It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Leading geneticist says we are a hybrid of Pigs and Chimps

page: 12
43
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I'm more into believing that our ancestors mutated and some turned into apes and others into pigs. This would be easier to explain than apes and pigs producing offspring. This would be before the neanderthal and other species of humanoids split.

You can see evidence of this in people, some guys are big pigs and others act more like apes.. The fact that our brains are wired like birds while their structure is like a pig makes me think our great ancestors millions of years ago were some sort of dinosaur type creature that was more like a Raptor. People like music and many dance when young, birds do that. Humans like colorful clothes, birds like color.

Sorry for being off topic.




posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Antigod
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.


No, I'm responding to your claim, "What cross species hybrids we have observed are normally sterile to boot. I referenced a paper that states,"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," and asked you to comment.

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).



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Astyanax
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.


LMAO

Did you read the OP?
Soficrow isnt making claims, hes showing you evidence that respected scientist have put together after lengthy research.

Once again people are getting hung up on the picture of a pig and monkey bumping uglies (sexual reproduction) if what is proposed is true and we do indeed posses pig and monkey DNA, sexual reproduction is, regardless of how silly it seems is one theory of how it happened.
My personal belief is we were tampered with in the past by a higher intelligence.

For those of you saying its flat out impossible to mix the genes of 2 completely different species, its being done as we speak. In England they have spliced human and animal DNA into embryos and continue to do so.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 



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

'Emotional resistance?' You were closer to the mark when you called me a troll.

I have no more problem with being the grandson of a pig than of a chimp, believe me. I have a great deal of a problem accepting the word of a self-described geneticist who ignores genetics and embraces comparative morphology instead, because that kind of thinking is magical thinking: like breeds like, similarity is identity, 'as above so below' and the rest of the superstitious garbage that pollutes minds that can't or won't learn to think straight.

It is stupid on the face of it. Surprising an intelligent bird like you can't see that.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 



My personal belief is we were tampered with in the past by a higher intelligence.

See what I mean, Soficrow? Magical thinking. Superstition.


edit on 30/11/13 by Astyanax because: it boldly went.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


I don't think you're off topic. Current evolutionary theory is full of holes and shortcomings - and leaves MUCH to be explained, as does physics. Difference is, the physics guys acknowledge the deficiencies and are at least looking for a 'unifying theory.' In comparison, the molecular biologists seem to have a surfeit of bull DNA.




Oh dear. I think I meant mule DNA. Like 'stubborn as a mule' and lacking fertility in its broadest sense. But bull DNA works too.




edit on 30/11/13 by soficrow because: tinker

edit on 30/11/13 by soficrow because: add oh dear



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


There are thousands of possibilities for this. I do know that in special cases there can be animals that successfully mate outside of their species. For all we know, viruses could actually make this happen. They can alter DNA temporarily and possibly allow blending to occur. This means that things may not be repeatable. We wouldn't be able to verify by more testing unless certain situations were in place.

There is a lot more that we cannot comprehend than there is of what we know. People cannot comprehend things outside of the consensus of the time well. Knowledge blinds many people from what is possible.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Astyanax
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 



My personal belief is we were tampered with in the past by a higher intelligence.

See what I mean, Soficrow? Magical thinking. Superstition.


edit on 30/11/13 by Astyanax because: it boldly went.


Superstition?????

Believing in the possibility of a more advanced race who visited earth in the past isnt a superstition, its a theory to explain the many inconsistencies we have in our evolution.

Whats your theory?



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   


Text No, I'm responding to your claim, "What cross species hybrids we have observed are normally sterile to boot. I referenced a paper that states,"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," and asked you to comment
reply to post by soficrow
 


I.m not sure if you are being intentionally dense. I already responded to that. What you seem to be not grasping is that only very closely related species can produce fully fertile young. That paper was discussing closely related species.

I.m getting the impression that you are a creationist with a pretty hazy grasp of things like genetic drift and the time to a LCA. So I.'ll simplify. Just because some 19th century naturalist decided two butterflies of different colours were disparate species doesn't mean they w were necessarily so. The definition of species and sub species can be fairly vague. Dogs and wolves for example. If you saw a terrier you would assume it's a different species to a wolf. Very different appearance and behaviour. In fact fully fertile near relatives. Some things we define as separate species are actually more like sub species and will be fully fertile with near relatives. Basically depends on the naturalist who first described them.

edit on 30-11-2013 by Antigod because: typo



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 





if what is proposed is true and we do indeed posses pig and monkey DNA


Well we share about 60% of our DNA with a banana


Sorry, but McCarthy produced no evidence whatsoever that pigs and chimp ancestors hybridized. There's no evidence of pig DNA in humans at all, and no evidence species so divergent could produce any kind offspring outside of a level of genetic tampering we haven't mastered yet. The thought of the cross species sex doesn't trouble me. I've seen a chimp trying to hump a dog and a cat trying to rape a rabbit, and a rabbit trying to shag a chicken. I couldn't say if penetration was managed though.

Please excuse typing on previous posts. That touchscreen keyboard on my kindle fire is a pig.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   
It is awesome you got more discussion out of this then I did back in July when I posted this story.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Peace,
K



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Antigod
 


...There's no evidence of pig DNA in humans at all


Which explains why pig parts are transplanted into humans.

Not.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   
lol. Man, I just finally get on board with evolution and genetics and now this? I'd most definitely rather be created by aliens than have evolved from one of the most filthiest animals and a silly chimp



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 



Believing in the possibility of a more advanced race who visited earth in the past isnt a superstition, its a theory to explain the many inconsistencies we have in our evolution.

You can't have a theory without evidence. All you have is speculation. In this case, involving magical beings that no-one has ever seen or heard of. You might as well say we were created by fairies.

Besides, what inconsistencies do you mean? The theory of evolution is perfectly consistent and there is no evidence whatsoever to contradict it.

I say again: superstition.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Antigod
 



Just because some 19th century naturalist decided two butterflies of different colours were disparate species doesn't mean they w were necessarily so.

This.

End of argument.

I, too, think the OP is most probably a creationist...


Soficrow
Which explains why pig parts are transplanted into humans.

...who really doesn't understand genetics at all.




edit on 30/11/13 by Astyanax because: to respond to Soficrow's prize howler.



posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Pont52
lol. Man, I just finally get on board with evolution and genetics and now this? I'd most definitely rather be created by aliens than have evolved from one of the most filthiest animals and a silly chimp


That's some bias you got there.

Chimps may be silly, but they are far filthier than pigs.

Harte



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 02:07 AM
link   

soficrow
reply to post by Antigod
 


...There's no evidence of pig DNA in humans at all


Which explains why pig parts are transplanted into humans.

Not.



So we are cow hybrids also? Science has allowed us to use animal parts in our human bodies - not DNA.

If DNA was the 'key,' we would be harvesting organs from primates like there is no tomorrow... But we choose the pig because we like bacon??

Your thinking....is flawed.






posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 02:11 AM
link   

kdog1982
It is awesome you got more discussion out of this then I did back in July when I posted this story.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Peace,
K


Mentioned twice before. Thank you KDog for the original thread on this topic. Think your thread got warshed out due to the Zimmerman trial crap.

Edit-
In my opinion, the higher intelligence that tampered with pig DNA was us, not aliens. Why choose to test on a tiny rat when you can test on something bigger...with more realistic results. Why grow an ear....when you can grow a suitable adult size liver??

If we are to meddle with DNA, why not go big? Go big or waste money IMO. We have the ability to produce organs, but the laws limit us.

edit on 1-12-2013 by ChuckNasty because: as above



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


that sounds like a threat. yes,let's all stop learning,asking questions.we don't want to risk upseting people.i will spend my day planning what colour paint goes best with my carpet.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:22 AM
link   

soficrow
reply to post by Antigod
 


...There's no evidence of pig DNA in humans at all


Which explains why pig parts are transplanted into humans.

Not.

I think by "no evidence of pig DNA in humans at all" Antigod means that we don't have a single gene that is most similar to some gene in pigs. This fact alone debunks this ridiculous idea of humans being pig-chimp hybrids.

Nonetheless, we share like 20,000 orthologous genes with all mammals, pigs included. There's your reason as to why it could work in principle. But have "pig parts" actually ever been transplanted into humans?

I didn't bother reading this McCarthy stuff so deeply, but AFAIK he's making his argument based on morphological features. Simplified: he's saying that our lack of hair derives from pigs. He's making such a simple mistake, ignoring the existence of convergence. It's like saying that bats are rat-bird hybrids because they have wings.
edit on 1-12-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join