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: 17
43
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 

"A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable."

oh ok so none of the people working in this field have no observable data. you just showed how ignorant you are of this subject.




posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Comparing a chimp's and and a Human's hand, I don't think so, same with a pig's trotter, no way, chimp's head/pig's head/human head, really? pigs don't have sweat glands, not sure if chimps do, different brain layouts, the difference's list is just too long.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





the difference is each time you guys find something you have to change what you thought was right but will never admit you really don't have a clue. " The new finding is hard to reconcile with the picture of human evolution that has been emerging based on fossils and ancient DNA. Denisovans were believed to be limited to East Asia, and they were not thought to look so Neanderthal-like.

Based on previously discovered ancient DNA and fossil evidence, scientists generally agreed that humans’ direct ancestors shared a common ancestor with Neanderthals and Denisovans that lived about half a million years ago in Africa. "

See that's because you guys are looking for the answers in the wrong places


You seem to lack a grasp of scientific method.

And you shouldnt take a news report as gospel as to current paradigm A few years ago large section of anthropolgists were insisting we'd all left Africa somewhere around 40,000 years ago and have no Neanderthal ancestry. The exit date is now thought to much earlier than that, and DNA now holds evidence of archaic ancestry. Two opinions I had from the start, and I'm now smug at having stood my ground.

What happens is that new evidence comes to light and working theories change. You've failed to understand how science works. All data and theories are subject to constant revision and testing, and the evolution of humans and DNA is still a recent study area and subject to constant tweaking. Science is being constantly made more correct as more information is collected.

Picking a theory and stick to it in the face of all evidence to the contrary is what religion does. Not science.

I've not seen anything that comes close to challenging current evolutionary theory. Until there is, it's a working paradigm that fits the evidence.

As for the Sheldrake morphic reasonance- interesting theory but insufficient evidence to even to begin proving it. It would probably help if he let people review his work; something he seems a bit shy of. Like I said I'm not closed to radical ideas but I do want to see a good level of proof.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Antigod
 


Back on topic:

Those here arguing against the pig-chimp hybrid hypothesis want us to believe there is no professional disagreement about the role of hybridization in evolution (in fact, there is). They would have us believe that once genetic divergence occurs, there is no hybridization possible (in fact, it happens). Oh wait, the examples involve asexual reproduction and don't apply to sexual reproduction (but there are examples of hybrids in sexual reproduction). They do not respond to McCarthy's suggestion that the proposed hybridization event dates back millions of years (which allows plenty of time for clear genetic similarities to disappear). They say backcross hybrids are sterile (they're not when they mate with a parent)...


Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence PhysOrg. Jul 25, 2013 by John Hewitt

…decent arguments against the hybrid origins theory are surprisingly hard to find, and moreover, the established elders of the field, well, they know it.

...We decided it would be worthwhile to take a closer look at the objections that were most commonly offered against the hybrid hypothesis. Chief among them was that the chromosome differences here are just too large to support a viable hybrid. One of the previous examples we gave, the zedonk (zebra parent, 2n=44, donkey parent, 2n=62), can and does result in female hybrid offspring that have been reported to produce offspring in backcrosses. The same is true for the geep (sheep, 2n=54, and goat 2n=60). While the reduction in fertility associated with large differences of this sort is often severe, the existence of fertile hybrids, particularly in backcrosses, invalidates this objection.

Another argument was that the morphological distance, or genetic differences besides chromosome number, are just too great. Most of us are familiar with the platypus. A paper published in Nature a few years ago demonstrated that the platypus genome contains both bird and mammal chromosomes, and therefore that the vastly different bird and mammal sex chromosome systems have been successfully bridged by this creature. This example is not offered as any kind of proof. But it does suggest that sometime, long ago, a cross occurred that would have been even more distant than that between a chimpanzee and a pig – one between a otter-like mammal and a duck-like bird. And if such was the case, the hybrids from the cross must have been able to produce offspring (otherwise they would have died out, and the platypus would not exist today).

…For the matter at hand, we might expect each side to continue to accuse the other of cherry-picking their arguments. Eventually though, sufficient data will fall from the collisions between example-fed discussion and informed search to deliver an elevated consensus. One particular approach recommended McCarthy is in silico chromosome painting of the human genome with random pig and chimp sequences in an effort to find hotspots of similarity to pig.

The importance of mating between species in nature is becoming more apparent as molecular studies reveal extensive evidence of hybridization events. Thus, the study of hybrids and reproductive isolation is now central to our understanding of the origin and maintenance of species [4,6,34]. …the use of controlled backcross experiments further reveals effects which are likely to play important roles in both maintaining species separation and the nature of backcrossed hybrids lineages that may emerge in the presence of backcrossing potential.

There are several examples in plants and animals where hybridization seems to facilitate new evolutionary lineages [4,6,45]

Hybrid speciation. Nature. 2007 Mar 15;446(7133):279-83.

Botanists have long believed that hybrid speciation is important, especially after chromosomal doubling (allopolyploidy). Until recently, hybridization was not thought to play a very constructive part in animal evolution. Now, new genetic evidence suggests that hybrid speciation, even without polyploidy, is more common in plants and also animals than we thought.
PMID: 17361174

Hybrid fitness across time and habitats.
Trends Ecol Evol 2010, 25:530-536.

There has been considerable debate about the role of hybrids in the evolutionary process. One question has involved the relative fitness of hybrid versus non-hybrid genotypes. For some, the assumption of lower hybrid fitness continues to be integral to their concept of species and speciation. In contrast, numerous workers have suggested that hybrid genotypes might demonstrate higher relative fitness under various environmental settings. Of particular importance in deciding between these opposing hypotheses are long-term analyses coupling ecological and genetic information. Although currently rare, such analyses have provided a test of the fitness of hybrid genotypes across generations and habitats and their role in adaptation and speciation. Here we discuss examples of these analyses applied to viruses, prokaryotes, plants and Darwin's Finches.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   

bottleslingguy
reply to post by peter vlar
 

the difference is each time you guys find something you have to change what you thought was right but will never admit you really don't have a clue. " The new finding is hard to reconcile with the picture of human evolution that has been emerging based on fossils and ancient DNA. Denisovans were believed to be limited to East Asia, and they were not thought to look so Neanderthal-like.

Based on previously discovered ancient DNA and fossil evidence, scientists generally agreed that humans’ direct ancestors shared a common ancestor with Neanderthals and Denisovans that lived about half a million years ago in Africa. "

See that's because you guys are looking for the answers in the wrong places.


How is anyone looking in the wrong place? Anthropologists and evolutionary biologists are exploring all avenues. It's pretty similar to how a ship without modern technology finds its location, triangulation. There is no one avenue that is solely relied on for evidence. All currently accepted paradigms of evolutionary theory have multiple sources to back them up. You're example of H. Denisova is a little silly as its a very recent addition to the family tree. The only known remains were from Siberia, yes but that doesn't mean that they were relegated to an "east Asian only" status. The sooner you understand that science is explaining things from the perspective of "this is what we currently know based on the best information we currently have." As opposed to "science is an elitist cult that thinks it knows everything so they must not know much because nobody can know everything". in my opinion, this recent find is not at all difficult to reconcile with everything else we know. There are many things we do not know. If we thought we knew everything we would all be on vacation right now or retired.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   

peter vlar

bottleslingguy
reply to post by peter vlar
 

the difference is each time you guys find something you have to change what you thought was right but will never admit you really don't have a clue. " The new finding is hard to reconcile with the picture of human evolution that has been emerging based on fossils and ancient DNA. Denisovans were believed to be limited to East Asia, and they were not thought to look so Neanderthal-like.

Based on previously discovered ancient DNA and fossil evidence, scientists generally agreed that humans’ direct ancestors shared a common ancestor with Neanderthals and Denisovans that lived about half a million years ago in Africa. "

See that's because you guys are looking for the answers in the wrong places.


How is anyone looking in the wrong place? Anthropologists and evolutionary biologists are exploring all avenues. It's pretty similar to how a ship without modern technology finds its location, triangulation. There is no one avenue that is solely relied on for evidence. All currently accepted paradigms of evolutionary theory have multiple sources to back them up. You're example of H. Denisova is a little silly as its a very recent addition to the family tree. The only known remains were from Siberia, yes but that doesn't mean that they were relegated to an "east Asian only" status. The sooner you understand that science is explaining things from the perspective of "this is what we currently know based on the best information we currently have." As opposed to "science is an elitist cult that thinks it knows everything so they must not know much because nobody can know everything". in my opinion, this recent find is not at all difficult to reconcile with everything else we know. There are many things we do not know. If we thought we knew everything we would all be on vacation right now or retired.


the thing about the Denisovas had to do with the fact you guys keep having to redraw your time line of events yet one of the things you use to prove your theories is your time line.

and I'm not saying "science thinks it knows everything". I'm saying science will say whatever it's masters tell it to say. Mainstream science, the science you see and hear on the nightly news, the news that the majority of apathetic people are exposed to, they only talk about the mundane (and I know you're gonna say "well that's science for ya") and archaic news. Take all the hubub about Ison. they found out that comets are not the dirty snowballs that they once thought they were with the Stardust mission Deep Impact. The pictures and other experiments proved comets are negatively charged solid rock that produce dust and crystals due to electric arcing across the surface induced by interaction with the solar wind. Yet on the Deep Impact web page they still say ice and dust. That's the kind of stuff that makes me disrespect science or more accurately the people who DO science.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   

bottleslingguy

the thing about the Denisovas had to do with the fact you guys keep having to redraw your time line of events yet one of the things you use to prove your theories is your time line.


what was redrawn though? We didn't really know anything about Denisovans, their inclusion isn't so much a redrawing as it is an addition to what we already knew. I just don't see how that is bad. Later on you talk about comets and how NASA is untrustworthy because they haven't updated the info you feel is incorrect yet this too is wrong when the new information is presented. Just say you don't believe anything presented by science.


and I'm not saying "science thinks it knows everything". I'm saying science will say whatever it's masters tell it to say. Mainstream science, the science you see and hear on the nightly news, the news that the majority of apathetic people are exposed to, they only talk about the mundane (and I know you're gonna say "well that's science for ya") and archaic news.


Science isn't responsible for what or how the news reports let alone the level of apathy demonstrated by the average individual. It's just that apathy that leads to ignorance and distrust of scientific principles. And no, I'm not referring to you as either ignorant nor apathetic. That's like blaming the Catholic Church for what the Mormons are doing.


Take all the hubub about Ison. they found out that comets are not the dirty snowballs that they once thought they were with the Stardust mission Deep Impact. The pictures and other experiments proved comets are negatively charged solid rock that produce dust and crystals due to electric arcing across the surface induced by interaction with the solar wind. Yet on the Deep Impact web page they still say ice and dust. That's the kind of stuff that makes me disrespect science or more accurately the people who DO science.


what evidence is there for this? I don't want to assume but it looks like you're implying that the results of Deep Impact and the subsequent Stardust flyby provided evidence for the "Electric Universe" hypothesis? I'm just trying to clarify so I don't go off on a tangent that doesn't come anywhere close to addressing your intended thoughts.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


I agree with much of what you say here. Fact is, too many scientists are doing crowd control, NOT science. Sucks to have to sort through all the conflicts of interest yadayada.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 



oh ok so none of the people working in this field have no observable data. you just showed how ignorant you are of this subject.

  1. I was speaking of observable predictions, not observable data.

  2. If there is clear evidence of the existence of morphogenetic fields, post links to the evidence here. I am speaking of peer-reviewed scientific studies, not YouTube videos or ghost stories you heard round the last campfire you sat at.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 




no professional disagreement about the role of hybridization in evolution (in fact, there is). They


And yet again we have to point out out that all species that hybridise are very close relatives from the same families. Which is what those paper you pasted snippets from all observe. As has been pointed out, there have never been any hybrid animals not from the same family.

That article by Hewitt (not a geneticist or biologist) mentioning the platypus also failed to grasp that it was not due to platypuses being hybrids. It stated this very clearly, as we pointed out after we'd read it.

Platypuses are not normal mammals they are monotremes, they don't have nipples and they lay eggs, and their split point from other mammals is very old, just after we seperated from reptiles, when we stll had a fair amount in common with those orders. Our mammalian ancestors once laid eggs.

a quote from an actual specialist in genetics researching them:



"What is unique about the platypus is that it has retained a large overlap between two very different classifications, while later mammals lost the features of reptiles," said Wes Warren, an assistant professor of genetics at Washington University in St. Louis, where much of the work was done



Note the words 'while mammals lost the features'. The shared DNA between platypuses and other orders is retained from common ancestry with those orders, not inserted as a result of hybridisation.


Other mammals moved on, platypuses retained these earlier traits. Hewitt doesn't grasp this.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





. I'm saying science will say whatever it's masters tell it to say. Mainstream science, the science you see and hear on the nightly news,


Actually what happens is that whatever the MMM wants on tv, they find someone who genuinely supports it and parades them around and calls anyone who disagrees, even the majority, wrong, discredited, etc.

Take the 'no such thing as race/ racial differeences in IQ' stance. Most psychologists don't support that, in fact they are vey vocal, except you don't ever see them allowed on tv. Scientists are there to push the facts as they measure them, and theories that make sense to them.

As for ancient human evolution, we are digging up new information constantly so the working theory gets constantly altered. This is science functioning correctly,
edit on 6-12-2013 by Antigod because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Antigod
 


RE:

soficrow
want us to believe there is no professional disagreement about the role of hybridization in evolution.


Point being, there IS disagreement between geneticists about the role of hybridization in evolution.


there have never been any hybrid animals not from the same family.


The molecular evidence on hybridization is only just starting to roll in, and it is indeed surprising to many. We may learn that species that are genetically quite distinct now were not so far apart a few million years ago.


...Platypuses are not normal mammals ...Our mammalian ancestors once laid eggs.


Uh huh. But we've evolved since. And changed. Genetically. You cannot know -and do not know- all the mechanisms and relationships that may have contributed to the divergence now apparent.


The shared DNA between platypuses and other orders is retained from common ancestry with those orders, not inserted as a result of hybridisation. ...Other mammals moved on, platypuses retained these earlier traits.


Your various assertions are only possible if every step and mechanism in the evolutionary process is absolutely known, fully elucidated and based on a full DNA analysis of every now-extinct animal that ever existed - not general assumptions based on unsubstantiated theory. Please provide links and references.











edit on 6/12/13 by soficrow because: add hyphen

edit on 6/12/13 by soficrow because: add sentence



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 





Point being, there IS disagreement between geneticists about the role of hybridization in evolution


I think you are confusing debate and exploration of a concept with come sort of rift. Other than McCarthy we aren't seeing any kind of move to thinking cross family hybrids occur.

I'm quite familiar with the role of hybrid species in colonising new habitats, in fact as I recall it was in my opening post on this thread. Thery were thought to be very uncommon, but recent work has shown that particularly insects they are not uncommon. Not revolutionary, just something that wasn't understood until recently.

My point is again, there is no evidence that any such hybrid between differing families has ever occured. You are centering this possiblity on DNA evidence that doesnt exist as a far as anyone knows, and hybrids that have never been seen to exist. It's pigchimp hybrids are just a wild theory with no supporting evidence.

Like I said, supply any evidence that a cross family hybrid has occured- and no, a platypus isn't one. I can't find a geneticist that says they are, and the fossil evidence such as it is for them, doesn't go that way either.

Or specific ancestry that traces us back to a common ancestor with a modern pig, and it won't based on our current understanding/ information held.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   
I'd like to add I had a thorough through through all Mccarthy's list of cross family hybrids. One monumentally deformed piglet from China (unexamined) and a couple of manx cat shots he's claiming are cat rabbit hybrids, and a load of historical claims, which mostly date from the 18th century.

I'd like to point out, at that period of time there were about 100 million people on the planet, now there are 7 billion. Since the number of potential observers of a cross family hybrid would be 70 times greater now, you'd expect to see a regular supply of these hybrids being seen. But it isn't happening.

It's probable that in the past, any deformed offspring was labelled a hybrid, as was that chinese piglet. Maybe it's what gave him the idea.

His idea of what proof is, is ridiculous.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Antigod
 


soficrow: Point being, there IS disagreement between geneticists about the role of hybridization in evolution


antigod
I think you are confusing debate and exploration of a concept with come sort of rift.


I think there is some debate, little exploration and a definite rift. Just to clarify.



.....the fossil evidence such as it is... doesn't go that way


My understanding of evolutionary theory is that ALL life originates from the same cell line. If so, one only needs to go back far enough to find the common ground and point(s) of divergence - and I agree, one cannot make definitive claims without said fossil evidence. Either way.


...And again, just to clarify, I'm not trying to defend the pig-chimp hybrid hypothesis, just the necessity to break the bonds created by current genetic/eugenic dogma.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   

peter vlar


what was redrawn though? We didn't really know anything about Denisovans, their inclusion isn't so much a redrawing as it is an addition to what we already knew.


but what did you already know?

it's like driving while looking in the rear view mirror



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Antigod

Actually what happens is that whatever the MMM wants on tv... Scientists are there to push the facts as they measure them, and theories that make sense to them.

As for ancient human evolution, we are digging up new information constantly so the working theory gets constantly altered. This is science functioning correctly,


the MMM is not one giant brain, but overall the only things that get noticeably reported are the things the owners of those companies want us to notice. I think you give the scientist population way too much credit for integrity and honesty. The ones like DeGrasseTyson, Hawking, Kaku(to a point), that douche Bill Nye, you know the ones you see on regular tv all the time, they definitely aren't going outside the conventional bounds. And in that simple dynamic the truth falls apart.

The manner of functioning that you describe is like driving by staring into the rear mirror.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 





soficrow: Point being, there IS disagreement between geneticists about the role of hybridization in evolution


antigod
I think you are confusing debate and exploration of a concept with come sort of rift.


I think there is some debate, little exploration and a definite rift. Just to clarify.


.....the fossil evidence such as it is... doesn't go that way


My understanding of evolutionary theory is that ALL life originates from the same cell line. If so, one only needs to go back far enough to find the common ground and point(s) of divergence - and I agree, one cannot make definitive claims without said fossil evidence. Either way.


...And again, just to clarify, I'm not trying to defend the pig-chimp hybrid hypothesis, just the necessity to break the bonds created by current genetic/eugenic dogma


Actually not right about the 'single cell origin' aspect of evolution, as the theory is also tolerant of multiple incidents on earth, and unkown incidents off world if you assume there is life on other planets.There's actually one microbe that's so different that it's suspected of a different origin point to the rest of the known life on earth.

Referring to science as dogmatic displays a bit of a fail in understanding. Science is meant to change it's opinion. Opposing theories are tolerated until they can be incorporated or eliminated by evidence. This is the opposite of dogma.

The issue I have with this theory is it has zero to support it. No evidence, no support from me.

I did some digging, other people have had issue with this theory. This is going to be a mega post- sorry.

observationdeck.io9.com...



Why this claim is probably, almost definitely, wrong
PZ Myers at Pharyngula discussed some of the reasons why this hypothesis can not be true, but I will just place the most obvious ones here:

1) The only evidence that Dr. McCarthy offers in support of this claim are morphological and behavioural "similarities" between pigs and humans. Morphology is useful for determining evolutionary relationships, but it can be misleading if where that morphology came from (the ontogeny of the morphology; what did the anatomy look like in embryos/fetuses/neonates/juveniles) is not investigated. That kangaroos and humans both walk on their hindlimbs only is a meaningless observation unless there is evidence that we both acquired that trait in the same way.

2) Dr. McCarthy makes this extreme evolutionary hypothesis without discussing the genome very much, which is odd, for a geneticist. But he gives no genomic evidence, whatsoever, that human evolution had porcine input. In fact he states, on the linked page, that there is no reason to suppose that the genes derived from pigs in modern humans would be sequentially similar to those of pigs, because a given type of gene is very rarely present in only a single type of organism. While the second part of his sentence is true, there should be genetic similarities between pig and human genomes if any of the human genome is derived from pig. He offers no such evidence, possibly because every published genomic study of pigs, human, and non-human apes suggests that the former are only distantly related to the latter two.

3) Pigs and apes are both placental mammals, but not very related to one another. So their last common ancestor may have been sometime in the late Cretaceous, 70ish million years ago. The claim that the gametes of a pig and a chimp would be compatible in any sort of way requires evidence that other such large crosses are possible. Dr. McCarthy has no such evidence, although he thinks he does, which results in such bizarre claims as claiming that platypuses and echidnas (the most primitive living mammals) are the results of crosses between birds and mammals, which last shared a common ancestor at least 300 million years ago. Such an idea has been refuted for over a century.

Does this claim deserve attention?
This claim was first posted online in July and it didn't get much press because it's ridiculous. So I'm really confused as to why the Daily Mail is giving it any press now, almost five months after it was first thrown online. Well, I'm not totally confused, but I'll get back to that.

No, it doesn't deserve attention. The author is a modern day Charles Fort in the sense that he is really good at tracking down small pieces of data in order to support a seemingly nonsensical conclusion. But in the scientific world, hypotheses deserve to be tested.


quoting this guy :en.wikipedia.org...
scienceblogs.com...



Besides, this new idea is hilarious. I’m calling it the MFAP hypothesis of human origins, which the original author probably wouldn’t care for (for reasons that will become clear in a moment), but I think it’s very accurate.

First, the author of this new hypothesis provides a convenient list of all the unique traits that distinguish humans from other primates, listed on the right. It falsely lists a number of traits that are completely non-unique (such as female orgasm and cancer), or are bizarre and irrelevant (“snuggling”, really?). It’s clearly a selective and distorted list made by someone with an agenda, so even though some items on the list are actually unusual traits, the list itself is a very poor bit of data.

But set those objections to the list aside for a moment, and let’s consider the hypothesis proposed to explain their existence, the MFAP Hypothesis of Eugene McCarthy, geneticist. I will allow him to speak for himself at length; basically, though, he proposes that the way novel traits appear in evolution is by hybridization, by crosses between two different species to produce a third with unique properties.




The whole item is a pretty good shred. The author is actually a respected biologist.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Antigod
 

why do we find the prokaryotes and eukaryotes but not what led up to them?



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





why do we find the prokaryotes and eukaryotes but not what led up to them?


that's relevant how?



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join