Human evolution News

The Wire wants us to know we descend from rats

Spread the love

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG Here:

After a six-year study of the mammal family tree, scientists now believe that many mammalian species (people included) originated with a tiny rat-like creature that crawled the Earth tens of millions of years ago. Fossils of the Protungulatum donnae look like the best ancestor candidate for the mammal family tree extending back 66 million years, and they preserve evidence that the creature weighed around eight ounces, had a long fuzzy tail, and ate bugs.

From rats? Not from pigs? Or not until much later? Oh, yeah, the pork chop thesis is big too. Here you are:

One recent walk on the wild side is worth noting just for what it shows about how little we really know — and how much we are willing to believe. Much publicity was given in 2013 to the idea that the differences between humans and chimpanzees arise from humans’ hybridization with pigs.

You think this is a joke? Well, yes, but in the current science press it isn’t. That is, “humans are probably the result of multiple generations of backcrossing to chimpanzees, which in nucleotide sequence data comparisons would effectively mask any contribution from pig.” This hypothesis, offered by geneticist and hybridization specialist Eugene McCarthy, incidentally reveals facts about human anatomy not usually offered as evidence by the proponents of the 98-percent-chimpanzee thesis, who don’t seem to be interested in defending themselves against the following thesis: More.

A reader once pointed out that the pig-chimp hybrid would quite properly be called a pimp. So would a hybrid rat pig be called a prig?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Human origins: The war of trivial explanations

Hat tip: Slawek Bioslawek

7 Replies to “The Wire wants us to know we descend from rats

  1. 1
    DavidD says:

    “From rats? Not from pigs?”

    Somewhere “Nebraska Man” just fell off a chair. Wonder when the first Rat to human heart transplant will take place ?

  2. 2
    keith s says:

    Denyse,

    You do understand the distinction between “a rat” and “a rat-like creature”, right?

    (If it were anyone else, I wouldn’t bother to ask. But given your comical misunderstanding of “the selfish gene”, it seems necessary.)

  3. 3
    keith s says:

    In case newer readers are wondering:

    Denyse:

    I wouldn’t be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified.

    After five years, that still makes me smile.

  4. 4
    DavidD says:

    keiths “(If it were anyone else, I wouldn’t bother to ask. But given your comical misunderstanding of “the selfish gene” & “memes”, it seems necessary.)”

    Denyse “I wouldn’t be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified.”

    I don’t see the problem. Both “Selfish Genes” and “Memes” were intelligently designed by angry bitter old fart with a rabid infectious hatred for any other religion than his own materialistic religious worldview. But of course it was a misuse and abuse of intelligence, but that was his atheistic right.
    ——————————

    keiths “Denyse,

    You do understand the distinction between “a rat” and “a rat-like creature”, right?”

    Of course she does, like everyone else I’m pretty sure she’s seen the scientific documentary about the rat-like creature evolving into a modern Nuclear Physicist.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUjt6_vCW54

    What did evolutionists ever do before cartoons ?

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    keith s, I wonder if Trifonov, Noble, etc.. also have a ‘comical understanding’ of the selfish gene since they also find it to be useless, even harmful, concept?,,,

    At the 10:30 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Trifonov states that the concept of the selfish gene ‘inflicted an immense damage to biological sciences’, for over 30 years:

    Second, third, fourth… genetic codes – One spectacular case of code crowding – Edward N. Trifonov – video
    https://vimeo.com/81930637

    Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology – Denis Noble – 17 MAY 2013
    Excerpt: The ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism) is a mid-20th century gene-centric view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection.,,, We now know that genetic change is far from random and often not gradual.,,,
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.....4/abstract

    “The genome is an ‘organ of the cell’, not its dictator”
    – Denis Nobel – President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences
    http://musicoflife.co.uk/

    Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False – Denis Nobel – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/10395212
    ,, In the preceding video, Dr Nobel states that around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory, and about the same time Weismann established what was called the Weismann barrier, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment. And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’. So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976. It’s main assumptions are, first of all, is that it is a gene centered view of natural selection. The process of evolution can therefore be characterized entirely by what is happening to the genome. It would be a process in which there would be accumulation of random mutations, followed by selection. (Now an important point to make here is that if that process is genuinely random, then there is nothing that physiology, or physiologists, can say about that process. That is a very important point.) The second aspect of neo-Darwinism was the impossibility of acquired characteristics (mis-called “Larmarckism”). And there is a very important distinction in Dawkins’ book ‘The Selfish Gene’ between the replicator, that is the genes, and the vehicle that carries the replicator, that is the organism or phenotype. And of course that idea was not only buttressed and supported by the Weissman barrier idea, but later on by the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology. Then Dr. Nobel pauses to emphasize his point and states “All these rules have been broken!”.
    Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences.

    ,,You can pick up the rest of the high points of Dr. Nobel’s talk at the two minute mark of the preceding video I referenced, or you can watch the entire video here:

    Rocking the foundations of biology – video
    http://www.voicesfromoxford.or.....iology/184

    Die, selfish gene, die – The selfish gene is one of the most successful science metaphors ever invented. Unfortunately, it’s wrong – Dec. 2013
    Excerpt: But 15 years after Hamilton and Williams kited [introduced] this idea, it was embraced and polished into gleaming form by one of the best communicators science has ever produced: the biologist Richard Dawkins. In his magnificent book The Selfish Gene (1976), Dawkins gathered all the threads of the modern synthesis — Mendel, Fisher, Haldane, Wright, Watson, Crick, Hamilton, and Williams — into a single shimmering magic carpet (called the selfish gene).
    Unfortunately, say Wray, West-Eberhard and others, it’s wrong.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-heard-of/

  6. 6
    SteRusJon says:

    keith s,

    re: “rat-like”

    Excuse us for not showing the appropriate reverence to your gods. It is simply because we don’t have any reverence for them as such. That is why you consider us to be infidels worthy of your disrespect.

    Stephen

  7. 7
    Box says:

    When it hits you off guard – early in the morning not quite awake before coffee – these darwinian narratives are very infuriating.

Leave a Reply