Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Humans shaped by “interbreeding?”

arroba Email

From BBC News:

Human evolution was shaped by interbreedng

After modern humans first left Africa, they came into contact with Neanderthals and things got cosy. These early frolics are now visible in our DNA. Genetic analysis indicates that Europeans and Asians obtained 1-4% of their DNA from Neanderthals.
It seems everyone was at it. Neanderthals interbred with another species, the Denisovans, as did some of us. Some people from South East Asia have up to 6% Denisovan DNA.

Even Africans whose ancestors never left the continent carry some Neanderthal DNA, because 3000 years ago people from Europe and Asia migrated to Africa. Many modern Africans have inherited some genes, including some Neanderthal ones, from these people.

Now some scientists are going even further. They propose that our entire species is the product of hybridisation between species, and that we owe much of our success to this very fact. More.

The story goes on to talk of hybrid corals and bears …

But wait: What good reason is there to believe that all these human groups were separate species? The claims are not defended; simply stated.

Claims about superior adaptability due to “hybridisation” could be duplicated in the modern world among ethnicities that are certainly not thought to be separate species.

The whole concept of “species,” especially where recent and modern humans are concerned, seems in need of an overhaul. But don’t expect the demand to come from Tax TV’s pop Darwinism division.

See also: The Little Lady of Flores spoke from the grave. But said what, exactly?

Neanderthal Man: The long-lost relative turns up again, this time with documents

and A deep and abiding need for Neanderthals to be stupid. Why?

Also: What we know about human evolution

I've read (Who was Adam? Fuz Rana RTB updated) that across the board maybe 20% of the now well established Neander. genome can be found in human dna, about 2% in each of us. People in New Guinea have 5% Denisovan (less well established) genes. Neands and Denis. are not human, their genomes are just too different apparently. They also pre-date H. Sapiens by 2-300tyrs. If correct, and seems likely, how does that impact the view of human origins for theists? 1. Humans could interbreed with other hominids indicating a close enough similarity. Not the same species but close enough. The similarity wasn't the result of common descent but design. They ignored sexual taboos and as a result we had hybrids that were 'ensouled' but part animal. Hmmm. Genesis indicates a puzzling interbreeding event 'sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair etc'. Did the genetic bottleneck event (Flood - localised but killing most of humanity maybe 100tya?) recognised by geneticists wipe out most of the hybrids? 2. Did God input genomic information into a hominid to create mankind? Is there much difference between that and being formed from 'dust' - microbes and all! Is a form of common descent true but not due to materialist forces alone? Descent with modification? 3. Similar genes have evolved separately. May be true for some HLA genes for instance. Or God further introduced similar genes seen in Neands to increase human fitness for new environments or partly to create distinctive races? Just wrestling with the data. Like evolutionists do when they abandon their prev tree, or rather tangled scrub, of descent with each discovery. Eg I believe H. Heidelbergensis has recently been toppled from its place as being ancestral to Neand not H. Sapiens, leaving H. Erectus by itself as a lonely human ancestor or Naledi knocking Lucy from her place. alban
It should be noted that there are observed limits to hybridization:
Truth from Telegraph, the World’s Newest Zonkey by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell - August 28, 2014 Excerpt: we see hybrids like “ligers” and “tigons” that help us discern the members of the “cat kind,” but we never see cat-canine hybrids or horse-cow hybrids simply because animals (and their genes) do follow God’s creative blueprint laid down in Genesis, reproducing only within their created kinds. https://answersingenesis.org/hybrid-animals/truth-telegraph-worlds-newest-zonkey/
Interestingly, since unlimited plasticity of forms and/or body plans is presupposed as true within Darwinian thought, not too long ago a Darwinist ignored these observed limits for hybridization always being 'within created kinds' and postulated that hybrids between pigs and chimps, (i.e. PIMPS), are what ultimately gave rise to humans. a few notes on that Darwinian "PIMP" conjecture
Mona Lisa smile: The morphological enigma of human and great ape evolution - 2006 Excerpt: The quality and scope of published documentation and verification of morphological features suggests there is very little in morphology to support a unique common ancestor for humans and chimpanzees.,,, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.b.20107/abstract
In fact so great are the anatomical differences between humans and chimps that a Darwinist, since pigs are anatomically closer to humans than chimps are, actually proposed that a chimp and pig mated with each other and that is what ultimately gave rise to humans:
A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans? - July 3, 2013 Excerpt: Dr. Eugene McCarthy,, has amassed an impressive body of evidence suggesting that human origins can be best explained by hybridization between pigs and chimpanzees. Extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence and McCarthy does not disappoint. Rather than relying on genetic sequence comparisons, he instead offers extensive anatomical comparisons, each of which may be individually assailable, but startling when taken together.,,, The list of anatomical specializations we may have gained from porcine philandering is too long to detail here. Suffice it to say, similarities in the face, skin and organ microstructure alone is hard to explain away. A short list of differential features, for example, would include, multipyramidal kidney structure, presence of dermal melanocytes, melanoma, absence of a primate baculum (penis bone), surface lipid and carbohydrate composition of cell membranes, vocal cord structure, laryngeal sacs, diverticuli of the fetal stomach, intestinal "valves of Kerkring," heart chamber symmetry, skin and cranial vasculature and method of cooling, and tooth structure. Other features occasionally seen in humans, like bicornuate uteruses and supernumerary nipples, would also be difficult to incorporate into a purely primate tree. http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html 'Humans evolved after a female chimpanzee mated with a pig': Extraordinary claim made by American geneticist - November 2013 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2515969/Humans-evolved-female-chimpanzee-mated-pig-Extraordinary-claim-American-geneticist.html
Moreover, Physorg published a subsequent article showing that McCarthy's pig-chimp hybrid theory for human origins is much harder to shoot down than some other Darwinists, who did not like the "PIMP" narrative, had first supposed it would be:
Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence - July 25, 2013 Excerpt: There was considerable fallout, both positive and negative, from our first story covering the radical pig-chimp hybrid theory put forth by Dr. Eugene McCarthy,,,By and large, those coming out against the theory had surprisingly little science to offer in their sometimes personal attacks against McCarthy. ,,,Under the alternative hypothesis (humans are not pig-chimp hybrids), the assumption is that humans and chimpanzees are equally distant from pigs. You would therefore expect chimp traits not seen in humans to be present in pigs at about the same rate as are human traits not found in chimps. However, when he searched the literature for traits that distinguish humans and chimps, and compiled a lengthy list of such traits, he found that it was always humans who were similar to pigs with respect to these traits. This finding is inconsistent with the possibility that humans are not pig-chimp hybrids, that is, it rejects that hypothesis.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-human-hybrids-closer-theory-evidence.html
This was all very humorous since to solidly refute McCarthy scientifically the other Darwinists would basically have had to run counter to basic Darwinian thought and show empirical evidence for the fact that unlimited plasticity of form is not true. I can help them with that evidence if they ever 'really' need it. :) Of related interest:
Gene McCarthy claims that the evidence points to humans as actually hybrids of chimps and pigs. Here is a partial list of differences that he provides: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/genetics/at-last-a-proposed-answer-re-98-human-chimpanzee-similarity-claim/#comment-510021
Neanders are a myth. they never existed. Other options explain dna stuff. Its just silly to these people truimg to figure out ancient matters from minor data. Noe everybody jas neander dna.. Oh brother WE are brothers after all. I guess if they could reproduce they were not species if species is defined by not reproducing abilities. Its all stupid. Robert Byers
Neanderthals were reproductively isolated from other humans for some time, yet both groups remained interfertile. Is there ever going to be a clear-cut answer as to whether they were different species? Seems like a gray area to me. daveS

Leave a Reply