Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2013, 02:47 PM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
This is a response to the sixth comment in post #83 by cjlr ("Anecdotal evidence is not compelling."):
This is a straw man. I'm not claiming, nor have I ever claimed that anecdotal evidence is compelling. But such evidence is not the only sort of evidence I offer. I will say, however, that some types of anecdotal evidence can be very compelling, for example, eyewitness testimony from a reputable person.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 02:58 PM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
This is a response to the seventh comment in post #83 by cjlr ("Uneducated eyewitness testimony is not compelling. Do you believe everything people tell you?"):

I'm not sure why you say "Uneducated eyewitness testimony is not compelling." Uneducated people often give evidence in court and many people have been condemned to death on the basis of such evidence. What makes a difference is whether the evidence is reliable, not the educational background of the person providing it. For example, I doubt many of the people that took pictures of that Chinese "piglet" ( http://www.macroevolution.net/pig-primate-hybrids.html ) had received advanced degrees, and yet the photographic evidence that they provided is both enlightening and, for many people, compelling.

As for beliefs, I try to believe as little as I possibly can. I wouldn't be surprised if I believed fewer things than you do. My general rule is to believe nothing other than things I cannot possibly avoid believing (e.g., I'm sitting here typing this message to you; It's overcast today; I'm alive, etc.).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 03:06 PM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
You're aware you can quote the posts you want to answer to, don't you? If you don't want to use that feature, at least change the font of the posts you copy/paste, otherwise your posts read as legalese

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 03:09 PM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
This is a response to a comment that I overlooked in post #83 by cjlr ("That's true. You can't possibly know either. Lacking the ability to single-handedly reconfirm every fact known to humanity, I accept some things on authority. If you wish to re-write the entire evolutionary history of multiple species, as well as the social history of humans and the domestication of animals, well... Good luck with that."):
I'm not trying "to single-handedly reconfirm every fact known to humanity" and I don't expect you to. I'm merely trying to thoroughly investigate a particular hypothesis. You say you "accept some things on authority." Well, I think we all do that to some extent, but one of my favorite quotations is something R. S. Crane once said: "There is no authority but evidence." If I see evidence that is inconsistent with claims made by people who purport to be authorities, then I go with the evidence, even if it's in the case of a hypothesis with such far-reaching implications as the pig-ape theory. I don't care who these guys are that you want to rely on, at least not if they are denying things that I know to be facts. In discriminating between hypotheses, evidence should always carry more weight than accepted dogma.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 03:11 PM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
(14-08-2013 02:37 PM)koolokamba Wrote:  This is a response to the fourth comment in post #83 by cjlr ("Sure. But why do you think I said 'crap' instead of the alternatives? No human/non-human sexual encounter has ever produced offspring. There is no evidence of such ever occurring. Specious 'natural histories' from 500 years ago are not evidence. It may naturally be supposed that the frequency of such encounters has increased over time. There is no evidence of a human/non-human sexual encounter ever producing offspring."):

Here, you must be using the word evidence in some other way than it's used, say, in a court of law. In a courtroom, the sorts of information that I have compiled on my website (eyewitness testimony, photographs, expert opinion, DNA, etc.) are called evidence. If you are using the word in some other non-standard sense, then I'd appreciate it if you would explain, because I'm mystified. Even if you look only at the material presented on the pig-primate hybrid page ( http://www.macroevolution.net/pig-primate-hybrids.html ), you'll see evidence that leads many people to suspect that humans have in fact hybridized with pigs. To obtain actual proof of such a thing you would have to conduct illegal experiments (unless you could somehow get hold of a specimen and genetically test it, which would be straightforward in this case because we're talking about what would be expected to be an F1 hybrid). And what do you think all the evidence I have documented in support of the pig-chimp hybrid theory is if it is not evidence that pigs and primates have produced viable, fertile hybrids in the past. As I say, I really don't understand where you are coming from with this.

As for the old reports, which you don't seem to like, I'd say that less than one hundredth of one percent of the information that I offer about hybrids on my website is as much as 500 years old. But if I run across a report that's as old as that and it seems somehow relevant to a particular cross, I admit, I do include such information. In some cases, I do this to show what people used to think about hybrids. In others, I do it for the sake of providing as much information as possible. After all, you would expect certain types of hybrids to be very rare, and because of this rarity, any reports about them would necessarily be few and far between, and therefore old. I think of it as being similar to the situation with supernovas, where the occurrences are so rare that astronomers search out ancient records in Chinese and Babylonian annals. No one complains about them looking up such events and quoting from thousand-year-old reports, which could of course be specious. So I don't see anything wrong with doing it in the present context. Would you prefer that I conceal such information from the reader even when I know that it exists? What class of information would you allow them to read about?

So I really don't get what you're complaining about. Can you find even one single statement of fact on my website that's incorrect? If you can, please quote it to me. My goal is to provide the most accurate information possible, and to provide it with the minimum of personal opinion. I think most readers are fully capable of making their own decisions about the significance of information so long as they feel they can rely on it.

Science is not a courtroom.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 03:20 PM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
This is a response to a second comment that I overlooked in post #83 by cjlr ("It is an assumption based on the existing fossil and molecular data as well as observing prior and current habitats and distributions. You seem extraordinarily committed to a theory that is much less well attested and substantiated than its alternative. I'm really starting to wonder why."):

All theorists try to work within the context of "existing fossil and molecular data" as well as any other relevant data that might be available. So, of course, it's based on such data. That's not the question, though. The question is whether the pig-ape hybrid theory of human origins is more consistent with available data than the gradual-divergence-from-apes-alone theory. I argue that it is. To counter that argument, you need to explain why it is not more consistent, and not simply appeal to authority. And, again, it doesn't forward your argument to simply say that the pig-ape theory "is much less well attested and substantiated than its alternative." To persuade anyone of that claim, at least anyone who thinks rationally, you need to present logical arguments supported by evidence. Otherwise, it will just look like you're appealing to authority again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 03:26 PM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
(14-08-2013 03:20 PM)koolokamba Wrote:  This is a response to a second comment that I overlooked in post #83 by cjlr ("It is an assumption based on the existing fossil and molecular data as well as observing prior and current habitats and distributions. You seem extraordinarily committed to a theory that is much less well attested and substantiated than its alternative. I'm really starting to wonder why."):

All theorists try to work within the context of "existing fossil and molecular data" as well as any other relevant data that might be available. So, of course, it's based on such data. That's not the question, though. The question is whether the pig-ape hybrid theory of human origins is more consistent with available data than the gradual-divergence-from-apes-alone theory. I argue that it is. To counter that argument, you need to explain why it is not more consistent, and not simply appeal to authority. And, again, it doesn't forward your argument to simply say that the pig-ape theory "is much less well attested and substantiated than its alternative." To persuade anyone of that claim, at least anyone who thinks rationally, you need to present logical arguments supported by evidence. Otherwise, it will just look like you're appealing to authority again.

No, we are not arguing about two equal hypotheses. The currently accepted theory is well supported by evidence from fossils and DNA.

You are proposing overturning that theory, therefore the burden is on you to show that your theory explains something that is unexplained or explains something in a better way.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 05:57 PM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
More tomorrow. I've been buried in email today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 11:01 PM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
(14-08-2013 02:37 PM)koolokamba Wrote:  Can you find even one single statement of fact on my website that's incorrect?

(30-07-2013 08:19 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  This on page two:
Quote:God did not place pigs and humans in different taxonomic orders.

...which is either
A) Figments of imagination have no place in scientific discourse (suitable for this forum).
...or
B) Yeah, he did.

Either/or = wrong.

Then there's the modern concept that the ol' argumentum ad populum fallacy may have some validity; to wit, the number of reputable scientists arguing their hypotheses on internet forums to be essentially fucking zero... Dodgy

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
15-08-2013, 01:15 AM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
Ok, I actually registered just to respond to this thread.

I went to your human-pig hybrid website, and I found it hilarious. Which is probably not your intended reaction. The regulars here are doing a decent job picking it apart, but there was one specific image I wanted to touch upon.

That piglet you show as possible evidence for a primate-pig hybrid, which you mention at least twice in this thread, has holoprosencephaly. In fact, when I was completing my degree the exact image you use on your website was given as the type specimen for this terrible condition (a warning to everyone about to google for images - it is not for the squeamish. It is caused by a failure of the hemispheres of the brain to properly divide, which almost always has severe effects on facial features, including Cyclopia). We know what that is, and it's not a hybrid. It is 100% pig with a severe developmental condition.

This of course helps back up what cjlr said earlier about uneducated eyewitnesses. Those who don't know better see that piglet, or images of it, and say "hey, that looks a bit like a pig and a bit like a monkey". People with sufficient education in biology and development see that image and know what it actually shows. A severe but non-lethal case of holoprosencephaly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ThatGuy777's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: