does not tell you about an individual. We have two to five tests of neanderthals (I know some where in process. and I am unsure if they are published yet) so its a tiny group of data, and a fingerbone/tooth (they used the tooth I think) of the Denisovians. It is why Denisovians have not yet been given a Homo name (stop s'n-word'ing Bevis) like Homo Devisovialus or similar. The individual is not a species till we find more. They found a foot bone in the same cave (some toe bone I think) that prelim tests imply was a neanderthal, they also have found evidence of Homo sapiens lurking in the same cave, all we know is there is a possibility of a occupation of that cave by two to three species over time. We don't know if they "got it on" with each other, or not.

reply to post by Noinden


Ok where in this thread do you see the word Denisovians or Neadrathal?

This thread is more or less related to discussing how evolution can occur.

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by Noinden

 

Ok where in this thread do you see the word Denisovians or Neadrathal?

This thread is more or less related to discussing how evolution can occur.

I am using them as an example. Why so defensive?

Look you mention hybrids, who did we hybridize with?

According to a literal reading of Genesis 6 hybridization with the Nephilim is a fact.

However, later we are told in the Noah narrative that at least the known world was flooded (in a narrative that is also repeated and expanded in other ancient texts), possibly to get rid of the hybrids, who caused havoc, rape, human sacrifice and taught mankind black magic and war.

So in the narrow reading of the OT there was clearly hybridization with non-humans, but they died in the flood, and we are all descendents of Noah and his family.
However I'm not so sure the whole world was indeed flooded and that they all perished.
Perhaps what they called the "world" was just the city states in the ancient Middle East.

To me evolution is totally possible, but until we have more evidence on exactly how it happened with humans I would consider the hybridization theory by some alien race as a distinct possibility.

we share soemthing like 98% of our dna with chimpanae's, so I would guess no

I would think a hybrid would have a larger degree of separation

Go downtown, it's full of neanderthals.
Seriously; slaves & drunken irishmen, conquistadors and natives, venusians and inuits, greeks and pliedeians, sure, why not. Looks like all of 'em abound and then some.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
we share soemthing like 98% of our dna with chimpanae's, so I would guess no

I would think a hybrid would have a larger degree of separation

One has to assume that if we were to "hybridize" with something very exotic (and humans have been known to try, and so far we've found no chimp human hybrids that I know of) .... we'd not be able to procreate with them.

As you say we share ~98% similar DNA with chimps, other hominids (so sorry OP but Denisovians and Neanderthals plus Homo erectus (for example)) were much closer and we have evidence that THAT off spring were viable (we share some of their genes today).

Macro and Micro evolution are terms which are abused greatly by creationist/intellegent design proponents. They have very specific meanings.

Oh and "aliens"? Wow they were genetically similar to us? Who would have thunk?

Ok seriously even if we did some genetic engineering in there some where, its sort of a long shot we hybridized with a very different species, rather than a similar one.