Originally posted by sonhouseThis guy is getting desperate in his attempt to get an acceptable evil-lution theory for humans. This is ridiculous because there can not be any chimp/pig hybrids, as one with the smallest amount of common sense and half a brain should know. Any similarites in physical characteristics is more llkely to be because they have the same Designer.
This guy thinks so, check it out, he compares not genes but physical characteristics:
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html
The Instructor
04 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsWell you said it. Half a brain.
This guy is getting desperate in his attempt to get an acceptable evil-lution theory for humans. This is ridiculous because there can not be any chimp/pig hybrids, as one with the smallest amount of common sense and half a brain should know. Any similarites in physical characteristics is more llkely to be because they have the same Designer.
The Instructor
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
04 Jul 13
Originally posted by sonhouseYeah that's total nonsense.
This guy thinks so, check it out, he compares not genes but physical characteristics:
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/07/02/the-mfap-hypothesis-for-the-origins-of-homo-sapiens/
I know you’re thinking we’ve had more than enough discussion of one simplistic umbrella hypothesis for the origin of unique human traits — the aquatic ape hypothesis — and it’s cruel of me to introduce another, but who knows, maybe the proponents of each will collide and mutually annihilate each other, and then we’ll all be happy. Besides, this new idea is hilarious. I’m calling it the MFAP hypothesis of human origins, which the original author probably wouldn’t care for (for reasons that will become clear in a moment), but I think it’s very accurate.
First, the author of this new hypothesis provides a convenient list of all the unique traits that distinguish humans from other primates, listed on the right. It falsely lists a number of traits that are completely non-unique (such as female orgasm and cancer), or are bizarre and irrelevant (“snuggling”, really?). It’s clearly a selective and distorted list made by someone with an agenda, so even though some items on the list are actually unusual traits, the list itself is a very poor bit of data. ....
05 Jul 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeI was surpised to see any support on my side at all, especially a post, from you of all people, of such an article like this. I especially liked his finishing two sentences.
Yeah that's total nonsense.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/07/02/the-mfap-hypothesis-for-the-origins-of-homo-sapiens/
I know you’re thinking we’ve had more than enough discussion of one simplistic umbrella hypothesis for the origin of unique human traits — the aquatic ape hypothesis — and it’s cruel of me to introduce another, b ...[text shortened]... the list are actually unusual traits, the list itself is a very poor bit of data. ....
"Human sperm is easily obtained (McCarthy probably has a plentiful supply in his pants), while artificial insemination of swine is routine. Perhaps McCarthy can report back when he has actually done the work."
The Instructor
05 Jul 13
1 edit
Just because it's published on phys.org, doesn't give it any more credibility than it would have otherwise. As for the pop "mankind from chimp" stuff, isn't the accepted theory a shared ancestor rather than a descent? Using that kind of sloppy wording only gives ammunition to that creationist neanderthal.
05 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by KewpieScience is done by humans. Humans make mistake, are biased, religious, stubborn, wishful etc. The great thing about the system we have for science of verification and peer review means that all these human attributes can be countered. The downside is that many really stupid ideas get thrown about and the public doesn't realise the difference between a wild hypothesis and a confirmed theory.
Using that kind of sloppy wording only gives ammunition to that creationist neanderthal.
Creationists can use such 'ammunition' when convincing fellow creationists, but they get a lot less traction when trying to convince those familiar with science and the scientific method.
It does however tend to slow down discussions however, because they genuinely think they have a valid point, so every time fossils are mentioned, some creationist will list a fraud or mistake or two and claim this sheds doubt on the whole topic, and we have to patiently explain why it doesn't.
As for the topic of the thread, it is obvious that the writer knows he is wrong, the clue being his insistence that genetic evidence will not be forthcoming. The question is why he wrote it. Is he trying to stir debate, is he trying to gain popularity, is he testing people critical thinking? Did he originally write it on April 1?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI wasn't actually supporting you.
I was surpised to see any support on my side at all, especially a post, from you of all people, of such an article like this. I especially liked his finishing two sentences.
"Human sperm is easily obtained (McCarthy probably has a plentiful supply in his pants), while artificial insemination of swine is routine. Perhaps McCarthy can report back when he has actually done the work."
The Instructor
You were saying that scientists were getting desperate to find an explanation
for the evolution of humans.
Which isn't true... And the idea being presented isn't actually evolution.
And is also total bunk.
You get the odd nutter in every field.
PZ who wrote the article I linked to is an Evolutionary Developmental Biologist
and University Lecturer.
He's also a prominent atheist.
You'd hate him.
He will tell you (and be right) that the entirety of modern biology rests on evolution.
Basically the entire first year of his course is just evidence piled upon evidence of
evolution and they still barely scratch the surface.
05 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsDisagreeing with a stupid theory isn't quite the same as agreeing with a different one. This theory is poor for a number of reasons. A mating event is very unlikely on behavioural grounds, which is a major mechanism for the enforcement of species boundaries. The next barrier is fertilization which may not be possible, assuming the resultant zygote works at all, it will have 48 chromosomes from the chimp (or rather member of the chimp/human ancestor species) and 38 from the pig. Differing chromosome counts aren't a complete barrier as some species are in the process of gaining or losing a chromosome and have a varying number within the same species. But the mismatch is just too big and something is going to fail, the blog googlefudge linked to explains this well. Most real world hybrids are between closely related species and almost always have one or other sex infertile. He'd have to at least demonstrate that fertilization is possible 😉 and a primate/pig zygote can divide in the first place.
I was surpised to see any support on my side at all, especially a post, from you of all people, of such an article like this. I especially liked his finishing two sentences.
"Human sperm is easily obtained (McCarthy probably has a plentiful supply in his pants), while artificial insemination of swine is routine. Perhaps McCarthy can report back when he has actually done the work."
The Instructor
There is such a thing as a humster, a test-tube hybridization of a human and a hamster (ethics? ), which is used to test donor sperm as well as for some embryo experiments. The Wikipedia page links to a paper you can read the abstract of and it is clear the cells are out of kilter. The human part is more agressive at DNA synthesis than the hamster part which indicates to me that too much is going to go wrong biochemically for anything viable to emerge.
06 Jul 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeI had a feeling it must be too good to be true. Well, whatever.
I wasn't actually supporting you.
You were saying that scientists were getting desperate to find an explanation
for the evolution of humans.
Which isn't true... And the idea being presented isn't actually evolution.
And is also total bunk.
You get the odd nutter in every field.
PZ who wrote the article I linked to is an Evolutionary Develo ...[text shortened]... just evidence piled upon evidence of
evolution and they still barely scratch the surface.
The Instructor