Top Hybridization-Geneticist suggests we're a Pig-Chimp Hybrid.

Michael Ossipoff

Eugene McCarthy, a leading hybridization-geneticist, has pointed out some peculiar facts, and suggested a surprising explanation:
.
(Links to his website-articles will be included below.)
.
A brief summary:
.
Genetically, humans are much closer to chimpanzees than to any other animal, and we’re classified as primates.
.
But, for some time, scientists have been puzzled by the fact that there are a number of ways we differ from the other primates—in ways that they don’t differ from eachother.
.
And, all of those non-primate attributes we have, we share with pigs (and only with pigs).
.
Standardly, such facts are regarded as strong evidence for a hybridization.
.
Another thing that has puzzled scientists is humans’ relatively low fertility, compared to that of other primates, and other animals in general. …low fertility that would be consistent with a drastically-distant hybridization, such as an inter-order hybridization.
.
We often hear expressed, the impression that pigs are quite human-like in some regards.
.
Just as one example, pigs’ skin is used for grafts for humans, because of its relative human-compatibility.
.
Cannibals have referred to human meat as “long-pork”.
.
Contrary to popular belief, inter-order hybridization, though unusual, isn’t unknown. McCarthy points out that humans aren’t a usual species.
.
Contrary to popular belief, hybrids aren’t usually completely infertile.
.
Gene sequencing doesn’t show pig-ancestry? No, but commonly, typically, when a hybrid is back-hybridized to one of its parent-species for many generations, gene-sequencing won’t show a difference from that parent species. The remaining genetic differences, by which the anatomical differences are still caused, consist of _amounts_ of various genes, not their sequence.
.
As an example of the difference between sequence and amount, Down’s syndrome isn’t distinguished by any difference in gene-sequence. …only by differences in amounts of various genes.
---------------------------------------
A long time ago, a pig and a chimpanzee had a dalliance, and the world has never been the same.
.
But enough from me. Here’s a link to Dr. McCarthy’s website-article about this matter.
.
The article is titled “Human Origins”. It discusses reasons that suggest that we’re not entirely primate, but instead are an inter-order hybrid. At the bottom of that article, is a link that says “Next Page >>”, which links to his article titled “The Other Parent”.)
http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html
.
Michael Ossipoff
12 Su
1751 UTC

Nils Loc

This is absolutely ridiculous.

Michael Ossipoff

↪Nils Loc

Be specific. McCarthy is a world-class hybridization-geneticist. Where do you find that he's wrong?

Michael Ossipoff

12 Su
1804 UTC

Michael Ossipoff

No doubt nearly all inter-order hybrids aren't survivable. Most likely nearly all pig-chimp hybrids were unsurvivable. Most likely the initial pig-chimp hybrid who was our ancestor was barely survivable. But one survivable hybrid was all it took.

Michael Ossipoff

Terrapin Station

pigs’ skin is used for grafts for humans, because of its relative human-compatibility.
.
Cannibals have referred to human meat as “long-pork”. — Michael Ossipoff

That sounds like the extent of the "evidence" he's presenting. At least per the article you're quoting.

Michael Ossipoff

That sounds like the extent of the "evidence" he's presenting. At least per the article you're quoting. — Terrapin Station

No. What you quoted isn't even the extent of the evidence that I stated in my post.

Check McCarthy's articles--Human Origins, and The Other Parent, linked to at the bottom of Human Origins.

By the way, McCarthy describes pig pelvic-structural differences that, by chance, not by natural selection for that purpose, had the potential to facilitate upright posture. ...and skull-structure that likewise differed from that of chimpanzees. Sometimes two different species have different unshared attributes which, when combined, facilitate fortuitous opportunities not possible for either species alone.

Michael Ossipoff

12 Su
1832 UTC

wax

↪Michael Ossipoff

for a few years, I have thought that there might be some weird connection between pigs and humans....this is interesting idea about hybridization. Maybe the first offspring would have been a more pig-like female, that then gave rise to a more chimp-like pig-chimp-male...

I don't know....that or aliens doing weird experiments on our ancestors....

Michael Ossipoff

↪wax

Yes, the suggestion is that that survivable initial hybrid that was our ancestor was a female. ...because there's no cost for a male to impregnate a female (...whereas a female must critically-evaluate any male that she let's impregnate her).

Likewise, subsequent reproduction by the hybrid animals was female hybrids with male chimps, for the same reason. Resulting in continuing back-hybridization with the chimp line.

A chimp, compared to a pig, is better equipped to care for a nearly unsurvivable offspring,and so it's likely that that first surviving hybrid had a pig father and a chimp mother. But the back-hybridizations were probably chimp male with hybrid female, for the reason described in the above paragraphs.

Michael Ossipoff

12 Su
1900 UTC

T Clark

↪Michael Ossipoff

Since I've mostly retired, I lose track of time sometimes. When I read the OP, I thought maybe it was actually April 1.

I have read in a number of places that geneticists have determined that about 4% of the human genetic makeup comes from Neanderthals. There may also be a contribution from Denisovians. Do you really think they would have overlooked pig DNA? Horses cannot mate with donkeys and give birth to fertile offspring, but you want us to believe that pigs and chimps can?

Here's another reason to miss TimeLine. She would have opened up a can of Australian whup ass on this pseudo-science in three seconds. One of those king-sized Fosters cans.

SophistiCat

The nutters are out if force today. I blame Mercury in retrograde!

Michael Ossipoff

Since I've mostly retired, I lose track of time sometimes. When I read the OP, I thought maybe it was actually April 1. — T Clark

The proximity to April 1st is purely coincidental.

I have read in a number of places that geneticists have determined that about 4% of the human genetic makeup comes from Neanderthals. There may also be a contribution from Denisovians. Do you really think they would have overlooked pig DNA?

As i said in my initial post: Commonly and typically, many generations of back-hybridizations will eliminate any gene-sequence difference from the parent species to which the back-hybridization happened. As I said, the remaining anatomical differences from that parent species result from differences in amounts of genes, not in the gene-sequence.

Typically, then, the only evidence of a long back-hybridized hybridization is anatomical, not gene-sequence.

Horses cannot mate with donkeys and give birth to fertile offspring, but you want us to believe that pigs and chimps can?

Mules are an unusual exceptionally infertile hybrid. As I said, inter-order hybridization isn't unknown.

Here's another reason to miss TimeLine. She would have opened up a can of Australian whup ass on this pseudo-science in three seconds.

I'll paste here what I said in reply to Nils Loc:

What are your credentials to say that an established hybridization-geneticist is pseudo-scientific?

Be specific. McCarthy is a world-class hybridization-geneticist. Where do you find that he's wrong?

Michael Ossipoff

12 Su
1924 UTC

T Clark

McCarthy is a world-class hybridization-geneticist. Where do you find that he's wrong? — Michael Ossipoff

I can't find any evidence on the web that he is a "world-class hybridization-geneticist." Most of the information on the web about his theories, except on his own website, are highly critical. As for me, I'm not a scientist, but I have basic level understanding of science. For example:

I'm not a physicist, but I am certain that a perpetual motion machine is impossible.
I'm not a chemist, but I'm certain it is not possible to turn lead into gold in a chemical reaction.
I'm not a biologist or geneticist, but I am certain that pigs cannot interbreed with chimpanzees and produce fertile offspring.

Michael Ossipoff

I can't find any evidence on the web that he is a "world-class hybridization-geneticist — T Clark

Even his opponents on that issue acknowledge it.

McCarthy, at his website, states his credentials.

Feel free to check out his website.

I'm not a biologist or geneticist, but I am certain that pigs cannot interbreed with chimpanzees and produce fertile offspring. — T Clark

You're certain that that established hybridization geneticist is wrong. What are your credentials in hybridization-genetics?

To re-paste an earlier answer:

Be specific. McCarthy is a world-class hybridization-geneticist. Where do you find that he's wrong?

Michael Ossipoff

12 Su
2009 UTC

Michael Ossipoff

Here's a link to McCarthy's self-introduction, listing some credentials:

http://www.macroevolution.net/about-me.html

Arkady

Has my secret love life at long last been validated by science? All of these years of shame: well, I shall be ashamed no longer!

unenlightened

Reading the article, it doesn't seem particularly dogmatic, or cherry picking. Speciation by hybridisation is definitely a thing. Like this.

Over the long term, though a hybrid of pig and chimp seems extreme and unlikely to survive, given natural perversity, it might happen enough times for one or two to get lucky with the fertility. At least I don't see much justification for a blanket dismissal before consideration. It does seem to explain some curious facts that are otherwise odd coincidences.

T Clark

Over the long term, though a hybrid of pig and chimp seems extreme and unlikely to survive, given natural perversity, it might happen enough times for one or two to get lucky with the fertility. At least I don't see much justification for a blanket dismissal before consideration. It does seem to explain some curious facts that are otherwise odd coincidences. — unenlightened

This is all well and good, except it never happened. No pig ever fucked a chimpanzee and their child went on to found the human race. Chimpanzees are not direct ancestors of humans. We have a common ancestor, but it's not recent. Take a look.

wax

. No pig ever fucked a chimpanzee — T Clark

more likely the other way around.

monkeys do seem to have some kinds of relationships with pigs/boars..

https://youtu.be/qOkalW6krEs

I like sushi

This is hysterical!! Hahaha!

unenlightened

This is all well and good, except it never happened. — T Clark

You may be right. The author concedes that you may be right. but a diagram from a text book merely declares you are right, it does not provide evidence of your rightness.

According to Swindle, many of the pig’s organ systems are 80 to 90 percent similar to the corresponding systems in humans – both in anatomy and function. The system that matches up best may be the cardiovascular system, as a pig’s heart is about the same size and shape as a human heart. Pigs develop atherosclerosis – artery plaque buildup – in the same way that humans do, and they react similarly to myocardial infarction, the classic heart attack.

https://www.foxnews.com/health/why-pigs-are-so-valuable-for-medical-research

Not my favourite source, but 80 to 90 % is a lot of similarity, and if you consider the level of similarity, as well as the shear amount, it is hard to explain by convergent evolution.

At the Botswana Ministry of Agriculture in 2000, a male sheep impregnated a female goat resulting in a live offspring. This hybrid had 57 chromosomes, intermediate between sheep (54) and goats (60) and was intermediate between the two parent species in type. It had a coarse outer coat, a woolly inner coat, long goat-like legs and a heavy sheep-like body. Although infertile, the hybrid had a very active libido, mounting both ewes and does even when they were not in heat.[2] He was castrated when he was 10 months old, as were the other kids and lambs in the herd.[3]

A male sheep impregnated a female goat in New Zealand resulting in a mixed litter of kids and a female sheep-goat hybrid with 57 chromosomes.[4] The hybrid was subsequently shown to be fertile when mated with a ram.[5] In France natural mating of a doe with a ram produced a female hybrid carrying 57 chromosomes. This animal backcrossed in the veterinary college of Nantes to a ram delivered a stillborn and a living male offspring with 54 chromosomes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep–goat_hybrid

So we know that female hybrids of species with different chromosome counts can be fertile in back crosses, and those who could stop laughing long enough to read the reference in the op will know that multigenerational back crosses are what is being hypothesised. And from that article:

And I must now emphasize a fact that I, as a geneticist, find somewhat disappointing: Though there are other ways of detecting them, with nucleotide sequence data, it can be very difficult to identify later-generation backcross hybrids derived from several repeated generations of backcrossing (and this would be especially true of any remote descendants of backcross hybrids produced in ancient times, which is what I'm proposing humans may actually be).

(An explanation follows.)

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.

wax

if a chimp crossed with a pig to produce a female hybrid, then the hybrid will have mostly pig mitochondrial DNA, won't it...? Is that part of what happened? I'm not sure how much mitochondrial DNA is passed on by a male father....I think there is mitochondrial DNA from the father present in the sperm, but not sure if any of that ends up in the offspring..

Tzeentch

but 80 to 90 % is a lot of similarity — unenlightened

Humans share the same sorts of genetic similarities with many other animals, like cats, dogs, cows and even mice.

You know what humans also share a lot of similarity with? Water.

Get statistics involved and one is able to make a case for anything.

unenlightened

↪wax

I was wondering about that as I was reading, but the hypothesis is that it was a male pig and a female chimp, because that is how the offspring would be socialised as chimp and back cross with chimps. There is further reasoning for this in the article.

Humans share the same sorts of genetic similarities — Tzeentch

We are not talking about genetic similarities, but structural morphological and biochemical similarities in the absence of genetic similarities. If you want to argue against the hypothesis, it is probably a good idea to read it.

unenlightened

I'll just leave this list here for people too clever to need to look at the article to glance at, along with a comment on it.

Human Traits Not Seen In Other Primates
DERMAL FEATURES
Naked skin (sparse pelage)
Panniculus adiposus (layer of subcutaneous fat)
Panniculus carnosus only in face and neck
In “hairy skin” region:
- Thick epidermis
- Crisscrossing congenital lines on epidermis
- Patterned epidermal-dermal junction
Large content of elastic fiber in skin
Thermoregulatory sweating
Richly vascularized dermis
Normal host for the human flea (Pulex irritans)
Dermal melanocytes absent
Melanocytes present in matrix of hair follicle
Epidermal lipids contain triglycerides and free fatty acids

FACIAL FEATURES
Lightly pigmented eyes common
Protruding, cartilaginous nose
Narrow eye opening
Short, thick upper lip
Philtrum/cleft lip
Glabrous mucous membrane bordering lips
Eyebrows
Heavy eyelashes
Earlobes

FEATURES RELATING TO BIPEDALITY
Short, dorsal spines on first six cervical vertebra
Seventh cervical vertebrae:
- long dorsal spine
- transverse foramens
Fewer floating and more non-floating ribs
More lumbar vertebrae
Fewer sacral vertebrae
More coccygeal vertebrae (long “tail bone”)
Centralized spine
Short pelvis relative to body length
Sides of pelvis turn forward
Sharp lumbo-sacral promontory
Massive gluteal muscles
Curved sacrum with short dorsal spines
Hind limbs longer than forelimbs
Femur:
- Condyles equal in size
- Knock-kneed
- Elliptical condyles
- Deep intercondylar notch at lower end of femur
- Deep patellar groove with high lateral lip
- Crescent-shaped lateral meniscus with two tibial insertions
Short malleolus medialis
Talus suited strictly for extension and flexion of the foot
Long calcaneus relative to foot (metatarsal) length
Short digits (relative to chimpanzee)
Terminal phalanges blunt (ungual tuberosities)
Narrow pelvic outlet

ORGANS
Diverticulum at cardiac end of stomach
Valves of Kerckring
Mesenteric arterial arcades
Multipyramidal kidneys
Heart auricles level
Tricuspid valve of heart
Laryngeal sacs absent
Vocal ligaments
Prostate encircles urethra
Bulbo-urethral glands present
Os penis (baculum) absent.
Hymen
Absence of periodic sexual swellings in female
Ischial callosities absent
Nipples low on chest
Bicornuate uterus (occasionally present in humans)
Labia majora

CRANIAL FEATURES
Brain lobes: frontal and temporal prominent
Thermoregulatory venous plexuses
Well-developed system of emissary veins
Enlarged nasal bones
Divergent eyes (interior of orbit visible from side)
Styloid process
Large occipital condyles
Primitive premolar
Large, blunt-cusped (bunodont) molars
Thick tooth enamel
Helical chewing

OTHER TRAITS
Nocturnal activity
Particular about place of defecation
Good swimmer, no fear of water
Extended male copulation time
Female orgasm
Short menstrual cycle
Snuggling
Tears
Alcoholism
Terrestrialism (Non-arboreal)
Able to exploit a wide range of environments and foods
Heart attack
Atherosclerosis
Cancer (melanoma)

Looking at a subset of the listed traits, however, it’s clear that the other parent in this hypothetical cross that produced the first human would be an intelligent animal with a protrusive, cartilaginous nose, a thick layer of subcutaneous fat, short digits, and a naked skin. It would be terrestrial, not arboreal, and adaptable to a wide range of foods and environments. These traits may bring a particular creature to mind. In fact, a particular nonprimate does have, not only each of the few traits just mentioned, but every one of the many traits listed in the sidebar. Ask yourself: Is it likely that an animal unrelated to humans would possess so many of the “human” characteristics that distinguish us from primates?

I like sushi

The guy is a kook. Maybe you could tell me when abouts he thinks this happened?

unenlightened

The guy is a kook. — I like sushi

Oh gosh, is he? I'd no idea. Well that changes everything.

Maybe you could tell me when abouts he thinks this happened? — I like sushi

Maybe he'll tell you himself, if you read what he says.

frank

Naked skin (sparse

Domestic pigs come from wild boars which are covered in fur. So this makes no sense.

Arkady

↪frank

Even domestic pigs don't really have "naked skin," per se: though they may be less hairy than their boar progenitors, they still have plenty of hair, which is why the carcasses of domestic pigs are generally scalded before they're butchered or otherwise processed.

wax

what may be more problematic for some people than the idea of pig/boar influence on human development, is the idea of the development and subsequent evolution of pigs.....may be a bit cannibalistic for some to eat pigs if our ancestors kind of crossed paths in the night millions of years ago.

Arkady

↪wax

Well, pigs engage in plenty of cannibalism themselves, so what's good for the, uh, goose is good for the gander.

T Clark

if a chimp crossed with a pig to produce a female hybrid, then the hybrid will have mostly pig mitochondrial DNA, won't it...? Is that part of what happened? I'm not sure how much mitochondrial DNA is passed on by a male father....I think there is mitochondrial DNA from the father present in the sperm, but not sure if any of that ends up in the offspring.. — wax

It is my understanding that all mitochrondial DNA is passed down by the mother. None from the father.

Top Hybridization-Geneticist suggests we're a Pig-Chimp Hybrid.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions