thplinth Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Anyone else read it? Very interesting indeed... http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html#.VCjzEymSyjJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 We are all hybrids. I am convinced that men and women are different species. One of the main drivers in evolution are mistakes. It can be mistakes in DNA copying or in this case mistakes in what species an animal decides to copulate with. Who knows the next big evolutionary change might come about because of the habits of certain fitba fans from up north. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted September 29, 2014 Author Share Posted September 29, 2014 We are all hybrids. In the paper he mentions that all animals today are likely hybrids of some kind. Speaking of evolution would you be Elephant Man on here in times past? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biffer Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Its an effort to frame creationism as science and seems a relatively poor one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted September 29, 2014 Author Share Posted September 29, 2014 (edited) Its an effort to frame creationism as science and seems a relatively poor one. With respect you are talking pish. Creationism?! WTF are you talking about? Bizarre. edit:no spoilers please. Edited September 29, 2014 by thplinth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giblet Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 will take a second look at my bacon roll next time. Interesting idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Crackpot idea that wouldn't get close to a peer reviewed journal thus published on the the author's own website, up there with L.Ron Hubbard and David Icke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted September 29, 2014 Author Share Posted September 29, 2014 will take a second look at my bacon roll next time. Interesting idea. Just an aside but that is the meat that tastes most like human flesh (I am informed) and it is also why they selected these particular animals for exposure to atomic bomb blasts as its skin is most similar to ours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted September 29, 2014 Author Share Posted September 29, 2014 Daily Mail covered it at the time as did quite a few other MSM outlets... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2515969/Humans-evolved-female-chimpanzee-mated-pig-Extraordinary-claim-American-geneticist.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biffer Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Daily Mail covered it at the time as did quite a few other MSM outlets... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2515969/Humans-evolved-female-chimpanzee-mated-pig-Extraordinary-claim-American-geneticist.html If the Daily Mail covered it, it must be true then. Their record for scientific accuracy in journalism is second to none. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biffer Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 With respect you are talking pish. Creationism?! WTF are you talking about? Bizarre. edit:no spoilers please. It's a quite obvious attempt to deny evolution by creating an alternative paradigm which doesn't require extended time periods. The whole set up of the article feels like an attempt to reach a particular conclusion by fitting the research to the outcome rather than the other way round, so it's pseudoscience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted September 29, 2014 Author Share Posted September 29, 2014 It's a quite obvious attempt to deny evolution... Wow. Keep digging there Biffer. ps who said it was true? I said it was interesting. It is also well written and well researched and it presents a fascinating hypothesis. Being a scientist I would have thought you could have grasped all this without me having to explain it. Personally I suspect you shot from the hip, made a fool out of yourself with the creationism rubbish and now are trying to save face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted September 29, 2014 Author Share Posted September 29, 2014 The appeal to the evilness of the Daily Mail was good too. Phys.org article http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Humans-emerged-from-male-pig-and-female-chimp-worlds-top-geneticist-says/articleshow/26648981.cms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Well reading the article he cites the 200,000 year record of our current biological integrity and human ancestors dating to 6 million years ago, so an actual reading of the text in the context of creationism seems really obviously not compatible at all, although reading the full texts is required to make that discovery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Biffer isn't a scientist he's a priest of contemporary science. Dogma guides his thinking. He obviously never even read the article properly before commenting otherwise we wouldn't be talking about creationism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted September 29, 2014 Author Share Posted September 29, 2014 The guy is actually trying bolster the theory of evolution by explaining certain anomalies. Took me several hours to read it at more than one sitting and at no point does creationism feature. Total rubbish from Biffer I am afraid to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 The guy is actually trying bolster the theory of evolution by explaining certain anomalies. Took me several hours to read it at more than one sitting and at no point does creationism feature. Total rubbish from Biffer I am afraid to say. here's his oxford university press book on the hybridization of birds "Handbook of Avian Hybrids of the World is the most comprehensive source of information on hybridization in birds. It is not only a reliable reference for the professional, but also a treasure trove of information for the serious birder. No other book on the topic approaches it in either scope or utility." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biffer Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Biffer isn't a scientist he's a priest of contemporary science. Dogma guides his thinking. He obviously never even read the article properly before commenting otherwise we wouldn't be talking about creationism. Oooh, get her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 (edited) Edited September 29, 2014 by phart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted September 29, 2014 Author Share Posted September 29, 2014 Other than the main hypothesis I found the technique for identify the hybrid fascinating.. First take out all the attributes we have in common with Chimpanzees and then look for all those uncommon attributes left over in one other animal. The theory is so outlandish at first glance yet he meticulously builds the case for it and by the end I was convinced, almost. It is a very interesting read even if you cannot accept his theory. Even if he is just taking the pish it is brilliant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted September 29, 2014 Author Share Posted September 29, 2014 Oooh, get her. He is dead right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Its an effort to frame creationism as science and seems a relatively poor one. How did you jump straight to creationism? That never even entered my head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 One thing I think is interesting about this, is that he is talking about hybrids which come about from interbreeding between different species. As a geneticist, I would have thought such concepts would be fairly meaningless to him. Separating life forms into different species has been a fairly arbitrary division done by generations of scientists over the years because it helps them to classify things. I think advances in genetics will totally redefine how we classify living things in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 (edited) We are all hybrids. I am convinced that men and women are different species. Same species, different gender. (No need to look too deep. Keep it simple.) It's a quite obvious attempt to deny evolution by creating an alternative paradigm which doesn't require extended time periods. The whole set up of the article feels like an attempt to reach a particular conclusion by fitting the research to the (pre-determined) outcome rather than the other way round, so it's pseudoscience. Funnily enough, that's what proponents of evolution has always done. Other than the main hypothesis I found the technique for identify the hybrid fascinating.. First take out all the attributes we have in common with Chimpanzees and then look for all those uncommon attributes left over in one other animal. The theory is so outlandish at first glance yet he meticulously builds the case for it and by the end I was convinced, almost. It is a very interesting read even if you cannot accept his theory. Even if he is just taking the pish it is brilliant. That's how satan works. It's all brilliant pish… " …the father of lies… " John 8:44 How did you jump straight to creationism? That never even entered my head. Nor mine. One thing I think is interesting about this, is that he is talking about hybrids which come about from interbreeding between different species. As a geneticist, I would have thought such concepts would be fairly meaningless to him. Separating life forms into different species has been a fairly arbitrary division done by generations of scientists over the years because it helps them to classify things. I think advances in genetics will totally redefine how we classify living things in the future. I don't know of an example of two different species (kinds) being able to reproduce. (I do agree that folk having different definitions and changing definitions only add to the confusion.) Edited September 30, 2014 by Scotty CTA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 One of the main drivers in evolution are mistakes. It can be mistakes in DNA copying or in this case mistakes in what species an animal decides to copulate with. Who knows the next big evolutionary change might come about because of the habits of certain fitba fans from up north. Of the countless billions upon billions of beneficial 'mistakes' needed for the impossibility of evolution to be true, could you please just name one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.