Leading geneticist says we are a hybrid of Pigs and Chimps

bottleslingguy
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?

edit on 2-12-2013 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-12-2013 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)

All they demonstrated was bad lab practice. H2O isn't going to transform into DNA, no matter how hard you try. Hydrogen and oxygen atoms don't just magically transform into carbon, phosphate and nitrogen. For something like this to happen you need a star, an Eppendorf and a weak 7Hz current isn't going to cut it.

reply to post by bottleslingguy

but again there's that intellectual elitism rearing its ugly head

He has an informed opinion, you don't know the subject matter. Simple as that. I couldn't repair a tv, the tv repair man is not an elitist, he just know stuff I don't. It's not elitism, it's understanding you need to know a subject thoroughly before you opinion is going to be anywhere near right.

soficrow
Fact is, genetics doesn't explain much about much. Seems we need to look further, and McCarthy is doing that. ...I'm not really defending the humans=pig-chimp-hybrid hypothesis just the idea that it's necessary to think outside the box.

Genetics doesn't explain much about what? Genetics explains a ton about everything related to biology and life.

All the time. Between the 1960's and 1980's(?), transplanting pig hearts into humans was a big thing, now it's mostly skin and other tissue. Also, see below.

Transplanting pig hearts into humans was never a thing, and I don't think such operation has ever been performed successfully for the human body would refuse such transplant without a question.

Maybe you should - he makes some interesting points that go beyond the packaged simplifications.

What's the point? We have the human genome. We have the pig genome. There's no question whatsoever, we don't have pig DNA. We're not pig-chimp hybrids. This data is publicly available. If somebody still wants to claim that we're hybrids, then how about you tell me the loci in the human genome from where I'll find these pig genes which should obviously be there if we were pig-chimp hybrids.

reply to post by Antigod


LOL sorry I should have been more clear, I dont believe magic has anything to do with it.
I was using the term "magic" (again note the commas) to describe a process we cant explain or dont understand.

Its relevant because you believe it and accept it as truth when you have nothing but circumstantial evidence.

Its obvious Im no expert in this field but I am aware that chimeras are regularly created and they dont fail, they are terminated after 2 weeks as is required by law. These embryos are viable and would produce a living creature according to the genetic scientists who make them.

Forget the visual of a Monkey and Pig getting it on coz I think your hung up on that.

Do you think it will be possible at any stage in the future for humans to be able to splice the genes of 2 different animals together?

If yes then it is possible that another civilisation made us via messing with monkey DNA.

Not saying its true but it does make sense to me.
Your obviously a smart guy (although your inability to grasp subtleties in language is odd, are you a native English speaker?) but you remind me of all the other smart guys who have been so certain of things only to have them blow up in their faces.

As for the closed minded part, its not an accusation I make alot and Im sure you know more bout this subject than me but I doubt you know more than the guy who put forward the theory.

Theres no book, theres no movie or documentary, he has said himself he is uncomfortable with the findings and he is respected in his field.

I think the theory deserves some investigation rather than you just saying its not possible, I still havent seen anyone really debunk what he has said other than to say its not possible.
100 or so years ago flying wasnt possible!!!

P.s Im in no way religious

reply to post by rhinoceros


there were some trials that started around 1906 where they used sheep, pig and chimpanzee organs for transplants. All patients died within days, some within hours due to hyperacute rejection because nobody was aware of how the immune system would respond back then. trials were stopped and the entire concept died out until the 60's when interest piqued again. However I'm not aware of any further porcine, full organ transplants performed since that weren't the result of very selective breeding along with some mild genetic tampering to reduce risk of rejection. And that's only been in the past several years. Even at that, they are a short term measure until a viable human organ is found. the process buys the patient weeks to a couple of months. It's certainly possible that as the tech advances we can make larger strides in modifying pigs to make the organs more viable for human transplantation, we just aren't there yet. Additionally, pigs are in highest consideration for this not because of their superior genetic similarity but because the organs are of a similar size to a humans. Chimpanzees and some monkeys are more suitable candidates but there is a huge squeamish/ethics factor involved because of how closely related we are.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


Looking at myself in the mirror I find that theory deserving further research))

2nd line

reply to post by rhinoceros


really? where's your data? or are you just intellectually stonewalling?

Antigod
reply to post by bottleslingguy

 

but again there's that intellectual elitism rearing its ugly head

He has an informed opinion, you don't know the subject matter. Simple as that. I couldn't repair a tv, the tv repair man is not an elitist, he just know stuff I don't. It's not elitism, it's understanding you need to know a subject thoroughly before you opinion is going to be anywhere near right.

you don't think Sheldrake knows anything about genomics or science? Again it would help your agenda along if you stopped making silly analogies and simply provided empirical evidence proving why these theories on morphic resonance and source field influences on matter and consciousness are wrong. Have you watched that lecture I provided? Where is he wrong? Specifically wrong and what's your proof? You are being an elitist by not addressing that as if your laurels should suffice. You reductionists are a funny bunch. So linear

bottleslingguy
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

really? where's your data? or are you just intellectually stonewalling?

I've linked all the relevant data this very thread

edit. oh wait, you're asking about hydrogen and oxygen atoms turning into carbon, phosphate and nitrogen and then turning into DNA in an Eppendorf when a weak current is applied? Really? Really?

reply to post by rhinoceros

typical

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

Your obviously a smart guy (although your inability to grasp subtleties in language is odd, are you a native English speaker?)

High functioning Aspergers. I tend to miss nuance and take things literally, and my socials skills are not great. I get perplexed when people aren't rational. Most people don't spot it, well done. And I'm female. No-one ever pegs me for a woman when I use a neutral name, and they tend to assume i'm a man pretending to be a woman when I use a feminine one. And I'm English. Husband calls me 'Sheldon' as a joke.

As for the guy being properly qualified, I'm sure he is but I'm not seeing any viable info that supports him.

I've seen a few scientific spats where someone qualified is making bizarre claims. A few years ago some geneticist claimed the Greeks were descended from an Ethiopian colony, and he then got his ass laughed out of his job (for good reason) after some renowned peers ripped his work to shreds. I've read a lot of published work, and there's always someone on the fringes making weird claims, who gets torn down later. A phd does not garauntee genius, and sometimes they publish outre stuff to get noticed. There's a real publish or die culture, and getting your name well known is a real motive for some. I should think in a few weeks we are going to see someone rip Mccarthy apart in a journal.

Seriously not bothered by the idea of cross species nookie. I used to live in a rural area, you get used to seeing it.

It's just that a theory based on a type of hybrid that can't occur is baffling. However if you want to go down the 'alien intervention' route, i'd say that there's no DNA evidence to back it. What DNA we share with them comes from the date prior to a split into out different mammalian families. Same as bananas.

I'm quite happy with a theoretical visit from aliens to planet earth otherwise. In fact I'd say it explains a fair bit about the old testament and Sumerian myths. I could go on all night about that.

reply to post by bottleslingguy

you don't think Sheldrake knows anything about genomics or science? Again it would help your agenda along if you stopped making silly analogies and simply provided empirical evidence proving why these theories on morphic resonance and source field influences on matter and consciousness are wrong.

I have zero interest in Sheldrake.

My point is that being informed in a subject makes you more significantly likely to be correct than being uniformed. This is not elitist or reductionist. It is just how it it is.

I'm curious, is throwing those terms around in an argument you way of avoiding producing evidence to support you?

As is standard in science, show me evidence to support you. All else is meaningless waffle. I've seen it in academic arguments when one side knows it case is weak. You spend ages arguing on philosophical definition, peripheral issues and terminology, and avoid actual work done. It's a technique I've learned to spot. The less solid fact in an argument, the less likely it is to be correct.

Facts here are...

No genetic evidence of interbreeding

Never been any example of animals from different families hybridising.

Pigs and humans share some physical similarities, but no more than can be explained by convergent evolution.

Simple really.

reply to post by Antigod


OK Ive reread your posts and they make a bit more sense now.
Apologies for my chauvinistic assumption you were male, I should have known better as people always assume Im female coz of the kitty Avatar lol.

Also glad you (as an educated person) are comfortable with the possibility of alien intervention, tells me your in no way closed minded

This thread seems to have attracted some great minds on both sides, wish I could follow what the hell you guys were on about though lol

reply to post by Antigod


Here's my problem: McCarthy is clearly an educated and competent geneticist; his idea seems crazy, but he thinks there may be merit in it because a) too many anomalies are explained adequately by genetic theory, and b) his hybrid notion fits with his observations and study; and - I am loathe to dismiss revolutionary thinking out of hand.

My questions for you:

* McCarthy suggests 'hybridization' might have occurred a few millions years ago, before the differentiation we now see - Might such a blend have happened before taxonomic families and species diverged fully?

* I posted evidence of asexual hybridization (inter-domain, inter-kingdom etc.), which was dismissed because sexual reproduction is different. However, not so long ago the very ideas of such hybridization and -gowdforbid- horizontal gene transmission were considered absolute genetic heresy, even in asexual organisms. Might there not be a similarly inconceivable mechanism operant in sexual reproduction? (Perhaps not directly relevant but I'm thinking about how Asexual Ants Have Sex).


As for your manner and my (and others') relative ignorance - you obviously have reasons for not confining your professional discussions to professional forums and sites.

reply to post by ElohimJD


I think the point is that the 3rd or 4th "backcross" hybrids are able to mate with one another.

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.

Really? The work I've read says backcrossing results in better adaptation to environmental changes and the development of specialized niches.

reply to post by bottleslingguy

would be nice if you pointed out where he and the morphic resonance/source field people are wrong.

First: it's an unnecessary hypothesis. It isn't needed to explain anything.

Second: there is no evidence for it.

That's enough to knock it from here to Hallowe'en.

but again there's that intellectual elitism rearing its ugly head.

Elitism is just fine by me.

did you watch that lecture?

Of course not. Life is to short to waste any of it on rubbish.

Please be specific and not obfuscatory.

I hope this was specific enough for you.

reply to post by peter vlar


Gotcha. But further to that one...

...Recently, there has been increasing evidence that, despite glutaraldehyde fixation of BHVs, there is a significant immune reaction to the valves, leading to calcification, rapid structural deterioration, and failure, particularly in young patients who have a more vigorous immune system and metabolism than the elderly.

Also, human-to-human organ transplants often involve huge doses of anti-rejection drugs that effectively shut down the immune system - the recipients don't generally last long. Does this mean there are different sub-species of humans? Or do genotypes, even within the same species, involve surprisingly individual phenotypes?

reply to post by rhinoceros

Genetics explains a ton about everything related to biology and life.

But genetics does not explain everything. I'm just saying there's a whole lot more to the story. Not directly related but interesting:

Chinese researchers have found small pieces of rice ribonucleic acid (RNA) in the blood and organs of humans who eat rice. The Nanjing University-based team showed that this genetic material will bind to receptors in human liver cells and influence the uptake of cholesterol from the blood.

….(this) could prove a game changer in many fields. It would mean that we're eating not just vitamins, protein, and fuel, but gene regulators as well.

Transplanting pig hearts into humans was never a thing, and I don't think such operation has ever been performed successfully for the human body would refuse such transplant without a question.

As I said, using a pig heart was offered as a temporary option when my brother needed a transplant back in the 1980's. While the rejection factor is not the same, fact is recipients commonly reject organ transplants from human donors too.

Astyanax
reply to post by bottleslingguy

 

would be nice if you pointed out where he and the morphic resonance/source field people are wrong.

First: it's an unnecessary hypothesis. It isn't needed to explain anything.

Second: there is no evidence for it.

it explains how dna is controlled. I think it was Vlar who could only say they knew "how much" which is more in the sense of being able to see how much change there has been in species over time. There's a big difference between knowing that and knowing how those morphological changes occur and other ways they can be manipulated such as with light, sounds, thought and intentions. It is something people like you probably will never be able to understand no matter how much time you spend in schools.

And as far as the evidence for it, again you don't see it because it is like how Einstein described non-locality as a "spooky" action. He called it spooky because it was scary to him. Now take someone who has spent a lot of time and money on a conventional education and studied real hard and made all kinds of sacrifices in their social and family lives and had heard the same things over and over so many times they actually started repeating those things to a point where they were convinced they were right where they should be not only in life and success but also in rational thought. anyone who disagreed with them must be raving mad. And then they hear something that others say solves many of the reductionists' paradoxes regarding the fundamentals of genetics. Imagine how that person would automatically not dare entertain the thought they were wrong....

so now I have to ask, why doesn't this person take this opportunity to shut me up and explain where Sheldrake has no evidence? maybe they could show from one of his books where he is wrong or has no evidence? that would be nice, but instead all I get is silliness and stonewalling. you guys prove my point with every nonsense post.

Antigod
reply to post by bottleslingguy

 

you don't think Sheldrake knows anything about genomics or science? Again it would help your agenda along if you stopped making silly analogies and simply provided empirical evidence proving why these theories on morphic resonance and source field influences on matter and consciousness are wrong.

I have zero interest in Sheldrake.

My point is that being informed in a subject makes you more significantly likely to be correct than being uniformed. This is not elitist or reductionist. It is just how it it is.

it IS elitist because you won't even look at it. you-"Sheldrake is raving mad... but I have never read nor listened to any of his ideas.". Ok so if not elitist could we call it "intellectually ignorant" or "willfully ignorant intellectually" or "intellectually elitist"?

Let's take the example of your lack of awareness of how you just totally contradicted yourself and then go on to pick my brain. We're talking about Sheldrake, source fields, morphic resonance. Get with the program there'll be a test on this later