Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2013, 08:17 AM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
(14-08-2013 08:05 AM)koolokamba Wrote:  Here I address objections raised by cjlr in comment #68:

But first let me say that you're talking about my character when you say "A disingenuous false equivocation." I don't understand your point, and I don't appreciate the insult. So far as I can see, everything I said in the comment you refer to is correct. If in some respect it isn't, then I'd appreciate your explaining how it is incorrect instead of simply accusing me of lying. Smile

Objection 1: "Evidence would suggest your theory is unlikely at best." What evidence? Are you just expressing an opinion here? Many, many people have said that the evidence on my site is extremely convincing. Even DeepThought here on this site seems largely convinced, at least to the point of taking the idea seriously and wanting to investigate it further, which is my own position. But other people have gone much further after reading my evidence. They say they are totally convinced and that their lives have been changed forever. I think that's going too far, but clearly if we take other people's opinions into account, and not just yours, the evidence I give must carry some weight.

Objection 2: "all of the morphological features in question do not emerge simultaneously in modern humans - which they would have to, if they were all introduced from specific hybridization events." This is not correct, I've already mentioned it in this thread, but to the extent that we can judge from bony remains, the traits that distinguish us from nonhuman primates were also present in ancient hominids (e.g., ungual tuberosities, elliptical femoral condyles, etc.). So we have no indication that they were gradually acquired.

Objection 3: "the supposed similarities are based on traits found in domestic pigs, a species whose ancestors (wild boar) did not coexist with ours." This comment makes me think that you have not as yet carefully read what I have to say on my website, but for your convenience, I'll paste in here what I say there (http://www.macroevolution.net/hybrid-hyp...ion-1.html ):

"When a pig escapes from a farm and starts living in the woods it does not suddenly become a hairy animal. It's descendants can, if they interbreed with hairy wild animals, but not otherwise. True, the Eurasian wild boar is hairy (though its hair is nowhere near as dense as that of a cow or sheep, say). But we do not know the history of the domestic pig. It's usually treated as conspecific with the Eurasian wild boar, but the two differ in chromosome counts (domestic 2n=38, and wild boar 2n=36). So it may be that they are not the same animal and that relatively hairless pigs similar to the domestic pig existed anciently. It may well be that the two have been treated as the same species merely because it has long been known that they can produce fertile offspring together. But these offspring may simply represent hybrids (this is one of many examples, by the way, of animals with differing chromosome counts producing fertile offspring together). The domestic pig has also hybridized with a variety of other types of pigs, but that does not imply that they are the same animal. For example, in addition to the wild boar, the domestic pig has hybridized with the Babirusa, Babyrousa babyrussa (pictures); Bush Pig, Potamochoerus larvatus (pictures); Bearded Pig, Sus barbatus (pictures); Visayan Warty Pig, Sus cebifrons (pictures); Sulawesi Wild Boar, Sus celebensis (pictures); and probably Sus oliveri and Sus philippensis. So why assume that the domestic pig and wild boar are the "same" animal? Relatively naked animals similar to the domestic pig might have existed anciently. We don't really know what pigs looked like thousands of years ago, but a prehistoric painting in Altamira Cave in Spain shows a pig (pictures) that looks fairly naked to me (except for what looks like a beard and hair at the top of the head, neck, and shoulders)."

The foregoing quoted material contained a lot of documenting links. Being a newbie to this site I haven't figure out how to make links work here, but you can access those links if you go to the original text on my site. It appears in a green sidebar near the top of the page.

Objection 4: "That is on top of the fact that no hybridization has ever been observed between such distantly related species." There have actually been many reports of equivalently strange hybrids. I've collected a lot of information about such reports on my website (see this page: http://www.macroevolution.net/mammalian-hybrids.html )

Both the citations you use for platypus/bird and human/pig on your site have since been shown to be incorrect.

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, 08:27 AM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
In response to comment #71 by Chas:

First let me point out that I think you mean "bird/mammal" not "platypus/bird."

Second, please list the specific points in which you say I am incorrect and then cite the references showing that I am incorrect. Until you do that I cannot address your comment.

In the meantime, I invite anyone who is reading this to visit the two pages of my website to which you refer ( http://www.macroevolution.net/pig-primate-hybrids.html and http://www.macroevolution.net/bird-mammal-hybrids.html ) so that they can form their own opinions on this subject. Anyone interested in distant hybrids might also be interested in this page: http://www.macroevolution.net/jumarts.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 08:32 AM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
(14-08-2013 08:05 AM)koolokamba Wrote:  But first let me say that you're talking about my character when you say "A disingenuous false equivocation." I don't understand your point, and I don't appreciate the insult. So far as I can see, everything I said in the comment you refer to is correct. If in some respect it isn't, then I'd appreciate your explaining how it is incorrect instead of simply accusing me of lying. Smile

Unlikely is not impossible. You are mis-characterising people's opinions. That is disingenuous.

(14-08-2013 08:05 AM)koolokamba Wrote:  Objection 1: "Evidence would suggest your theory is unlikely at best." What evidence? Are you just expressing an opinion here? Many, many people have said that the evidence on my site is extremely convincing. Even DeepThought here on this site seems largely convinced, at least to the point of taking the idea seriously and wanting to investigate it further, which is my own position. But other people have gone much further after reading my evidence. They say they are totally convinced and that their lives have been changed forever. I think that's going too far, but clearly if we take other people's opinions into account, and not just yours, the evidence I give must carry some weight.

Yes. Some weight. Much less than the consensus view.

(14-08-2013 08:05 AM)koolokamba Wrote:  Objection 2: "all of the morphological features in question do not emerge simultaneously in modern humans - which they would have to, if they were all introduced from specific hybridization events." This is not correct, I've already mentioned it in this thread, but to the extent that we can judge from bony remains, the traits that distinguish us from nonhuman primates were also present in ancient hominids (e.g., ungual tuberosities, elliptical femoral condyles, etc.). So we have no indication that they were gradually acquired.

Okay. Sure. We also have no indication that they weren't.

(14-08-2013 08:05 AM)koolokamba Wrote:  Objection 3: "the supposed similarities are based on traits found in domestic pigs, a species whose ancestors (wild boar) did not coexist with ours." This comment makes me think that you have not as yet carefully read what I have to say on my website, but for your convenience, I'll paste in here what I say there (http://www.macroevolution.net/hybrid-hyp...ion-1.html ):

"When a pig escapes from a farm and starts living in the woods it does not suddenly become a hairy animal. It's descendants can, if they interbreed with hairy wild animals, but not otherwise. True, the Eurasian wild boar is hairy (though its hair is nowhere near as dense as that of a cow or sheep, say). But we do not know the history of the domestic pig. It's usually treated as conspecific with the Eurasian wild boar, but the two differ in chromosome counts (domestic 2n=38, and wild boar 2n=36). So it may be that they are not the same animal and that relatively hairless pigs similar to the domestic pig existed anciently. It may well be that the two have been treated as the same species merely because it has long been known that they can produce fertile offspring together. But these offspring may simply represent hybrids (this is one of many examples, by the way, of animals with differing chromosome counts producing fertile offspring together). The domestic pig has also hybridized with a variety of other types of pigs, but that does not imply that they are the same animal. For example, in addition to the wild boar, the domestic pig has hybridized with the Babirusa, Babyrousa babyrussa (pictures); Bush Pig, Potamochoerus larvatus (pictures); Bearded Pig, Sus barbatus (pictures); Visayan Warty Pig, Sus cebifrons (pictures); Sulawesi Wild Boar, Sus celebensis (pictures); and probably Sus oliveri and Sus philippensis. So why assume that the domestic pig and wild boar are the "same" animal? Relatively naked animals similar to the domestic pig might have existed anciently. We don't really know what pigs looked like thousands of years ago, but a prehistoric painting in Altamira Cave in Spain shows a pig (pictures) that looks fairly naked to me (except for what looks like a beard and hair at the top of the head, neck, and shoulders)."

I read your website. You evidently did not read my post. Domesticated pigs are primarily descended from wild boars, with some interbreeding with other pig species. This happened tens of thousands of years ago, not millions.

But that's not the point. Two million years ago in East Africa, the local pigs were warthogs and bushpigs.

(14-08-2013 08:05 AM)koolokamba Wrote:  Objection 4: "That is on top of the fact that no hybridization has ever been observed between such distantly related species." There have actually been many reports of equivalently strange hybrids. I've collected a lot of information about such reports on my website (see this page: http://www.macroevolution.net/mammalian-hybrids.html )

Those reports are a mix of irrelevant and bullcrap. Closely related species can and do interbreed. Distantly related ones do not and can not. There has never been a documented case of such an incident.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 09:05 AM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
(14-08-2013 08:27 AM)koolokamba Wrote:  In response to comment #71 by Chas:

First let me point out that I think you mean "bird/mammal" not "platypus/bird."

Second, please list the specific points in which you say I am incorrect and then cite the references showing that I am incorrect. Until you do that I cannot address your comment.

In the meantime, I invite anyone who is reading this to visit the two pages of my website to which you refer ( http://www.macroevolution.net/pig-primate-hybrids.html and http://www.macroevolution.net/bird-mammal-hybrids.html ) so that they can form their own opinions on this subject. Anyone interested in distant hybrids might also be interested in this page: http://www.macroevolution.net/jumarts.html

I followed references to the links on your site regarding bird DNA in the platypus genome and to that silly pig/human hybrid baby story.

The references show the flaws in both of those. I did this earlier in the thread, as well.

I will leave you to your hypotheses. Let us know when you get published in a reputable journal.

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, 09:27 AM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
This is in response to comment #73 by cjlr:

You say: "Unlikely is not impossible. You are mis-characterising people's opinions. That is disingenuous."
No, it's not. Go back and read my comment #69.

You say: "Yes. Some weight. Much less than the consensus view."
Thanks for conceding that my evidence carries some weight. But again, since other people have been convinced by the evidence I offer, including some biologists, your your suggestion that the "consensus view" carries more weight, can only be your personal opinion. You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but mere opinions are not particularly convincing.

You say: "Okay. Sure. We also have no indication that they [i.e., the traits that distinguish us from non-human primates] weren't [ gradually acquired]."
The apparent fact that even very early hominids had all of the various piglike traits that can be detected in bony remains, IS an indication that they weren't.

You say: "Domesticated pigs are primarily descended from wild boars, with some interbreeding with other pig species. This happened tens of thousands of years ago, not millions."
As I explained in comment #70, you can't possibly know this. To me, this is an example of holding up something you merely believe and can't really know in order to discount the possibility of something you can, at least potentially, know.

You say: "But that's not the point. Two million years ago in East Africa, the local pigs were warthogs and bushpigs."
Again, you are assuming things you cannot possibly know. If this cross between pigs and chimpanzees ever did occur, we have no clear knowledge of when or where it occurred. So far as I can see, that's all conjecture given the present state of knowledge.

You say: "Those reports are a mix of irrelevant and bullcrap. Closely related species can and do interbreed. Distantly related ones do not and can not. There has never been a documented case of such an incident."
I'm trying my best to be polite to you, I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same for me. Smile

Also, I notice that you do not define "distantly related." What exactly do you mean by that?

But as to the reports on my website, my method in compiling them has been to collect, for each cross, all available evidence that I can find. In particular, I'm interested in serious reports from scholars. But I'm also interested in photographs, even from non-scholarly sources, so long as they don't look doctored. I have even taken a lot of information from non-academic experts such as birders or breeders, so long as I see no reason why they would lie. Do you think it is somehow "irrelevant or bullcrap" to cite such people?

I admit that some of the reports are quite old, but I don't see that as particularly significant. What I'm interested in is whether the reporter is reputable, serious, and seems to lack any motive for making a false report. What would you have me do? Discard any of the various eyewitness reports that happen to be inconsistent with my own preconceptions reality? I would see that as an extremely biased policy. To me, the best course has always seemed to be to record accurately what others have said, to give some idea of their credentials, and to leave it to the reader to form his or her own judgments, and of course to supply references to the primary sources so that everything can be checked. But picking and choosing between reported crosses, and omitting mention of some of them, would be forcing the data to fit my opinions. I have, in fact, always tried to do the reverse, that is, force my opinions to fit the data.

My idea is that each different cross is an investigation in process. When a particular type of cross is first reported, there is almost always some doubt about its authenticity. With the collection of more information you can become more confident that it actually did (or that it did not) occur. In many cases, you can reach virtual certainty. For example, when a male and female animal are caged alone together at a zoo and the female produces an offspring, you can be sure that the male was the father, even without DNA testing. The only way you can cast doubt on such cases is to attack the reporter as somehow being disreputable. But in most cases, it seems to me that that would simply be unreasonable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 09:39 AM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
This is in response to comment #71 by Chas:

As I said before: "please list the specific points in which you say I am incorrect and then cite the references showing that I am incorrect. Until you do that I cannot address your comment."

Since you have instead bailed out of the debate, I can only assume that you cannot point out specific mistakes I've made, nor offer even a single reference demonstrating that such is the case. I assure you, that if you could show me that anything on my website--anything whatsoever--was factually incorrect, I'd be happy to correct it. But thus far, I'm sorry to say, all you've offered is opinions and hand waving. Since you aren't citing facts, I can only conclude you're relying on some vague notion of what you believe to be true, irregardless of empirical observation. To me, that's not science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 10:25 AM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
(14-08-2013 09:39 AM)koolokamba Wrote:  This is in response to comment #71 by Chas:

As I said before: "please list the specific points in which you say I am incorrect and then cite the references showing that I am incorrect. Until you do that I cannot address your comment."

Since you have instead bailed out of the debate, I can only assume that you cannot point out specific mistakes I've made, nor offer even a single reference demonstrating that such is the case. I assure you, that if you could show me that anything on my website--anything whatsoever--was factually incorrect, I'd be happy to correct it. But thus far, I'm sorry to say, all you've offered is opinions and hand waving. Since you aren't citing facts, I can only conclude you're relying on some vague notion of what you believe to be true, irregardless of empirical observation. To me, that's not science.

I pointed out that there is no support for the Nature article about the platypus and that the pig baby story was debunked.

I find your argument unconvincing. The burden of proof is on you to support your thesis, not on me to disprove it.

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, 10:53 AM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2013 11:19 AM by koolokamba.)
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
This is in response to comment #77 by Chas:

I'm sorry, but from a scientific standpoint I cannot simply take your word that "there is no support for the Nature article about the platypus" or that "that the pig baby story was debunked."

Nature is one of the most respected scientific journals, as virtually everyone knows. If the article was published there, and it was , and it has not been retracted, which I don't believe is the case, then it's entirely reasonable to cite it. The mere fact that it is published there strongly indicates that there was support for the article, whether or not it contradicts your views.

As to the "piglet" ( http://www.macroevolution.net/pig-primate-hybrids.html ), I find that multiple pictures taken from different angles very rarely lie. You have too put too much effort in with PhotoShop. I've collected six photographs taken from various angles and they, at the very least, give most people pause over the question of whether a pig can cross with a primate, specifically with a human being. To overturn that evidence, as you say "debunk" it, you would have to cite some sort of study that showed those photos were faked. You haven't done that. In fact, all you've done is spoken in an unattributed passive voice saying that the "story was debunked." Passive voice is always the hand-waver's friend. Thus far, you have supplied absolutely no evidence whatsoever, only opinion. So how do you expect anyone else to believe what you're saying?

Is it possible you are playing the same game that creationists play? Are you simply speaking from an unattested belief that you don't care to question and that you refuse to alter in the face of evidence? If you don't produce some facts, I'm afraid I'll be forced to assume that that's the case.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 10:59 AM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
(14-08-2013 10:53 AM)koolokamba Wrote:  This is in response to comment #77 by Chas:

I'm sorry, but from a scientific standpoint I cannot simply take your word that "there is no support for the Nature article about the platypus" or that "that the pig baby story was debunked."

Nature is one of the most respected scientific journals, as virtually everyone knows. If the article was published there, and it was , and it has not been retracted, which I don't believe is the case, then it's entirely reasonable to cite it. The mere fact that it is published there strongly indicates that there was support for the article, whether or not it contradicts your views.

As to the "piglet" ( http://www.macroevolution.net/pig-primate-hybrids.html ), I find that multiple pictures taken from different angles very rarely lie. You have too put to much effort in with PhotoShop. I've collected six photographs taken from various angles and they, at the very least, give most people pause over the question of whether a pig can cross with a primate, specifically with a human being. To overturn that evidence, as you say "debunk" it, you would have to cite some sort of study that showed those photos were faked. You haven't done that. In fact, all you've done is spoken in an unattributed passive voice saying that the "story was debunked." Passive voice is always the hand-waver's friend. Thus far, you have supplied absolutely no evidence whatsoever, only opinion. So how do you expect anyone else to believe what you're saying?

Is it possible you are playing the same game that creationists play? Are you simply speaking from an unattested belief that you don't care to question and that you refuse to alter in the face of evidence? If you don't produce some facts, I'm afraid I'll be forced to assume that that's the case.

My point is that I find your arguments and evidence unconvincing.

And you can shove your ad hominems up your ass.

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, 11:05 AM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
(14-08-2013 10:59 AM)Chas Wrote:  And you can shove your ad hominems up your ass.

That statement is offensive to ass-human hybrids.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: