Ridicule is a poor argument, and was not in the end convincing against Darwin, when he suggested humans were related to apes. It's not more convincing here. — unenlightened

Agreed, up to a point. Dr. McCarthy went beyond that point. You point out that he is qualified, but so are the great majority of biologists and geneticists who scoff at the idea.

According to the web, the most recent shared ancestor between sheep and goats lived four million years ago. With pigs and apes, it was 70 million years ago.

Yes. It's far fetched, it's based on a controversial theory of speciation, and there's plenty of legitimate criticism that can be mounted. It's a shame that folks here don't bother, but rely on argument from authority, ridicule, and outrage. I'd say it seems highly unlikely, but not impossible. But then I bothered to read it, and also some of the criticisms, and I reckon that makes me an authority compared to most contributors here. :roll:

I was asking you. If you don’t want to share fair enough.

I have no problem with unconvential ideas. I liked the idea of the “aquatic ape” hypothesis. A few arbitrary morphological similarities aren’t massively convincing.

If you don’t want to share fair enough. — I like sushi

My attitude is rather similar; if you don't want to engage with the hypothesis presented, fair enough. I have engaged a bit and shared a bit, but my purpose in engaging with the text is to discuss with others who wish to engage with it, rather than to answer the questions of folks who don't want to engage with it. You don't have to rely on my hearsay, you can get from the man himself.

Wait, I found someone who will engage the topic.

Semantics. It was an ape that was more a chimpanzee than anything else that there's a word for.

Michael Ossipoff

13 M
1620 UTC

Semantics. It was an ape that was more a chimpanzee than anything else that there's a word for. — Michael Ossipoff

No. McCarthy's thesis is that a chimpanzee mated with a pig. When he says chimpanzee, he means chimpanzee. He rejects just about all of our present understanding of human origins, along with natural selection and evolution in general. He commented that Darwin's greatest fan was Hitler.

What you're working on is your own theory of human origins where something like a chimpanzee mated with a pig.

A few arbitrary morphological similarities aren’t massively convincing. — I like sushi

Is that your expert professional opinion as a PhD geneticist?

Michael Ossipoff

13 M
1634

A few arbitrary morphological similarities aren’t massively convincing. — I like sushi

And it isn't just a few. It's all of the attributes by which we differ from all of the other primates.

McCarthy points out that that's a standard way to identify the other parent of a hybrid.

Michael Ossipoff

13 M
1638 UTC

This seems highly plausible to me. It never felt quite right that we should be descended solely from apes. We're far too pink. When we want to insult people, we turn more readily to their piggishness than to their apishness. I don't trust pigs, not because I don't understand them, but because I understand them too well. The psychology seems a much better fit.

We're far too pink. — bert1

We're what?

One of my best friends is black. There may not be a single pig-ape ancestor...

What’s next, flying pigs? Haha!

Have fun guys. Thanks for the laughs :)

One needs no science here. Just spend an hour among humans, then spend an hour among pigs, and it becomes obvious that we are closely related. The pigs probably lost more than they gained.

This is a very tasteless picture. Not only do we see bits of male genitalia, but the sow's tits are also clearly visible. Further, there is some sort of menage a trois shaping up. Entirely too salacious for philosophers to view upon. Thankfully we were spared the full audiovisual effects of motion and sound -- all that laborious thrusting and grunting.

An end to racism:

One needs no science here. — Bitter Crank

:D

Just spend an hour among humans, then spend an hour among pigs, and it becomes obvious that we are closely related. The pigs probably lost more than they gained.

No one denies that we have more recent primate ancestry.

McCarthy speaks of many, many generations of primate back-hybridization.

Maybe you should do a little reading before expounding?

The pigs probably lost more than they gained.

Whatever that means.

Our species' worst attributes seem chimp-like.

Pigs have gestational periods of 114 days.
Chimps have gestational periods of 243 days.

So how long was the gestational period of the pig that was impregnated by a chimpanzee?

Here is just one developmental incongruity (among many others) that has to be overcome to support chimpig origins.

It seems that whether the sperm and egg of two vastly unrelated mammalian species can fuse at all is an interesting question and an experiment that is likely to have been done in a petri dish.

Agreed, up to a point. Dr. McCarthy went beyond that point. You point out that he is qualified, but so are the great majority of biologists and geneticists who scoff at the idea. — T Clark

but in the balance for these geneticists and their future career, they might not considerer it worthwhile even lending a bit of credulity to the idea.

Scientists are human after all, and a career for them will be a pretty valuable thing to want to hold on to, and not let be even slightly tainted.

This is one of the problems for many out-off-the-box ideas in science.

So I think it is a weak argument to say the majority scoff at any idea.

I found someone who will engage the topic. — frank

Following up on the links, a large part of the relevant argument is that speciation by hybridisation simply does not occur. But it does occur, so I repeat my earlier reference. https://www.quantamagazine.org/new-bird-species-arises-from-hybrids-as-scientists-watch-20171213/

As far as I know, this is the only speciation that has actually been observed, and it arose from hybrids.

So I think it is a weak argument to say the majority scoff at any idea. — wax

I disagree. The only useful definition of scientific truth in a real time, real world situation where real life decisions have to be made is "the consensus of the opinions of knowledgeable, qualified scientists." If the consensus split is 49%/51%, there is a lot of room for disagreement, research, and discussion. If it's 98%/2%, then no. What decision are we trying to make in this particular case? Where to put our scientific attention. Where to spend our research money. What to teach in school. For some issues, climate change for example, the decisions have more significant consequences and cost a lot more.

And, no. I don't have any specific information on the actual split among qualified scientists on the pig/chimpanzee issue.

And, yes. It is possible that McCarthy is correct. It's just really unlikely. Really, really. It is reasonable for us to decide not to put any significant resources into the issue. I'll go further. It is unreasonable for us to decide we should put sigificant resources into the issue.

There is a mass of evidence that humans emerged from an African population made up of a variety of species of the genus Homo.

Since this view is widely accepted among scientists and supported by both archaeological and genetic research, if you reject this view, it's your responsibility to present a reason to doubt it.

As far as I know, this is the only speciation that has actually been observed, and it arose from hybrids. — unenlightened

If this is true, what does that imply? That contemporary evolutionary theory is entirely wrong? Species don't arise by natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift?

if you reject this view, it's your responsibility to present a reason to doubt it. — frank

I don't reject it. I merely consider an alternative hypothesis, that has been presented, and that accounts for things in a slightly different way.

If this is true, what does that imply? That contemporary evolutionary theory is entirely wrong? Species don't arise by natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift? — frank

No. It might be that speciation by hybridisation is rare, occasional or frequent. I think it is almost certain that it happens, unless that report proves to be wildly wrong.

My own argument is roughly thus:

We have seen speciation by hybridisation and we have seen fertile hybrids between species with different numbers of chromosomes.

What we have seen in one lifetime is unlikely to be very unusual or at the extreme of the possible over evolutionary time.

There is thus no immediate reason to rule out as impossible that a more distant hybridisation could have given rise to the human species.

Thereafter, one should consider whether such an event has explanatory value in relation to human characteristics and maybe look for whatever evidence might distinguish this hypothesis from the currently accepted one.

One of the things I found interesting, though I am not qualified to pass judgement, was McCarthy's discussion of the cooling limitation of primate brain size, and how trans-cranial blood supply, found in pigs but not non-human primates overcomes this. Is there someone debunking these ideas, because the critiques I've seen seem to focus on other speculations and don't go into the details argued in the human case specifically.

one could argue that your reasons for not spending any research money on this thing because it isn't mainstream enough means that if say a billionaire did happen to invest in this research and it proved that the hypothesis of a pig-chimp hybrid did turn out to be quite likely, and overturned some mainstream consensus, that this could be the very reason that it is worthy of research, potentially anyway.

If mainstream science is only prepared to invest in the present consensus, then how is mainstream consensus ever going to change?

I realise that you might now want to argue that 'should science invest in every crazy little hypothesis?' well obviously no, it couldn't do that, that is why I said it was 'potentially' a good line of research...it would need to cross some kind of threshold I suppose, of likelyhood.

It's not just sheep and goats or chimps and pigs doin' it:

http://www.macroevolution.net/sheep-pig-hybrids.html

Maybe it was an inter-species gene-sharing ménage à trois; humans share a lot of traits with sheep as well!

:eyes:

It seems that whether the sperm and egg of two vastly unrelated mammalian species can fuse at all is an interesting question and an experiment that is likely to have been done in a petri dish. — Nils Loc

Various species have done that experiment in the old-fashioned manner,, and the answer to your question is "Yes" they can and have.

Michael Ossipoff

13 Tu
0239 UTC

And, yes. It is possible that McCarthy is correct. It's just really unlikely. — T Clark

Is that your professional opinion, as a PhD geneticist?

Michael Ossipoff

13 Tu
0241 UTC

Species don't arise by natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift? — frank

Genetic drift caused by what? Mutations from cosmic rays, and maybe from some natural mutagen chemicals in the natural environment. But maybe also from distant hybridizations which (like the other mutations referred-to above) nearly always result in stillbirth or unsurvivable offspring, but which very rarely combine previously unshared attributes of two species which, when combined, provide a significant adaptive advantage.

(Alright, the pig-chimp experiment might have produced a species that is singlehandedly creating a big extinction due go global-warming, but it was well-adapted for a long time.)

Michael Ossipoff

13 M
2248 UTC

There is a mass of evidence that humans emerged from an African population made up of a variety of species of the genus Homo. — frank

McCarthy doesn't deny that. What you're referring to happened later.

Michael Ossipoff

13 Tu
0251