Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Chimp-Pig Hybrid=Humans

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Mizzijr
 


I don't understand the full metal alchemist reference, if this wasn't sarcastic then you're welcome.


There's more but I'll save it for a more theological thread.




posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 




The thing is, cross species fertilization rarely happens, and when it does, the offspring in all known cases is infertile. To produce a highly superior genetic makeup is statistically impossible.


Who says it would have happened naturally? Ancient alien theorist's say an advanced race came and made us.

Look how far we've come with sci & tech. We too know have the ability to clone, manipulative genes, etc. Im sure if there is life out there more advanced than us, a pig chimp combo would be cakewalk.

Also seeing what our species is capable of doing, i wouldn't be surprised f it were true



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Knives4eyes
reply to post by Mizzijr
 


I don't understand the full metal alchemist reference, if this wasn't sarcastic then you're welcome.


There's more but I'll save it for a more theological thread.


Nah, it wasn't sarcastic at all. In FMA there are quite a few things the author put into the book that was mysterious and actually had truth to it. Chimeras might have been one of those things, I just never got around to it.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 


Interesting kdog

Since chimps and pigs also share the same ancestor the necessary DNA would already be in place....about 64 million years ago.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by kdog1982

Originally posted by HairlessApe
reply to post by kdog1982
 


Humans came from Chimps....
....Said no scientist ever.


It is a general hypothesis...a split in the tree.


The chimpanzee is plausible in the role of one of parents that crossed to produce the human race because they are generally recognized as being closest to humans in terms of their genetics (here, I use the term (chimpanzee loosely to refer to either the common chimpanzee or to the bonobo, also known as the pygmy chimpanzee; the specific roles of these two rather similar apes within the context of the present hypothesis will be explained in a subsequent section). But then the question arises: If an ancient cross between the chimpanzee and some parental form "X" produced the first humans, then what was that parent? Does it still exist? What was it like?



Ever since researchers sequenced the chimp genome in 2005, they have known that humans share about 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, making them our closest living relatives. But there are actually two species of apes that are this closely related to humans: bonobos (Pan paniscus) and the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). This has prompted researchers to speculate whether the ancestor of humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos looked and acted more like a bonobo, a chimpanzee, or something else—and how all three species have evolved differently since the ancestor of humans split with the common ancestor of bonobos and chimps between 4 million and 7 million years ago in Africa. The international sequencing effort led from Max Planck chose a bonobo named Ulindi from the Leipzig Zoo as its subject, partly because she was a female (the chimp genome was of a male). The analysis of Ulindi's complete genome, reported online today in Nature, reveals that bonobos and chimpanzees share 99.6% of their DNA. This confirms that these two species of African apes are still highly similar to each other genetically, even though their populations split apart in Africa about 1 million years ago, perhaps after the Congo River formed and divided an ancestral population into two groups. Today, bonobos are found in only the Democratic Republic of Congo and there is no evidence that they have interbred with chimpanzees in equatorial Africa since they diverged, perhaps because the Congo River acted as a barrier to prevent the groups from mixing. The researchers also found that bonobos share about 98.7% of their DNA with humans—about the same amount that chimps share with us.


news.sciencemag.org...

Key word is living relative.
edit on 6-7-2013 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)


A "living relative" is not an ancestor. We DO NOT come from chimps. We share a common ancestor. They aren't even close to the same thing. And no, it's not a legitimate hypothesis, it's some guy's blog. I think his colloquial (not to be confused with scientific) theory is really neat but I don't think it holds much credibility.
edit on 7-7-2013 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mizzijr

Originally posted by Knives4eyes
reply to post by Mizzijr
 


I don't understand the full metal alchemist reference, if this wasn't sarcastic then you're welcome.


There's more but I'll save it for a more theological thread.


Nah, it wasn't sarcastic at all. In FMA there are quite a few things the author put into the book that was mysterious and actually had truth to it. Chimeras might have been one of those things, I just never got around to it.


Yes, I'm sure the authors, illustrators, and editors of an anime series have knowledge of our secret genetic past far beyond the comprehension of the average layman.




posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


I know,it doesn't hold much water.

What I find funny is all these scientists arguing over it.

Way more entertaining then the original article.


If we step away from the highly emotional topic of human origin and consider the work that this proposal has been based upon, we see that McCarthy's conclusions are nothing short of explosive. They will shake the very foundations of evolutionary theory. McCarthy is playing the role of mythbuster. First he is destroying the widely held belief that species only mate with their own kind. He shows that in the plant and aquatic kingdoms where gametes are broadcast upon the currents, then hybridisation is de rigueur. He demonstrates with many examples, that within the bird kingdom where mating is necessary, again, cross species fertilisation is commonplace in hybridisation zones and he even demonstrates the hybrid parentage of several species. In his latest work - Mamalian Hybrids - he again shows commonplace examples of cross species mating and the establishment of populations of F1 hybrids. It seems the belief that species only breed 'like with like' is a uniquely human fiction. Read more at: phys.org...



Second, he is destroying the widely held belief that hybrids are sterile. The F1 hybrid is a unique state in that it is a life form which contains two genomes, a copy from each parent. The resultant creature often demonstrates this duality by being part one parent and part the other - head and feet of one parent, body of the other, forebody one parent, hindbody the other - they are chromosomal chimeras, strong and vigorous, but with an inbuilt issue. When the F1 attempts to create its gametes, the process of meiosis splits the two parental genomes apart and attempts to pair up the mismatching halves. The mismatch causes the meiosis machinery to create a storm of change and mutation with the consequence that a large proportion of non viable gametes will be produced. Many will fail to be fertilised, those that do fertilise will produce a proportion of 'monsters' that fail to survive, only a small proportion will be capable of forming a totally new viable life form. Read more at: phys.org...



Finally, McCarthy has given us Stabilisation Theory - the process by which the newly formed hybrid with its low fertility and tumultuous genome, rapidly (in geological time scales) becomes a species. Natural selection inexorably eliminates the less advantageous genomic variants while retaining any mutations which proffer reproductive advantage. Genetic variability is quickly eliminated and a highly fertile stabilised 'species' is formed, which, due to the absence of inherent genetic diversity, remains essentially unchanging for potentially millions of years. We have all been brought up to the mindset that cross species sex is an abomination and that evolution is a continual process of refinement to perfection, pandering to our arrogance that we occupy that pinnacle. Read more at: phys.org...



But those of you who are thinking instead of dismissing this new perspective, will be coming to the realisation that natural selection and the production of species is in fact the road to extinction. Those species which give up genetic diversity in favour of fertility, are exposing themselves to the inevitable fate of eventual extinction. The very opposite of classical Darwinian thinking. Read more at: phys.org...


Just an example.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 


Fair enough.
Admittedly I find the idea quite intriguing as well... It's easy to see how someone could draw a conclusion like this using "common sense" as their logic. Who knows, maybe we actually will discover something completely unprecedented.




posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by HairlessApe
reply to post by kdog1982
 


Fair enough.
Admittedly I find the idea quite intriguing as well... It's easy to see how someone could draw a conclusion like this using "common sense" as their logic. Who knows, maybe we actually will discover something completely unprecedented.



It is just only a consideration of someone thinking outside the box.

That was my main goal here.Thinking outside the box.

And,as you may well know,sometimes common sense and science don't always see eye to eye.

Just something to feed your mind.

Peace,
K



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
It kind of sounds reasonable.

Take the duck billed platypus for example.


How anyone could look at this furry little mess and not get a shadow of a doubt, that ancient genetic manipulation might sound plausible is beyond me.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by watchitburn
 


Funny you bring that up ,the platypus.

Another oddity.


Because of the early divergence from the therian mammals and the low numbers of extant monotreme species, the platypus is a frequent subject of research in evolutionary biology. In 2004, researchers at the Australian National University discovered the platypus has ten sex chromosomes, compared with two (XY) in most other mammals (for instance, a male platypus is always XYXYXYXYXY),[66] although given the XY designation of mammals, the sex chromosomes of the platypus are more similar to the ZZ/ZW sex chromosomes found in birds.[67] The platypus genome also has both reptilian and mammalian genes associated with egg fertilisation.[35][68] Since the platypus lacks the mammalian sex-determining gene SRY, the mechanism of sex determination remains unknown.[69] A draft version of the platypus genome sequence was published in Nature on 8 May 2008,revealing both reptilian and mammalian elements, as well as two genes found previously only in birds, amphibians, and fish. More than 80% of the platypus' genes are common to the other mammals whose genomes have been sequenced.[35]


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by HairlessApe

Originally posted by Mizzijr

Originally posted by Knives4eyes
reply to post by Mizzijr
 


I don't understand the full metal alchemist reference, if this wasn't sarcastic then you're welcome.


There's more but I'll save it for a more theological thread.


Nah, it wasn't sarcastic at all. In FMA there are quite a few things the author put into the book that was mysterious and actually had truth to it. Chimeras might have been one of those things, I just never got around to it.


Yes, I'm sure the authors, illustrators, and editors of an anime series have knowledge of our secret genetic past far beyond the comprehension of the average layman.



Yes, because they are gods.

Nah, but I only point this particular author out because she was actually really into alchemy and occult knowledge. She derived the ideas from somewhere. in fact i'm sure she did because I went to look into the occult world and found a lot of similarities of the story especially with the homunculi and the tattoo of ouroboros. The chimera could be of the same sort to a lesser degree.

Not saying all authors of the anime world have symbolism of the occultists. But Hiromu Arakawa most definitely does.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
Who says it would have happened naturally? Ancient alien theorist's say an advanced race came and made us.

I'm saying it didn't happen since there's no genetic evidence whatsoever that it did, which would not be the case if it really did happen. So einfach ist das. Show me at least one tree from here that places humans and pigs in the same terminal node. Nah, let's just ignore the evidence and continue with the fantasy ATS style..
edit on 8-7-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 


Some interesting stuff man, S&F!


I actually, independently, thought about this too, since pigs are used frequently as human analogs.

I may be wrong, but I think pigs are one of the rare animals besides humans that have cannabinoid receptors in their brain.

Could humans be the offspring of chimps/apes and pigs cross breeding? I feel it is possible.

Also, this thread totally makes me think of the pig pilot from a Doctor Who episode!





posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by dominicus
Who says it would have happened naturally? Ancient alien theorist's say an advanced race came and made us.

I'm saying it didn't happen since there's no genetic evidence whatsoever that it did, which would not be the case if it really did happen. So einfach ist das. Show me at least one tree from here that places humans and pigs in the same terminal node. Nah, let's just ignore the evidence and continue with the fantasy ATS style..
edit on 8-7-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

And where does the tree, or all the tree's, in that link start?

There's a lot we still don't know. The whole of junk DNA is still not understood yet is entirely relevant because scientists are starting to discover that some aspects of junk DNA are relevant to diseases and other bodily functions.

What about the jump from cave-men to modern day humans? The missing link ....etc...

A master genetic manipulator can manipulate things in such a way, that it's not necessarily going to show up in ways that you think. So many unknowns exist
edit on 10-7-2013 by dominicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by bkfd54
 


Maybe we are Manbearpigs after all.
But then again, what do I know? I'm made of powdered toast.
edit on 11-7-2013 by TheToastmanCometh because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchitburn
It kind of sounds reasonable.

Take the duck billed platypus for example.


How anyone could look at this furry little mess and not get a shadow of a doubt, that ancient genetic manipulation might sound plausible is beyond me.


We have heaps of those near my home. They're wonderful. Don't know where they got the beaver tail from though, because we don't have beavers in Australia (to the best of my knowledge)



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bkfd54
 


Plot twist: Al Gore was the ManBearPig all along.



posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by dominicus
Who says it would have happened naturally? Ancient alien theorist's say an advanced race came and made us.

I'm saying it didn't happen since there's no genetic evidence whatsoever that it did, which would not be the case if it really did happen. So einfach ist das. Show me at least one tree from here that places humans and pigs in the same terminal node. Nah, let's just ignore the evidence and continue with the fantasy ATS style..
edit on 8-7-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

And where does the tree, or all the tree's, in that link start?

There's a lot we still don't know. The whole of junk DNA is still not understood yet is entirely relevant because scientists are starting to discover that some aspects of junk DNA are relevant to diseases and other bodily functions.

What about the jump from cave-men to modern day humans? The missing link ....etc...

A master genetic manipulator can manipulate things in such a way, that it's not necessarily going to show up in ways that you think. So many unknowns exist
edit on 10-7-2013 by dominicus because: (no reason given)

Trees starts from roots, unless they're unrooted, in which case they don't start from anything. Rooting is usually done by outgroups, or in some cases by midpoint.

As to all the unrelated stuff. What about "the jump" from cave-men to modern day humans? How is this related to this discussion? What missing link? And again, where's the relevance? If humans were hybrids or chimps and pigs, it would follow by definition that ~50% of our genes were most similar to pig genes in nucleotide sequence. This is not the case. It essence, all our genes are most similar to chimp and bonobo genes. Some might be more similar to gorillas and other great apes, but to pigs, no.
edit on 13-7-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   

HairlessApe

Originally posted by kdog1982

Originally posted by HairlessApe
reply to post by kdog1982
 


Humans came from Chimps....
....Said no scientist ever.


It is a general hypothesis...a split in the tree.


The chimpanzee is plausible in the role of one of parents that crossed to produce the human race because they are generally recognized as being closest to humans in terms of their genetics (here, I use the term (chimpanzee loosely to refer to either the common chimpanzee or to the bonobo, also known as the pygmy chimpanzee; the specific roles of these two rather similar apes within the context of the present hypothesis will be explained in a subsequent section). But then the question arises: If an ancient cross between the chimpanzee and some parental form "X" produced the first humans, then what was that parent? Does it still exist? What was it like?



Ever since researchers sequenced the chimp genome in 2005, they have known that humans share about 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, making them our closest living relatives. But there are actually two species of apes that are this closely related to humans: bonobos (Pan paniscus) and the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). This has prompted researchers to speculate whether the ancestor of humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos looked and acted more like a bonobo, a chimpanzee, or something else—and how all three species have evolved differently since the ancestor of humans split with the common ancestor of bonobos and chimps between 4 million and 7 million years ago in Africa. The international sequencing effort led from Max Planck chose a bonobo named Ulindi from the Leipzig Zoo as its subject, partly because she was a female (the chimp genome was of a male). The analysis of Ulindi's complete genome, reported online today in Nature, reveals that bonobos and chimpanzees share 99.6% of their DNA. This confirms that these two species of African apes are still highly similar to each other genetically, even though their populations split apart in Africa about 1 million years ago, perhaps after the Congo River formed and divided an ancestral population into two groups. Today, bonobos are found in only the Democratic Republic of Congo and there is no evidence that they have interbred with chimpanzees in equatorial Africa since they diverged, perhaps because the Congo River acted as a barrier to prevent the groups from mixing. The researchers also found that bonobos share about 98.7% of their DNA with humans—about the same amount that chimps share with us.


news.sciencemag.org...

Key word is living relative.
edit on 6-7-2013 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)


A "living relative" is not an ancestor. We DO NOT come from chimps. We share a common ancestor. They aren't even close to the same thing. And no, it's not a legitimate hypothesis, it's some guy's blog. I think his colloquial (not to be confused with scientific) theory is really neat but I don't think it holds much credibility.
edit on 7-7-2013 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)



hmm let put it in a way in layman's terms .

Think of a Lego's or kids erector set same material each piece does different sizes different shapes..

yet you can make or mimic anything .. out of the Material pretty much like HUMANS and APES... just add more less more of certain ( GENES ) in the Chromosomes and wholla ..... but Who is the Builder the Programmer is the Question... and What about that 1 to 3 percent difference what is it ??? that can Change Humans APES So Much !! Retro Virus as some scientist claimed at one time .. Nope Apes Have it TOO ... all in the Same spots in our DNA well except chromosome 2 Fusion making us 46 instead of 42 and how that came to be ? and that is the Unknown .. of that 1 to 3 percentage beside the Junk DNA

We are a Product Created by Someone High Advanced Race CIV TYPE #3 / GODLY Entity aka Not from Here playing with an APE Created a New Updated APE with a dash of Them within Us !! ?? A Big Boost! IMO ... personally It make more sense to me unless Science can Tell Otherwise ... From a Close to a Hominid to US Modern Humans and CLOSE to Nothing in between ...



Human
en.wikipedia.org...
Big change here

Cro-Magnon
en.wikipedia.org...

Very BIG CHANGE !!! Here too

Neanderthal
en.wikipedia.org...

Homo erectus
en.wikipedia.org...

Australopithecus
en.wikipedia.org...

Hominini
en.wikipedia.org...





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join