Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2013, 11:13 AM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2013 11:16 AM by koolokamba.)
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
This is a response to comment #79 by Chas ("My point is that I find your arguments and evidence unconvincing. And you can shove your ad hominems up your ass."):

I'm not saying anything about you. And I'm sorry if you've interpreted it that way. I'm saying something about your mode reasoning. It's very similar, in my opinion, to the methods creationists follow: "I and others have believed this since time immemorial, so I must be right. I don't need to produce evidence because, in my opinion, everyone who counts agrees with me. In fact, I can ignore any evidence that you produce, because I don't find it convincing." I really do think that the situation is similar because for at least two thousand years people have been talking about how hybrids were made sterile to keep the species apart. In my opinion, it's really a religious notion that is often directly described as the action of a deity who's set things up this way to prevent the "blending of kinds." People have been repeating this sort of thing at least since the time of the ancient Greeks. So it's not surprising that so many believe it. And yet, as I have been documenting for years, hybrids are abundant, often fertile, and occur in a natural setting. But so many people simply go on blithely ignoring that evidence.

But whether you see the parallel or not, since you refuse to produce any evidence for your position. I plan to ignore your comments until you do. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 11:17 AM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
I'll be away for a bit, but I'll check back in a couple of hours.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 11:26 AM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
(14-08-2013 09:27 AM)koolokamba Wrote:  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.

If you want to play the numbers game, you can provide yours first. Don't worry, I'll wait.

(14-08-2013 09:27 AM)koolokamba Wrote:  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.

Right. Mere opinions like yours.

People are convinced by the evidence that alien reptiloids faked the moon landing. So what?

(14-08-2013 09:27 AM)koolokamba Wrote:  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.

Except, it isn't, because the fossil record is incomplete, and many of the traits you mention are not there recorded.

(14-08-2013 09:27 AM)koolokamba Wrote:  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.

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.

(14-08-2013 09:27 AM)koolokamba Wrote:  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.

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.

(14-08-2013 09:27 AM)koolokamba Wrote:  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

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.

(14-08-2013 09:27 AM)koolokamba Wrote:  Also, I notice that you do not define "distantly related." What exactly do you mean by that?

I mean according to current phylogenetic consensus. 'Relation' may loosely be defined as separation in time from a common ancestor. You already know that. Pretending not to accomplishes what, exactly?

(14-08-2013 09:27 AM)koolokamba Wrote:  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?

Anecdotal evidence is not compelling.

(14-08-2013 09:27 AM)koolokamba Wrote:  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.

Anecdotal evidence is not compelling. Uneducated eyewitness testimony is not compelling. Do you believe everything people tell you?

(14-08-2013 09:27 AM)koolokamba Wrote:  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.

Sure. And for animals who are not closely related no encounter has ever resulted in offspring.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 11:27 AM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
You know this is just a TV show, right?




... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 11:38 AM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
(14-08-2013 11:13 AM)koolokamba Wrote:  This is a response to comment #79 by Chas ("My point is that I find your arguments and evidence unconvincing. And you can shove your ad hominems up your ass."):

I'm not saying anything about you. And I'm sorry if you've interpreted it that way. I'm saying something about your mode reasoning. It's very similar, in my opinion, to the methods creationists follow: "I and others have believed this since time immemorial, so I must be right. I don't need to produce evidence because, in my opinion, everyone who counts agrees with me. In fact, I can ignore any evidence that you produce, because I don't find it convincing." I really do think that the situation is similar because for at least two thousand years people have been talking about how hybrids were made sterile to keep the species apart. In my opinion, it's really a religious notion that is often directly described as the action of a deity who's set things up this way to prevent the "blending of kinds." People have been repeating this sort of thing at least since the time of the ancient Greeks. So it's not surprising that so many believe it. And yet, as I have been documenting for years, hybrids are abundant, often fertile, and occur in a natural setting. But so many people simply go on blithely ignoring that evidence.

But whether you see the parallel or not, since you refuse to produce any evidence for your position. I plan to ignore your comments until you do. Smile

Did I deny hybridization? No.
Did I deny that hybridization gives rise to new species? No.

I merely state that you make claims that are not sufficiently supported by available evidence and seem to contradict existing evidence, and that the evidence for pig/ape hybridization is laughably weak.

I remain skeptical of many of your claims.

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, 01:54 PM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
This is a response to the first comment in post #83 by cjlr ("If you want to play the numbers game, you can provide yours first. Don't worry, I'll wait."):
I don't understand this comment. Please clarify or I won't be able to give you a response.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 01:57 PM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
This is a response to the second comment in post #83 by cjlr ("Right. Mere opinions like yours. People are convinced by the evidence that alien reptiloids faked the moon landing. So what?"):

So what do you think my opinions might be?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 02:00 PM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
This is a response to the third comment in post #83 by cjlr ("Except, it isn't, because the fossil record is incomplete, and many of the traits you mention are not there recorded."):
Of course, I agree, the fossil record is complete. However, the pig-ape hypothesis has an advantage in that it is consistent with the fossils that are available while the alternative hypothesis can only hope to be consistent with fossils that are not available (but may be some day).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 02:37 PM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
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.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 02:41 PM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
This is a response to the fifth comment in post #83 by cjlr ("I mean according to current phylogenetic consensus. 'Relation' may loosely be defined as separation in time from a common ancestor. You already know that. Pretending not to accomplishes what, exactly?"):
I asked what you meant by "distantly related" not what you meant by related. I think it's fairly clear what people with your theoretical outlook mean by related. But what's your cutoff point? When does it become distant? That is, I'm asking how you would discriminate between closely and distantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: