Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Contest: If humans originated as a chimp-pig hybrid (recent claim) …

arroba Email
A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans?
chimp vs.human chromosomes

… what should we call our earliest ancestors?


This just in:

Dr. Eugene McCarthy is a Ph.D. geneticist who has made a career out of studying hybridization in animals. He now curates a biological information website called Macroevolution.net where he has amassed an impressive body of evidence suggesting that human origins can be best explained by hybridization between pigs and chimpanzees.

Most people who make such claims are offering some kind of a moral point. He isn’t. He isn’t kidding.

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. Why weren’t these conclusions arrived at much sooner? McCarthy suggests it is because of an over-dependence on genetic data among biologists. He argues that 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.

Or anything at all, one guesses.

Okay, contest: What do we call our earliest piggychimp ancestor?

Prize?: A copy of Illustra Media’s new vid , Flight: The genius of birds

Contest judged next Saturday, July 13th.

Incidentally, how things change: Back in 2009, a claim that the astonishing life cycle of the butterfly (egg, caterpillar, chrysalis, adult) arose through hybridization (the caterpillar is seen as a sort of giant egg) caused Scientific American to dub the National Academy of Science’s publication, PNAS, “The National Enquirer” of the sciences. Yes, caterpillars. But well, they’re caterpillars. But now this?

Happy Fourth of July to all our American readers.

Orwell or great great great great ... great great ....great grandad UKMerv
The missing pork link. julianbre
According to Dr. McCarty, that mating would almost certainly have had to have occurred between a male pig and a female chimp:
In the case of a pig-ape hybrid backcrossing would most likely have been with chimpanzees because the mother in the initial cross would, almost surely have been a chimpanzee. There are at least three reasons to reach this conclusion. The first is that a chimpanzee penis would probably be incapable of impregnating a sow, but a boar's penis would be fully capable of carrying out the insemination process with sex roles reversed.2 The second is that a humanlike hybrid would likely require a long period of nurture that a sow would not be able to provide. The third is that during estrus a pink sexual swelling appears on the rump of the female chimpanzee. Chimpanzee males do not attempt to engage in coitus, even with females of their own kind, unless this swelling is present.3 A boar, on the other hand, will mount any immobile object capable of supporting him, and will voluntarily ejaculate even into an inanimate tubular receptacle if it is of suitable diameter. "It does appear then as if, as far as the boar is concerned, coitus is largely a mechanical process" (Rodolfo4). When threatened, chimpanzee females often attempt to appease the aggressor by crouching down and presenting their genitals.
And according to Wikipedia on interspecific hybrid naming conventions:
Hybrids are often named by the portmanteau method, combining the names of the two parent species. For example, a zeedonk is a cross between a zebra and a donkey. Since the traits of hybrid offspring often vary depending on which species was mother and which was father, it is traditional to use the father's species as the first half of the portmanteau. For example, a liger is a cross between a male lion and a female tiger, while a tiglon is a cross between a male tiger and a female lion.
Therefore, to properly name this hybrid, we'd need to come up with a portmanteau that combines the first part of the male parent's name (pig) and the second part of the female parent's name (chimp). In following conventional interspecific hybrid naming conventions, then, we humans can trace our ancestry all the way back to the very first pimp. Brian1009
The Baconator. Franck Barfety
A slight modification to vh @3: Squealy Pan - that should do it. owendw
How about Simiiporciforms? Kaz
wd400, maybe you should be a little more careful in who you call a nutcase since you yourself believe that unfathomed complexity which far outclasses anything man has ever made or programmed can come about by random material processes. To Model the Simplest Microbe in the World, You Need 128 Computers - July 2012 Excerpt: Mycoplasma genitalium has one of the smallest genomes of any free-living organism in the world, clocking in at a mere 525 genes. That's a fraction of the size of even another bacterium like E. coli, which has 4,288 genes.,,, The bioengineers, led by Stanford's Markus Covert, succeeded in modeling the bacterium, and published their work last week in the journal Cell. What's fascinating is how much horsepower they needed to partially simulate this simple organism. It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell's lifecycle processes.,,, ,,the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable, and difficult to manage, even given Moore's Law. The M. genitalium model required 28 subsystems to be individually modeled and integrated, and many critics of the work have been complaining on Twitter that's only a fraction of what will eventually be required to consider the simulation realistic.,,, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/to-model-the-simplest-microbe-in-the-world-you-need-128-computers/260198/ Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors - Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8 "No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed?" http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-2-29.pdf bornagain77
Fertile Crescent: Farming started in several places at once, researchers report (with map) - July 4, 2013 Excerpt: For decades archaeologists have been searching for the origins of agriculture. Their findings indicated that early plant domestication took place in the western and northern Fertile Crescent.,, demonstrate that the foothills of the Zagros Mountains of Iran in the eastern Fertile Crescent also served as a key center for early domestication. They documented an 8 meter thick sequence of exclusively aceramic Neolithic deposits dating from 11,700 to 9,800 years ago. These excavations produced a wealth of architectural remains, stone tools, depictions of humans and animals, bone tools, animal bones, and – perhaps most importantly – the richest deposits of charred plant remains ever recovered from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Near East. http://phys.org/news/2013-07-fertile-crescent-farming.html
a finding which lends a bit more support to this:
Arch Bonnema - 'Possible' Petrified Noah's Ark Remains - video http://vimeo.com/23641811 Google map image of the Turkey-Iran border area: http://www.noahsarksearch.com/UrartuMap2.jpg
supplemental notes:
Stone Age Temple May Be Birthplace of Civilization Excerpt: The elaborate temple at Gobelki Tepe in southeastern Turkey, near the Syrian border, is staggeringly ancient: 11,500 years old, from a time just before humans learned to farm grains and domesticate animals. According to the German archaeologist in charge of excavations at the site, it might be the birthplace of agriculture, of organized religion — of civilization itself. http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/gobeklitepe/index
Here is a very interesting geographical finding which corroborates the archeological finding for the first 'advanced' human civilization at Ankara:
The Center of the Earth by Henry Morris, Ph.D. Excerpt: The problem is basically to determine that point on the earth’s surface, the average distance from which to all other points on the earth’s land surfaces is a minimum. This point is defined as the earth’s geographical center. (1) Divide all the earth’s land areas into small, equal, unit areas. (2) Select one of these unit areas as a possible location of the earth’s center. (3) Measure the distance along the earth’s surface from this reference area to each of the other unit areas, all over the earth. (4) Add up all these distances and divide the total by the number of individual distances measured. The result is the average distance from the reference area to all the other unit areas around the world. (5) Repeat the entire process in steps (1) through (4) above for each one of all the other unit areas around the world. (6) Compare the "average distances" so calculated for all the different unit areas. The one for which the average distance turns out to be the smallest is the earth’s geographical center. Actually, the calculation becomes feasible only if it can be programmed on a high speed computer. To accomplish the latter requires a knowledge of spherical trigonometry, geodesy, calculus, and computer science. In addition, there must be available accurate data on the earth’s land and water areas, arranged in a grid network tied to latitude and longitude. With these factors present, the computation then becomes quite feasible. RESULTS ,,, The exact center of the earth, insofar as Mr. Woods’ calculations could determine, was found to be near Ankara, the present capital of Turkey, at latitude 39° and longitude 34°, on the same latitude as Mount Ararat and essentially the same longitude as Jerusalem.,,, http://www.icr.org/article/50/
Now this is very interesting!,,, That the first archeological evidence for a 'advanced' human civilization, with metallurgy, wine making, agriculture, would be very near, or even at, the 'geographic center of the earth' is a very 'spooky' thing for modern science to find! Pondering all the many places where the beginning of advanced human civilization 'could have' happened, instead of where it 'actually did happen', should make any reasonable person scratch their head in wonder! bornagain77
Dr. Eugene McCarthy is a Ph.D. geneticist who has made a career out of studying hybridization in animals. He now curates a biological information website called Macroevolution.net...
heh. Elizabeth B Liddle
Incidentally, how things change Ah, News, nothing has changed. McCarthy is a nutcase who has being going on about this stuff for a long time, there is no paper backing up his claims and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he wrote that press release himself wd400
Men-are-pigius. Collin
If mules are generally infertile, then I doubt that a pig and a chimp could create a fertile off-spring. This is almost as crazy as the Annunaki-chimp theory of human origins. Collin
Homo Theobosius Hogzhansky vh
Babe Ruth julianbre
Or how about Stephen Hogking vh
How about Squealy dan or Snoop hoggy hog vh
I nominate Pan Porcinus McCarthyii as the new name. I remember reading years ago that scientists felt that some sort of shrewlike rodent was humanity's evolutionary ancestor. Now, it's a pig-chimp hybrid which, by the way, would make for an excellent SyFy movie of the week. Barb
That this hypothesis could even be entertained as potentially serious clearly demonstrates that the ape to human story continually sold to the public as an unassailable fact is not nearly as airtight as Darwinists would like to have us believe. ,,, the main claim of the paper hinges on the fact that in many instances, anatomically, pigs have much more in common with humans that chimps do. He lists an overview of the anatomical differences and similarities in the article:
A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans? July 3, 2013 Excerpt: 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
A far more comprehensive list of the differences between humans and chimps is here;
“Museum of Comparative Anthropogeny” Human Uniqueness Compared to “Great Apes” (Hundreds of differences listed between humans and ‘great apes’, including mental abilities, with references for each difference listed) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dx8I5qpsDlsIxTTPgeZc559pIHe_mnYtKehgDqE-_fo/edit
Moreover, with better resolution of data, it is found that the 99% genetic similarity figure between chimps and humans is not nearly as high as the 99% figure Darwinists have misled everyone to believe:
Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% – by Jeffrey P. Tomkins – February 20, 2013 Excerpt: For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chimp-chromosome
as well,,,
Genetic Recombination Study Defies Human-Chimp Evolution by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. * - May 31, 2013 Excerpt: A recent study, published in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution, evaluated various regions of the chimpanzee and human genomes for genetic recombination frequency by determining the DNA variability (differences) within large populations of both humans and chimpanzees.1 The researchers found that genetic recombination levels were much higher in regions of the genome between humans and chimps where sequence identity was higher. In the regions of much lower DNA similarity, which occur as differences in gene order, gene content, and other major DNA sequence differences—the recombination rates were much lower.,, These results are the exact opposite of what evolutionists expected. According to evolutionary reasoning, the chromosomal areas between humans and chimps that were the most different should have had high levels of genetic recombination that would help explain why they were so different. But these chromosomal areas that were the most different between humans and chimpanzees had the lowest levels! More recombination equals more evolutionary differences right? Apparently not! Once again, new scientific data has falsified a prominent evolutionary hypothesis. While this study failed to uphold the hypothetical predictions of evolution, it did vindicate the now well-established fact that genetic recombination is a highly regulated, and complex bio-engineered feature that helps create variability in just the right areas of the genome. Other recent research has shown that the human and chimpanzee genomes are radically different(70% indentity).5 And now this new study has demonstrated that these differences are not due to a mythical evolutionary tinkering and shuffling process associated with genetic recombination, but because humans and chimps were created separately and uniquely. http://www.icr.org/article/7526/
Genes from nowhere: Orphans with a surprising story - 16 January 2013 - Helen Pilcher Excerpt: When biologists began sequencing genomes they discovered up to a third of genes in each species seemed to have no parents or family of any kind. Nevertheless, some of these "orphan genes" are high achievers (are just as essential as 'old' genes),,, Orphan genes have since been found in every genome sequenced to date, from mosquito to man, roundworm to rat, and their numbers are still growing. http://ccsb.dfci.harvard.edu/web/export/sites/default/ccsb/publications/papers/2013/All_alone_-_Helen_Pilcher_New_Scientist_Jan_2013.pdf "More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren't found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps." Jerry Coyne - ardent and angry 'Grand Inquisitor of neo-Darwinism' - professor at the University of Chicago in the department of ecology and evolution for twenty years. He specializes in evolutionary genetics.
to add insult to injury,,
Human Origins and the Fossil Record: What Does the Evidence Say? – Casey Luskin – July 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, far from supplying “a nice clean example” of “gradualistic evolutionary change,” the record reveals a dramatic discontinuity between ape-like and human-like fossils. Human-like fossils appear abruptly in the record, without clear evolutionary precursors, making the case for human evolution based on fossils highly speculative. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/human_origins_a_1061771.html
supplemental note:
Thou Shalt Not Put Evolutionary Theory to a Test - Douglas Axe - July 18, 2012 Excerpt: "For example, McBride criticizes me for not mentioning genetic drift in my discussion of human origins, apparently without realizing that the result of Durrett and Schmidt rules drift out. Each and every specific genetic change needed to produce humans from apes would have to have conferred a significant selective advantage in order for humans to have appeared in the available time (i.e. the mutations cannot be 'neutral'). Any aspect of the transition that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (>100 million years). My challenge to McBride, and everyone else who believes the evolutionary story of human origins, is not to provide the list of mutations that did the trick, but rather a list of mutations that can do it. Otherwise they're in the position of insisting that something is a scientific fact without having the faintest idea how it even could be." Doug Axe PhD. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/thou_shalt_not062351.html
Verse and music: Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Steven Curtis Chapman - More to this Life http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndbma-BQJK8 bornagain77

Leave a Reply