Between 1540 and 1542, Spanish explorer Francisco Vázquez de Coronado led an expedition that explored a section of the United States, including parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Coronado began his expedition searching for a city called Cibola, which was reported to be in a land of seven cities of gold.
He arrived at Cibola and found no gold, but he kept exploring. Near present-day Albuquerque, he received a report of a distant land known as Quivira - another supposed province of cities of gold and silver. Coronado set out to find this land of great wealth.
Coronado's quest for Quivira took him across the northern regions of Texas in 1541. He and his men described many of the motifs of the American West of yesteryear: the empty plains known as the Llano Estacado, the ravines of the Caprock Escarpment, the bison that roamed the plains, and the native tribes that followed and hunted the bison.
The most comprehensive first-hand account of Coronado's journey was written by Pedro de Castañeda, a soldier in Coronado's army. Another soldier, Juan Jaramillo, wrote a briefer, yet well-organized, account that adds to the information given by Castañeda. Additional details are found in letters written by Coronado himself and documents written by other persons, some anonymous.
All of this material was compiled and translated to English by George Parker Winship in The Coronado Expedition 1540-1542, published in Washington, D.C. in 1896. This article focuses on the Coronado Expedition's presence in present-day Texas. The rest of the expedition is only summarized briefly.
The Quest for Quivira - The Coronado Expedition was organized and financed chiefly by Coronado himself and by Antonio de Mendoza, the viceroy of New Spain, on the basis of reports of large native settlements in the wilderness to the north of Spain's existing claims in present-day Mexico.
The first of these reports came from the testimony of four men who traveled across present-day Texas and northern Mexico in 1535 and 1536. These men - Spaniards Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, Andrés Dorantes, Alonso del Castillo, and Dorantes's Moor slave, Estevanico - were shipwrecked on the Texas coast in 1528 with about 200 other members of the failed Narváez Expedition to Florida and were the only ones to return to Spanish civilization.
They told Viceroy Mendoza that during their travels, some of the natives they stayed with gave them a copper bell, which came from a village further north where copper was plentiful and the natives knew how to smelt and forge it. Mendoza sent Marcos de Niza, a Franciscan friar, into this wilderness in 1539, with Estevanico as his guide.
They got as far as a large town called Cibola. Estevanico, who had gone ahead of Friar Marcos, was killed by the natives of Cibola. When Marcos found this out, he was afraid to get too close, so he only saw Cibola from a distance.
Nevertheless, Marcos's report seemed to confirm what everyone wanted to believe: that in this tierra nueva, or "new land," there was a province with seven cities of gold, one of which was Cibola.
While it may seem obvious to us today that the Spaniards' belief that they were going to find cities of gold in the southwestern United States - or anywhere else - was outlandish and foolish, one must remember that in 1519, Hernán Cortés did discover a city of gold: the Aztec city of Tenocthitlan - present-day Mexico City.
In 1526, Francisco Pizarro discovered the even more wealthy Inca land of Peru. To the Spaniards in the New World in 1540, the question was not whether large native cities full of gold and other treasures could exist; the question was when and where they were going to find the next one.
Coronado's expedition officially launched from Compostela, in present-day Nayarit, Mexico, on February 23, 1540. In July, Coronado found Cibola in present-day New Mexico, near the New Mexico-Arizona state line.
It was smaller and much less impressive than he was expecting, and it contained no gold. Coronado's men vented so many curses upon Friar Marcos that he had to go back to Mexico, fearing for his own safety.
Coronado conquered the town and then sent captains out to explore the neighboring provinces, because there was still hope that the cities they were looking for were out there.
After all, Marcos had merely corroborated (and possibly enhanced) other reports that had been going around for a while. Just because he was wrong about Cibola being a city of gold did not mean there were not cities of gold somewhere else.
While the Spaniards were still at Cibola, trying to figure out their next move, some natives came from a province called Cicuye to welcome them. Their leader had a long mustache, so the Spaniards called him Bigotes, the Spanish word for mustache or whiskers.
Bigotes guided a company of Spanish soldiers led by Captain Hernando de Alvarado to a province called Tiguex, a group of about a dozen villages on the Rio Grande north of present-day Albuquerque, near Bernalillo. Finding Tiguex to be a good place to set up a camp, Alvarado sent messengers back to Coronado to advise him to bring the army there.
Next, Bigotes took Alvarado another five days northeast to Cicuye, which was on the Pecos River, southeast of present-day Santa Fe. There Alvarado met an Indian who the natives of Cicuye were holding captive. Castañeda wrote that this Indian was from an unknown land "of the country toward Florida,"1 which was what the Spaniards called the entire southeastern United States.
The Spaniards called him The Turk "because he looked like one."2 The Turk told Alvarado that he knew of a land where there were many large villages full of gold and silver. Alvarado took The Turk with him back to Tiguex to await Coronado and give him the exciting news.
When The Turk met Coronado, he told him about the rich country of Quivira. He said that the ruler of Quivira slept under a tree on which a great number of little gold bells were tied, which tinkled him to sleep as the branches moved. He also said that the jugs and bowls from which everyone ate were made of wrought gold, and the river contained fishes as big as horses.
It was unfortunate for the natives of Tiguex, who were called Tiwa, that the Spaniards arrived in their province in autumn, for as eager as the Spaniards were to let The Turk take them to Quivira, winter was coming. Travel was always more difficult in winter, especially for people from warm climates.
Food was harder to find, the need for clothing, shelter, and firewood was greater, and snow and ice made marching more difficult. The Spaniards postponed their journey until the spring. In the meantime, they expected the Tiwa to furnish them dwellings, food, and clothing.
The Tiwa were happy to do this at first, as a gesture of friendship to travelers, but not on a continuing basis for men who would not leave and who did nothing to support themselves.
Furthermore, the Spaniards seized Bigotes and another leader of Cicuye for allegedly hiding gold from them, and at least one Tiwa woman was raped. The Tiwa rebelled, and the Spaniards spent the winter of 1540-1541 waging war against them. The Tiwa ultimately had to flee to the mountains.
When spring finally came, Coronado marched his army out of Tiguex. His first stop was Cicuye, where he returned Bigotes to his people. Bigotes and the chief of Cicuye gave Coronado a guide named Xabe, who was from Quivira.
Xabe told the Spaniards that there was gold and silver in Quivira, but not as much as The Turk had said. Another native of Quivira, named Ysopete, told Coronado that The Turk was lying and should not be trusted.
The Turk stuck to his story and advised Coronado to pack the horses lightly, because they would need their strength to carry back all the gold and silver he would find. Coronado chose to listen to The Turk and let him guide his army to Quivira, but he brought the other guides as well.
Leaving Cicuye, the Spaniards crossed a river and then entered some plains that seemed to go on forever. These plains were inhabited by immense herds of bison and by natives called Querechos who followed and hunted the bison.
The Querechos did not know of Quivira, so Coronado continued to let The Turk guide his army. Little did he know, but The Turk was not leading him to Quivira. Instead, he was taking Coronado and his men toward his home country, in the direction of Florida.
It took almost a month for the army to cross the plains. The Spaniards eventually found some ravines and camped in them. In that area, they met some natives called Teyas, who followed and hunted the bison just like the Querechos, but were enemies with them.
The Teyas knew about Quivira. They said it was not nearly as large or grand as The Turk had made it out to be, and they were not going the right direction, for they had been traveling east, while Quivira was to the north, more than 40 days away.
Everything they said corroborated what Ysopete had been telling Coronado about Quivira and The Turk's untrustworthiness. Coronado had come this far, though, and could not take a chance on passing up his opportunity for wealth.
He decided to park the main part of his army in the ravines and continue on to Quivira with thirty men on horseback. The Turk, who Coronado had lost confidence in, was placed in chains, and Ysopete took over as the main guide.
A few days after leaving the ravine, Coronado sent messengers back, ordering his army to regroup and wait for him at Tiguex. After about six weeks, he and his company reached Quivira, which was in central Kansas.
Like Cibola, Quivira was a bust - nothing like The Turk had described, and nothing like the Spaniards had hoped for. The villages were small, the houses were crude, and while there was some copper, there was not a lot of it, and there was no gold or silver.
The Turk then confessed that he had been trying to get the Spaniards lost so that they would die on the plains, He said that the natives of Cicuye put him up to this deception as revenge for treating them so poorly. Coronado had The Turk garroted for his treachery.
Despite his disappointment with Quivira, Coronado was nevertheless impressed with the agricultural productivity of the land. He thought it might be worth placing a settlement there, but by the time his little exploratory party regrouped with the main army back at Tiguex, it was October and, once again, too late in the year to travel. The plan to return to Quivira and place a settlement there was postponed until the spring.
Morale in the camp during the winter of 1541-1542 was poor. Not only had the expedition been a huge disappointment so far, but good clothing was getting scare, the men had lice, and the natives were unhelpful. Some men complained that others were receiving preferential treatment in the distribution of rations and work assignments.
Then, one day while Coronado was amusing himself with a friendly race against one of his captains, his saddle cinch broke. He fell off his horse, and the horse struck his head with its hoof while it was still running. Coronado was severely injured. Believing he might die soon, he wanted to return home to see his wife first.
According to Castañeda, Coronado secretly had certain men spread the idea that the expedition ought to end. His captains then presented a signed petition requesting for the army to return to New Spain. Coronado signed it under feigned protest, and then the march home began. He made a full recovery on the way back.
Coronado's expedition greatly expanded Spain's knowledge of the North American continent, but because it found no gold and did not establish any new colonies, it was considered a complete failure at the time. Prairie Dogs in MacKenzie Park in Lubbock - Figure 2.
Prairie dogs in MacKenzie Park in Lubbock. These members of the squirrel family received the name "prairie dog" because they make a dog-like barking sound. As this photo shows, they clear most of the vegetation from around their burrows.
The Llano Estacado - Historians have long known that Coronado passed through Texas because of his and other witnesses' descriptions of the flat, featureless prairie between Cicuye and Quivira. Coronado himself was the first person to leave a written description of the region geographers call the Llano Estacado:
I reached some plains, so vast that I did not find their limit anywhere that I went, although I traveled over them for more than 300 leagues ... I reached some plains, with no more landmarks than as if we had been swallowed up in the sea, where they [the guides] strayed about, because there was not a stone, nor a bit of rising ground, nor a tree, nor a shrub, nor anything to go by.
Due to the curvature of the Earth, When a person is standing on a hill or a tall structure, he can see further than when he is standing on the ground. By the same token, when he is standing on the ground, he can see hills, trees, tall buildings, and other features of the landscape even though they are far away.
When he is standing on the ground, however, and there are no tall features he can see, his vision is limited to the ground in a three-mile radius around him - everything else is sky.
Similarly, if there is no land in sight, a man standing on the deck of a ship cannot see anything but a few miles of water in every direction. This is what Coronado meant when he compared the plains to being "swallowed up in the sea." Castañeda wrote that the plains were "like a bowl, so that when a man sits down, the horizon surrounds him all around at the distance of a crossbow shot."
Castañeda also wrote about the great difficulty the Spaniards had finding their way around this endless, empty landscape. Not only were there no landmarks, but a men or company of men could not even retrace their own steps in the grass, because it was short and always straightened back up after being walked upon.
This "buffalo grass," as it is now called, is a popular turf grass in dry areas because it remains less than 12 inches tall even if it is never mowed. To keep from getting lost on the plains, the Spaniards made piles out of stones mixed with cow dung.
Despite taking this precaution, when the Spaniards left the ravine where they were camping to hunt, many men got lost for two or three days, "wandering about the country as if they were crazy, in one direction or another, not knowing how to get back where they started from."
The men in the camp fired guns, blew trumpets, beat drums, and built great fires to help the hunters find their way back. Castañeda wrote that the natives made their way across the plains by shooting an arrow in the direction they wanted to go and walking toward the shaft sticking out of the ground. Before they reached the arrow, they would shoot another one past it, using the first one to aim by.
In addition to bison, the animals the Spaniards saw on the Llano Estacado included wolves, deer, and rabbits. The rabbits, Castañeda wrote, would flee from a person on foot, but not from a man on a horse, making it easy to kill them with lances from horseback. They also saw "large numbers of animals like squirrels and a great number of their holes,"6 i.e., prairie dogs.
The Llano Estacado can easily be seen in the map in Figure 1 at right. It covers the northwestern part of Texas and the eastern side of New Mexico, stretching about 100 miles west and about 50 miles east of the Texas-New Mexico state line.
It is bounded on the north by the Canadian River, which runs west-to-east across the Texas Panhandle north of Amarillo. The Caprock Escarpment, a long cliff approximately 300 feet high, is where the Llano Estacado transitions into rolling plains. The Texas cities of Amarillo, Lubbock, Midland, and Odessa are on the Llano Estacado.
All of the witnesses reported seeing huge roaming herds of bison, which they called "cows," and which are also commonly called buffalo. Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, one of the four survivors of the Narváez Expedition, gives us the earliest written description of these animals, but Castañeda's description is longer and more thorough. In part, it reads:
Now that I wish to describe the appearance of the bulls, it is to be noticed first that there was not one of the horses that did not take flight when he saw them first, for they have a narrow, short face, the brow two palms across from eye to eye, the eyes sticking out at the side, so that, when they are running, they can see who is following them.
They have very long beards, like goats, and when they are running they throw their heads back with the beard dragging on the ground. There is a sort of girdle round the middle of the body.
The hair is very woolly, like a sheep's, very fine, and in front of the girdle the hair is very long and rough like a lion's. They have a great hump, larger than a camel's. The horns are short and thick, so that they are not seen much above the hair. In May they change the hair in the middle of the body for a down, which makes perfect lions of them.
They rub against the small trees in the little ravines to shed their hair, and they continue this until only the down is left, as a snake changes his skin. They have a short tail, with a bunch of hair at the end. When they run, they carry it erect like a scorpion. It is worth noticing that the little calves are red and just like ours, but they change their color and appearance with time and age.
Castañeda also observed that when the Spaniards first saw the bison, they went for over 100 miles, seeing countless numbers of bulls without a single female member of the species among them. The explanation for this is that the Spaniards arrived in bison country in May, which is calving season, and the bison bulls were forming a protective circle around the cows and their newborn calves.
Coronado did not describe the bison's appearance, but he did remark about how numerous they were. "I found such a quantity of cows ... which they have in this country, that it is impossible to number them, for while I was journeying through these plains, until I returned to where I first found them, there was not a day that I lost sight of them."
Another witness wrote, "There is such a quantity of them that I do not know what to compare them with, except with the fish of the sea ... there were so many that many times when we started to pass through the midst of them and wanted to go through to the other side of them, we were not able to, because the country was covered with them."
Although the huge herds of roaming bison are gone now, the section of the Llano Estacado that the Coronado Expedition crossed - approximately the northern half, between Amarillo and Lubbock - remains an excellent country for supporting large numbers of cattle. In 2012, six of Texas' ten counties with the largest cattle population were in this region.
The Querechos and the Teyas - The members of the Coronado Expedition met two tribes of natives on the Llano Estacado: the Querechos, who lived closer to Cicuye, and the Teyas, who lived closer to Quivira. Both tribes were nomadic and roamed with the bison herds, which they depended upon for everything. Not only did they eat their flesh, often raw, but they also drank their blood.
For this, they would make a canteen from one of the bowels, fill it with blood, and place it around their necks. They even drank the bison's stomach juice, squeezing it out of the chewed grass.
They used the hides to make clothing and tent coverings. For what little they needed that they could not get from the bison, they would go to the settlements, such as Cicuye and Quivira, in the winter and trade their bison hides with the other natives.
Castañeda does not make any distinctions between the Querechos and the Teyas, other than their areas of habitation, and implies that they were different subsets of the same race and culture. They were well-built, attractive-looking, and well-dressed.
The Spaniards considered them to be very intelligent because they were able to make themselves completely understood through sign language. They saddled their dogs and used them to carry their belongings and pull their tents behind them with poles. They were friendly and did not engage in practices the Spanish considered offensive, such as cannibalism or idolatry.
In 1601, Juan de Oñate led another expedition to the area east of Cicuye area. He met the Querechos and gave them the name they are better known by: Apaches. The amiable relations between Coronado's men and the Querechos did not exist in later generations, for conflict between Apaches and Spaniards was almost incessant in the 18th century.
The identity of the Teyas is an unsettled question, because neither Oñate nor any subsequent group of Europeans encountered them again. Based on the texts' indication that the Querechos and the Teyas were two groups of the same people, however, it seems likely that the Teyas were also Apaches, for the name Apache is actually a collective reference to a couple of dozen or so individual tribes.
The name Teyas has invited some speculation. About 150 years after Coronado, some Spaniards called a tribe of Caddo Indians "Tejas," which sounded like the Caddo word for "friend." Possibly, the question was asked, "What do you call your neighbors?" and the answer was given, "friends."
The men who wrote about the Coronado Expedition do not explain how they came to call the natives of the plains Teyas, so whether or not it has the same etymology as Tejas, or whether the similarity between their names is merely a coincidence, is unknown.
Cabeza de Vaca's Party - When Coronado's party came to the ravines, and apparently before they met the Teyas, they met a group of Indians who told them about a previous party of Spanish explorers. Jaramillo writes:
"There was an old blind man with a beard, who gave us to understand, by signs which he made, that he had seen four others like us many days before, whom he had seen near there and rather more toward New Spain, and we so understood him, and presumed that it was Dorantes and Cabeza de Vaca and those whom I have mentioned."
Jaramillo's conclusion (or presumption) that the four men who the blind bearded man remembered were Cabeza de Vaca's party is sound, and not just from his description of them as "four others like us."
In their written accounts of the Narváez Expedition, Cabeza de Vaca and his companions stated that they usually returned most of the gifts that the natives offered to them, taking only whatever food they needed and the occasional trinket for themselves, but giving all the rest back.
Furthermore, the natives, who regarded Cabeza de Vaca and his companions as "children of the sun," always insisted that they bless them, touch them, bless their food, bless their children, and even heal their sicknesses. Castañeda writes that these natives who remembered Cabeza de Vaca's party offered a pile of skins to Coronado's men, and then were stunned and saddened when Coronado took them and divided them among his men.
"They thought," Castañeda writes, "that the strangers were not going to take anything, but would bless them as Cabeza de Vaca and Dorantes had done when they passed through here."
Jaramillo's statement that the natives had seen Cabeza de Vaca's party "near there" and Castañeda statement that they "passed through here" can be misleading. Cabeza de Vaca's party of four survivors escaped from their Indian captors in present-day south Texas, went south across the Rio Grande, then turned their journey northwest so that they re-crossed the Rio Grande in west Texas.
They followed that river's north bank up to El Paso and then crossed it again into New Mexico and northern Mexico. They never entered the Llano Estacado and never went within 300 miles of Blanco Canyon. (For our analysis of Cabeza de Vaca's party's route across west Texas, see our article, The Narváez Expedition in West Texas.)
Jaramillo, however, does not tell us directly that Cabeza de Vaca's party passed near there; quite on the contrary, he said the old blind man communicated with them through signs, as opposed to through an interpreter,12 that this is what the Spaniards understood him to say, and even then, the location of meeting seemed to be "rather more toward New Spain," i.e., Mexico.
Castañeda does more succinctly state that Cabeza de Vaca's party "passed through here," but that is probably a further misunderstanding. When Coronado's army was on the march, Coronado usually had an advance guard go in front of the main body.
The natives who told the Spaniards about Cabeza de Vaca's party were found by this advance guard, which was then under the command of Captain Rodrigo Maldonado.
The perspective of each of the writers suggests that Jaramillo was with Maldonado's company at the time, while Castañeda was with the main army. It appears that by the time the old blind man's news reached Castañeda, the revelation that, as best as they understood, Cabeza de Vaca's party had been "seen near there and rather more toward New Spain," had been simplified to "they passed through here."
If it is true that Cabeza de Vaca's party stayed near the Rio Grande and Indians in Blanco Canyon remembered seeing them, that means those Indians were either visiting Blanco Canyon when Coronado's men came through, were visiting the Rio Grande when Cabeza de Vaca came through, or both.
This would not be all that unusual. Both the Coronado and Cabeza de Vaca expedition records tell of natives who traveled hundreds of miles either for trade or to visit seasonal feeding grounds.
There is one more interesting piece of information Coronado's men observed about the natives who remembered Cabeza de Vaca's party. Castañeda notes, "they found a female here who was as white as a Castilian lady."
This implies that Cabeza de Vaca and his Spanish companions sowed their seed with the natives.14 Cabeza de Vaca and his companions never report having any unchaste interactions with the natives during their seven years in Texas, but their accounts do have a few intriguing hints to that effect, such as a statement by Cabeza de Vaca that each of one of the four slept in a separate hut with "all of his company."
The Jimmy Owens Site - Until recently, the route that the Coronado Expedition took across the Llano Estacado was poorly understood. In general, the texts indicate that the men traveled in a mostly easterly direction and descended the Caprock Escarpment, then, after they spoke with the Teyas and changed guides from The Turk to Ysopete, they turned and went more north or northeast to Quivira.
A well-known interpretation of Coronado's route, shown in Figure 6 at right, has the expedition passing by Amarillo and descending the Red River through the Palo Duro Canyon. As of this writing, this is still the most common interpretation that one finds when searching the internet. It is, however, out of date.
The first archeological evidence of a European presence in north Texas was a chain-mail gauntlet found in the 1960s. This gauntlet was a three-fingered type that was commonly worn by Spanish swordsmen. It was discovered in Blanco Canyon in Floyd County, about 70 miles south of Palo Duro Canyon.
Although it was an interesting and exciting find, it did not prove Coronado's presence there, for an item such as that could have easily been carried over a long distance by natives as a curiosity or item of trade. Furthermore, Oñate crossed northern Texas in 1601, and his men wore gauntlets also, so there is no way to know which expedition this gauntlet came from.
In 1993, Jimmy Owens, described as a "metal-detector buff," found some copper and iron crossbow points in Blanco Canyon. Owens took his finds to archeologist Don Blakeslee. Blakeslee and historian Richard Flint confirmed that the arrow points were of the same general type that had been found at Coronado's encampment near Albuquerque.
Furthermore, crossbows were already being phased out in favor of firearms by the 1540s, and by 1600, they were no longer used, so Coronado's expedition would be the only source for them in that part of the continent.
In 1995, Flint and Blakeslee went to Blanco Canyon and found some broken shards of pottery. This reminded them of a ferocious hailstorm described by Castañeda: While the army was resting in this ravine, as we have related, a tempest came up one afternoon with a very high wind and hail, and in a very short space of time a great quantity of hailstones, as big as bowls, or bigger, fell as thick as raindrops ...
The hail broke many tents, and battered many helmets, and wounded many of the horses, and broke all the crockery of the army, and the gourds, which was no small loss, because they do not have any crockery in this region.
Castañeda's observation that the bison-hunting natives - the Querechos and the Teyas - did not use pottery is significant, for it supports the theory that the shards found by Blakeslee and Flint were brought in from elsewhere. On Labor Day weekend in 1995, Blakeslee, Flint, and Owens came out together to Blanco Canyon.
After a second visit in January 1996, they had recovered more than 40 copper and iron crossbow points, dozens of Spanish-era iron horseshoe nails, and more pottery shards. Castañeda wrote that the horses ran wild across the ravine during the hailstorms and had to be rounded back up.
Flint speculated that the crossbow points may have been in bags that were damaged in the hailstorm and were then scattered as the horses ran across the ravine. Based on the accumulated evidence, in April 1996, Blakeslee held a press conference in Washington, D.C. to announce that Coronado used Blanco Canyon as a campsite in 1541.
The site was named after Jimmy Owens, the metal-detector buff who made the breakthrough discovery. The Owens site is on private property in southern Floyd County, south of the town of Floydada, and about 40 miles northeast of Lubbock.
A Texas historical marker was erected near the site on U.S. Highway 62 at Blanco Canyon in 2000. The crossbow points and other artifacts found at the site are on display in the Floyd County Historical Museum.
Prior to the finds at the Owens site, historians knew that Coronado passed through the Llano Estacado of Texas and knew that he descended the Caprock Escarpment, but otherwise, there was a great deal of uncertainty in interpreting his route.
As Figure 6 shows, the prevailing opinion was that he stayed in the Panhandle region in the vicinity of Amarillo, the Canadian River, and the Red River.
The Owens site shows that he went further south, into the High Plains region in the vicinity of Lubbock and the Brazos River. This means the map in Figure 6 is now obsolete, and a new route analysis should be performed. That will be the subject of an upcoming article on this web site.
http://www.texascounties.net/articles/texas-in-the-16th-century/coronado-expedition.htm
The Mayflower was an English ship that transported the first English Puritans, known today as the Pilgrims, from Plymouth, England to the New World in 1620. There were 102 passengers, and the crew is estimated to have been about 30, but the exact number is unknown.
1517 – The Aztec priests mark the sighting of a comet in the night sky. They believe the comet was a sign of impending doom.
Less than three years had passed since he set foot on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, he had destroyed the greatest power in Mesoamerica with a relative handful of men. Like many of those who would eventually become conquistadors, Hernan Cortés was born in the Castilian province of Extremadura, in the small city of Medellín.
His father Martin Cortés de Monroy, was a captain in the Spanish army and his mother, Catalina Pizarro Altamirano. They were a fairly famous and minor noble family. Hernán Cortés was also a distant cousin to Francisco Pizarro, the explorer who conquered the Incan empire in Peru.
When Cortes‘ was fourteen he was sent by his parents to study law at the University of Salamanca, in west-central Spain. Francisco López de Gómara, who served as Cortes‘ secretary, described him as ruthless, haughty, mischievous, and quarrelsome, and “a source of trouble to his parents.”
Certainly he was “much given to women,” frustrated by provincial life, and excited by stories of the Indies Columbus had just discovered.
He set out for the east coast port of Valencia with an idea of serving in the Italian wars, but instead he wandered idly about for nearly a year.” Clearly Spain’s southern ports, with ships coming in full of the wealth and colour of the Indies, proved a greater attraction.
In 1504, he sought passage on a ship to Santo Domingo, Hispaniola (modern day Dominican Republic). Cortés began farming in the Spanish colony, which brought him much wealth, and he owned several native slaves, eventually he was able to try exploration when he joined a mission led by Diégo Velasquez in 1511.
When he returned, he promised to marry Catalina Suarez, the sister of his friend Juan Suarez, but backed out at the last minute. Velasquez, now governor of Cuba, imprisoned Cortés for not upholding his promise, because he was also a relative of Catalina, and Cortes‘ refusal to marry her, would have brought shame on his family. Eventually, Cortés agreed to marry Catalina, but relations between Velázquez and Cortés remained tense.
Spanish First Contact in Mexico - The first European to visit Mexican territory was Francisco Hernandez de Cordoba. Cordoba’s reports on his return to Cuba prompted the Spanish governor there, Diego Velasquez, to send a larger force back to Mexico under the command of Hernan Cortes.
Cortés was appointed to lead an expedition to conquer the interior of Mexico in 1518. Velázquez then withdrew the order because he grew suspicious of Cortés’ strong will and thirst for power. Cortés disobeyed Velasquez and sailed for the coast of Yucatán in February, 1519, He had 11 ships, 508 soldiers, about 100 sailors, and—most important—16 horses.
His expedition landed near Potonchan, a city ruled by the Maya. The locals did not want to deal with the Spanish, but before long the two sides were battling. The Spanish, with their armor and steel weapons, easily won and soon local leaders asked for peace. The lord of Potonchan gave the Spanish 20 women, one of whom was Malinali.
Malinali was born sometime around 1500, in the town of Painala. Malinali was born in the town of Painala, where her father was chieftain. When her father died, her mother remarried the chief of another town and they had a son together.
Supposedly, not wishing to jeopardize her new son’s inheritance, Malinali’s mother sold her into slavery in secret, telling the people of the town that she had died. Slavers from Xicallanco, bought her and sold her to the lord of Potonchan when the Spanish arrived in 1519.
Cortes handed the women and girls out to his captains. Malinali was initially given to Alonso Hernandez Portocarrero and was baptized as Doña Marina. Around this time, some began calling her “Malinche,” and it is by that name that she is now best known.
Cortes noticed Malinche had a gift for languages realized how valuable she was, so he took her back for himself. She was fluent in Maya and Nahuatl, and quickly picked up Spanish. In March 1519, Cortes landed at the town of Tabasco, where he learned from the natives of the great Aztec civilization, then ruled by Montezuma II.
Cortés sailed to another spot on the southeastern Mexican coast and founded Veracruz, mainly to have himself elected captain general and chief justice by his soldiers as citizens, thus shaking off the authority of Velázquez. On the mainland Cortés did what no other expedition leader had done: he exercised and disciplined his army, welding it into a cohesive force.
But the ultimate expression of his determination to deal with disaffection occurred when he sank his ships. By that single action he committed himself and his entire force to survival by conquest. Cortes and some reaming 400 soldiers then marched into Mexico, aided by a native woman, known as Malinche, who served as a translator.
Malinali, more commonly known as “Malinche,” was a native Mexican woman who was given to the conquistador Hernan Cortes as a slave in 1519. Malinali , even more importantly, helped Cortes‘ understand local cultures and politics. Malinali became pregnant by Cortes‘ and they had a son named Martin sometimes referred to as “El Mestizo”.
Metizo, was a term traditionally used in Spain, Latin America, and the Philippines. Originally , the term signified a person of combined European and Native American descent, regardless of where the person was born. Due to instability within the Aztec empire, Cortes was able to form alliances with other native peoples like the Tlascalans, who were then at war with Montezuma.
The key to Cortés’s subsequent conquests lay in the political crisis within the Aztec empire; the Aztecs were bitterly resented by many of the subject peoples who had to pay tribute to them. The ability of Cortés as a leader is nowhere more apparent than in his quick grasp of the situation—a grasp that was ultimately to give him more than 200,000 Indian allies.
Montezuma II - The nation of Tlaxcala, for instance, was in a state of chronic war with Montezuma II, ruler of the Aztec empire of Mexico, resisted Cortés at first, but became his most faithful ally. Cortés, rejected Montezuma’s threats to keep away from the Aztec capitol, and entered the city in November, 1519, with his small Spanish force and only 1,000 Tlaxcaltecs.
Montezuma however, received him with great honor, in accordance Aztec culture and partially due to Cortes’ physical resemblance Quetzalcoatl, whose return was prophesied in Aztec legend. Cortés then decided to seize Montezuma , in order to control the country through its monarch, but Spanish politics and envy were soon to torment Cortés throughout his meteoric career.
A Spanish force from Cuba, led by Pánfilo Narváez, to deprive Cortés of his command while holding the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlán by little more than the force of his personality. Cortés marched against Narváez, defeated him, and enlisted his army in his own forces, but to do so , he had to leave Tenochtitlán under the command of his most reckless captain, Pedro de Alvarado.
On his return, he found the Spanish garrison in Tenochtitlán besieged by the Aztecs. Alvarado had massacred many leading Aztec chiefs during a festival and Montezuma died under mysterious circumstances while in custody. Hard pressed and lacking food, Cortés decided to leave the city by night.
The Spaniards’ retreat from the capital was performed, but with a heavy loss in lives and most of the treasure they had accumulated. After six days of retreat Cortés won the battle of Otumba over the Aztecs who were chasing him in pursuit.
Cuauhtemoc, the young nephew of Montezuma, took over as emperor, and the Aztecs drove the Spaniards from the city. Cortes mounted an offensive against Tenochtitlan, finally defeating Cuauhtemoc’s resistance on Aug. 13, 1521. In all, some 240,000 people were believed to have died in the city’s conquest.
House by house, street by street, building by building, his men pulled down the Aztec capitol of Tenochtitlan’s walls and smashed them into rubble. After his victory, Cortes razed Tenochtitlan and built Mexico City on its ruins. In 1520, Culhuacan is conquered and is soon incorporated into the colonial administrative region of New Spain.
Aztec Warriors and Weapons - It quickly became the premier European center in the New World. Invaders led by the Spanish conquistador Hernan Cortes overthrew the Aztecs by force and captured the city Tenochtitlan in 1521.
After subduing the neighboring territories he laid siege to the city itself, conquering it street by street until its capture was completed. This victory marked the fall of the Aztec empire.
It also made Cortés the absolute ruler of a huge territory, from the Caribbean Sea to the Pacific Ocean and he now needed Malinche more than ever to help him govern his new empire. He kept her close to him, but later , Cortes encouraged Malinche to marry Juan Jaramillo, one of his captains.
She would eventually bear Jaramillo a child as well. In the meantime, Velázquez was mounting an insidious political attack on Cortés in Spain through Bishop Juan Rodríguez de Fonseca and the Council of the Indies. Cuauhtemoc, the last Aztec emperor, in Ixcateopan, Mexico, and was tortured and executed by Spanish conqueror Hernan Cortes.
To say that modern Mexicans have mixed feelings about Malinche is an understatement. Many of them despise her and consider her a traitor who helped the Spanish conquer their ancestors. Others forgive her treachery, pointing out that as a slave given away freely to the invaders, she didn’t feel loyalty to her native culture.
Some see her as a powerful woman, who enjoyed a level of freedom and influence that few women, whether native or Spanish, had at the time. In 1524 his restless urge to explore and conquer took Cortes south to the jungles of Honduras. The two arduous years he spent on this disastrous expedition damaged his health and his position.
His property was seized by the officials he had left in charge, and reports of the cruelty of their administration and the chaos it created,aroused concern in Spain. The Spanish bureaucrats sent out a commission of inquiry under Luis Ponce de León, and, when he died almost immediately, Cortés was accused of poisoning him and was forced to retire to his estate.
In 1528 Cortés sailed for Spain to plead his cause in person with the king. He brought with him a great wealth of treasure and a magnificent entourage. He was received by the court at Toledo, and confirmed as captain general (but not as governor), and created Marqués del Valle. He also remarried, into a noble family.
The Spanish introduced a new class system to Mexico. He returned to New Spain in 1530 and found the country in a state of anarchy. Cortes also had many accusations made against him—even that he had murdered his first wife, Catalina, who had died under suspicious circumstances earlier that year.
After reasserting his position and reestablishing some sort of order, Cortes‘ retired to his estates at Cuernavaca, about 30 miles (48 km) south of Mexico City. There he concentrated on the building of his palace and Pacific exploration.
Finally a viceroy was appointed, so, Cortés returned to Spain. By then he had become thoroughly disillusioned, his life made miserable by litigation. In the end he was permitted to return to Mexico, but he died before he had even reached Seville.
https://www.roughdiplomacy.com/cortes-lands-in-mexico/
This country presents a very fine appearance, than which I have not seen a better in all our Spain nor Italy nor a part of France, nor, indeed, in the other countries in which I have travelled in Ilis Majesty's service, for it is not a very rough country, but is made up of hillocks and plains, and very fine appearing rivers and streams, which certainly satisfied me and made me sure that it will be very fruitful in all sorts of products. Indeed, there is profit in the cattle ready to the hand, from the quantity of them, which is as great as one could imagine.
We found a variety of Castilian prunes which are not all red, but some of them black and green: the tree and fruit is certainly like that of Castile, with a very excellent flavor. Among the cows we found flax, which springs up from the earth in clumps apart from each other, which are noticeable, as the cattle do not eat it, with their tops and blue flowers, and very perfect although small, and sumach like ours in Spain. There are grapes along some streams, of a fair flavor, not to be improved upon.
The houses which these Indians have were of straw, and most of them round, and the straw reached down to the ground like a wall, so that they did not have the symmetry or the style of these here ; they have something like a chapel or sentry box outside and around these, with an entry, where ghe Indians appear seated or reclining.
Between 1540 and 1542, Spanish explorer Francisco Vázquez de Coronado led an expedition that explored a section of the United States, including parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Coronado began his expedition searching for a city called Cibola, which was reported to be in a land of seven cities of gold.
He arrived at Cibola and found no gold, but he kept exploring. Near present-day Albuquerque, he received a report of a distant land known as Quivira - another supposed province of cities of gold and silver. Coronado set out to find this land of great wealth.
Coronado's quest for Quivira took him across the northern regions of Texas in 1541. He and his men described many of the motifs of the American West of yesteryear: the empty plains known as the Llano Estacado, the ravines of the Caprock Escarpment, the bison that roamed the plains, and the native tribes that followed and hunted the bison.
The most comprehensive first-hand account of Coronado's journey was written by Pedro de Castañeda, a soldier in Coronado's army. Another soldier, Juan Jaramillo, wrote a briefer, yet well-organized, account that adds to the information given by Castañeda.
http://www.texascounties.net/articles/texas-in-the-16th-century/coronado-expedition.htm
https://books.google.com/books?id=sjw8AAAAYAAJ&pg=PR10&lpg=PR10&dq=captain+juan+jaramillo+explorer&source=bl&ots=uwvQXdUpXm&sig=ACfU3U2fu7HFBNo_yiaZPz4k4NShyVCyCQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCzfHJhYHnAhVJG80KHTwFDMkQ6AEwEnoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=captain%20juan%20jaramillo%20explorer&f=false
The Silk Road is arguably the most famous long-distance trade route in the ancient world. This trade route connected Europe in the West with China in the East, and allowed the exchange of goods, technology, and ideas between the two civilizations.
Silk, however, was the most celebrated commodity that was transferred along this route, traveling from China westwards. Although merchants could make huge profits if they succeeded in bring their goods to their destination, it was not without risks, as certain stretches of this route were extremely dangerous.
What is the Silk Road? In spite of its name, the Silk Road was not one single road, but rather, a network of roads that connected the East and the West. It may be remarked that this name was only given quite recently, as it was coined in 1877 by the German historian and geographer, Ferdinand von Richthofen. ‘Officially’, the Silk Road was established when the Han Dynasty of China began to trade with the West, commonly said to be in 130 BC.
This overland route continued to be used up until AD 1453, when the Ottoman Empire, which had conquered Constantinople in that year, decided to stop trading with the West, and therefore closed the routes.
In the East, the Silk Road started in Chang’an (known today as Xi’an), the Han capital until it was moved to Luoyang during the Eastern Han Dynasty.
Travelers (merchants, pilgrims, envoys, etc.) starting off their journey from this city could take a northern route that would take them across China’s northwestern provinces. After this, they would face the Gobi Desert, arguably the biggest danger of the Silk Road.
The Gobi Desert is the largest desert in Asia, and stretches across modern day China and Mongolia. Whilst this desert can be divided into several different eco-regions, it may be said to consist, generally speaking, mainly of rocky, compact terrain.
Along with animals such as alligators and wild cats, cassowaries are listed as Class II wildlife in Florida, owing to the risk that they pose. This means an owner must satisfy a number of tests and acquire a special permit from the local authorities to legally keep them. So what exactly is a cassowary? Like their cousins the emus, these large, flightless birds with bristly feathers are ratites. They are native to the tropical forests of south-east Asia and Australia. Though size varies across the three different species (see end of article), cassowaries can stand up to 2 m (6 ft 6 in) tall and weigh as much as 60 kg (132 lb) – the equivalent of six mute swans, which are the heftiest birds native to the UK. Cassowaries are certainly striking to look at, with a vivid blue face, two red wattles (flaps of skin) hanging from their neck and a hollow "helmet", known as a casque, atop their heads. The anatomy that makes them so dangerous lies lower down. Muscular legs that can pack a powerful kick terminate with three claw-tipped toes. The claw on the inner toe is particularly formidable, reaching lengths of 12 cm (5 in)! If a cassowary feels threatened, it will leap up and strike out with these dagger-like weapons, inflicting potentially lethal wounds to internal organs and causing severe bleeding. What's concerning is that the dense rainforest habitat favoured by cassowaries – particularly on the north-eastern coast of Australia – is being diminished by property developers, conversion into farmland and the encroachment of associated infrastructure such as roads and fences. Do not feed cassowaries or leave out litter that the birds can easily access. This only encourages them to approach people and danger zones such as busy roads. If travelling to an area where cassowaries are known to live, consider leaving your dog at home, or at least keeping your pet on a leash. Dogs are a big threat to young cassowaries and can also stress out adults, leading to aggression. Keep your distance – particularly if an adult is guarding eggs or with chicks. If a cassowary does start acting belligerently, back away slowly or take cover behind trees or shrubs. Do NOT run, as these birds can outsprint us. If you're wearing a backpack or bag, move it to your front in order to shield your chest. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2019/4/why-the-cassowary-is-the-worlds-most-dangerous-bird-568931/
It is this feature of the Gobi Desert that made it easier for trade caravans to travel across the desert, as opposed, for example, to the sandy terrain of the neighboring Taklamakan Desert. Like other deserts, the Gobi Desert is arid, and therefore the biggest challenge facing those who choose to traverse it is to obtain enough water for themselves as well as for their camels.
One of the consequences of the need for water in the Gobi Desert is the foundation of rest stops / caravanserais along the route taken by the travelers. These stops allowed travelers to rest, to have food and drink, and to prepare themselves for the next portion of their journey.
These places also facilitated the exchange of goods, and even ideas, amongst the travelers who stopped there. Ideally, these caravanserais were placed within a day’s journey of each other. In this way, travelers could avoid spending too much time in the desert, which would make them targets for bandits, another danger of the Silk Road.
Once the Gobi Desert is navigated, travelers would continue their journey into Iran, Turkey, and finally Europe. Whilst this part of the journey may be less dangerous than the Gobi Desert, it is not entirely without its perils. The political situation in each of these areas is vital in determining the success of the trade endeavors.
As an example, when the Ottomans conquered Constantinople in AD 1453, they decided to stop trading with the West, which resulted in a drastic decline in the use of the Silk Road. Conversely, when the Mongols established their empire, which included China and Central Asia, where the Silk Road passed through, political stability was brought to these regions, which allowed trade along the Silk Road to flourish.
Finally, it may be remarked that there was also a maritime Silk Road, which connected China to the West via Southeast Asia, the India, and the Arabian Peninsula.
Like the merchants of the overland Silk Road, those who traveled along this route were also at the mercy of the forces of nature, especially storms that were highly unpredictable. Moreover, pirates who plied the oceans were also a threat to travelers, just as the desert bandits were for their overland counterparts.
https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/treacherous-trading-dangers-silk-road-009673
The Vredefort crater is the largest verified impact crater on Earth. More than 300 kilometres (190 mi) across when it was formed, what remains of it is in the present-day Free State province of South Africa.
Julius Caesar was behind the origin of leap year in 45 BC. The early Romans had a 355-day calendar and to keep festivals occurring around the same season each year a 22 or 23 day month was created every second year.
Two billion years ago an enormous asteroid slammed into what is now South Africa. It left behind the largest and second oldest confirmed impact crater, the 300 kilometer-wide (190-mile) Vredefort Crater. The distinctive crater shape has eroded away over the course of almost half the Earth's lifetime, but its legacy remains important.
Geologists studying the crater have found stone carvings showing it was a place of considerable spiritual significance to ancient peoples, as well as making possible the world's richest gold mines.
The Vredefort Crater is almost twice the size of the one at Chicxulub that ended the Cretaceous Era. The asteroid that made it is thought to have been much larger as well – some 10 to 15 kilometers (6 to 9 miles) across.
Despite the geological forces that have acted on it we can still make out features such as its central dome, parts of the crater rim and deformed rock that once lay below the crater floor. The site provides us with a rare opportunity to study a very large impact site without having to go to the Moon.
Geologists from South Africa's University of the Free State are in the process of investigating it, and while much of their work is still to be done, they have already come up with some exciting findings outside their fields.
The floor of the crater is marked by granophyre dykes, feldspar and quartz rocks that can stretch for miles while being only a few meters wide. A paper in Geology concludes molten material produced in the impact sank into the ground and captured rock fragments on its descent that would otherwise have eroded away over the subsequent billions of years.
To geologists, these are a rich source of information about ancient rock formations that would otherwise have been lost. Thousands of years ago what is now northern South Africa was inhabited by the Khoi-San people.
While studying the dykes, Dr Matthew Huber and colleagues found carvings left on some of them by the Khoi-San. Although they would have been unaware of their remarkable origins, the Khoi-San apparently recognized how unusual the dykes are, and chose them as sites for their ceremonies.
Huber discovered the carvings were unknown to archaeologists and reported them. “What is amazing is that the same dykes that we recognize to have the most geological significance also had the most spiritual significance for these early inhabitants,” Huber told Newsweek.
The carvings appear to represent creatures such as rhinoceroses, hippopotamuses, and horses then common to the area. Artifacts strewn around the carvings have been dated to 8,000 years ago. Archaeologists think their shapes reminded the Khoi-San of snakes, which were associated with rain in that culture.
The mobilization of minerals when so much rock melted after the impact led to the concentration of previously existing gold deposits into one spot, and brought them closer to the surface. This made possible the world's richest gold deposits – from which more than a fifth of the world's mined gold has come – and the establishment of Johannesburg.
Several craters even larger, and in one case older, than Vredefort have been identified, but in each case geologists continue to debate whether these really are impact craters, or if they were formed through other processes.
https://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/ancient-rock-carvings-discovered-in-the-worlds-largest-impact-crater-/
One hundred kilometers south west of Johannesburg, South Africa are the towns of Vredefort and Parys, the latter lying next to the Vaal river. The towns are a short deviation from the N1 highway to Cape Town. In an arc to the north and west of the towns is a partial ring of hills, some 70 kilometres in diameter.
The hills are centred on Vredefort, which is shown by the letter "V" in the photograph below, taken from the Space Shuttle. The ring of hills and the area within them is known as the "Vredefort Dome".
From high altitude these hills bear a strong resemblance to the larger, near-circular ring of hills north-east of Vredefort, whose northern side, the Magaliesberg hills, cuts through Pretoria (letter "P") and whose southern side, the "Witwatersrand" ridge, cuts through Johannesburg (letter "J").
These surround the uplifted area known as the "Johannesburg Dome". The white dots running in a band along the Witwatersrand are not clouds, they are the waste dumps from the gold mines along the south side of the Witwatersrand.
West of Johannesburg and due north of Vredefort can be seen the gold mine dumps of Carletonville. The gold mines of Klerksdorp and Welkom lie north-west and south-west of Vredefort, and their dumps are also easily seen.
Pictured above is a higher resolution view of the Vredefort hills from space. The Vaal river meanders through the hills, flowing from north-east (upper left) to west (centre right). Parys (the Paris of South Africa!) lies on the loop of the river protruding within the ring of hills. Vredefort is close to the geometric center of the hills.
Only the north western half of the structure remains visible. The south eastern half was flooded by the sediments of the Karoo Supergroup, which cover the Free State province. Courtesy of Google, there is also now a satellite image in which you can zoom in or out.
What Created the Vredefort Dome? The Magaliesberg - Witwatersrand feature is the result of natural upliftment from below of sedimentary sandstone layers - what was once the bottom of a sea - so that the Magaliesberg rock layers slope down to the north, while the Witwatersrand rock layers slope down to the south. The "Johannesburg Dome" in the center this feature is occupied by the archean granitic crust, some 3000 to 3400 million years old.
The same rock layers seen in the Witwatersrand are found in the Vredefort dome hills, but here they are found standing nearly vertically - the result of extreme upliftment.
Evidence has been found by geologists that the cause of this upliftment was an extreme impact event, caused by an asteroid some 10 kilometres in diameter. The ring of hills we see now are the eroded remains of a dome created by the rebound of the rock below the impact site after the asteroid hit.
The original crater, now eroded away, is estimated to have been 300 kilometres in diameter. Some 70 cubic kilometres of rock would have been vaporised in the impact.
The Oldest Impacts - The Vredefort structure is currently regarded as one of the biggest and oldest clearly visible impact structures on Earth. It just beats the Sudbury impact structure in Ontario, Canada in size and age. The Sudbury structure is some 250 km in diameter and is estimated to be 1850 million years old.
Much smaller, but older, is the 16km diameter water-filled Suavjärvi crater in Russia, which is estimated to be older than Vredefort, at ~2400 million years. In 2012 Adam Garde of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland found evidence of an impact structure centred near the town of Maniitsoq on the south-west coast of Greenland, which may be larger and older than Vredefort. It is believed to be 2975 million years old.
There is no obvious crater left to find; what remains is about 100 km in diameter. The news was published in a paper in Earth and Planetary Science Letters of 1 July 2012, Volumes 337-338, Pages 197-210.
Evidence of four impacts even older than than these, that occurred 3.2 to 3.5 billion years ago, has been found in the greenstone rocks around Barberton in South Africa and corresponding rocks in the eastern Pilbara block of Western Australia. However, these impacts are no longer recognizable as structures on the surface like Vredefort's.
The central mountains in the 85 kilometre diameter lunar crater Tycho show what the Vredefort dome is the remains of - the central rebound peak, NOT the crater itself, which at Vredefort has long since eroded away. The erosion processes occuring on Earth are of course missing on the Moon, hence the "as new" appearance of Tycho.
Within the ring of hills at Vredefort is found granitic gneiss rock - as in the Johannesburg Dome - which is dated at some 3200 million years old. Here a quarry at Leeuwkop near Parys reveals one of the indicators of the impact.
The image above left shows the cut surface of the rock. The pale and medium greys on the left are the natural colours of the granite. But from the centre to the right edge is a wide dark grey band containing large and small fragments of the granite.
This is "pseudotachylitic brecchia" - the dark grey is granite that was melted by the impact and flowed, carrying chunks of unmelted granite within the melt. The vertical face seen here is two to three metres in height.
The image above right is of a nearly horizontal exposure of pseudotachylite at the quarry. The width of the band is about one metre. Similar rock is found at elsewhere, in geological faults where rocks move against each other and melt at the interface, but this produces a melt band that is centimetres rather than metres wide as seen here. The basement granite exposed within the ring of hills is estimated to have been seven to ten kilometres beneath the surface when the impact occurred, which is dated at 2000 million years ago.
The date was established from zircon crystals found in the pseudotachylite and granophyre (below), and, more precisely, is 2023 +- 5 million years. All the covering rock has since been removed by erosion. Later the south-east part was covered by much younger Karroo rock formations.
And Flowed and Solidified - The force of the impact produced deep fractures in the underlying rock. Rock melted by the impact flowed down into the cracks, producing what are now exposed as ridges of hard dark rock - the granophyre dykes. This contrasts with normal geological dykes, where molten rock from deeper in the earth has flowed upwards through cracks in the rock above.
Two views of the dyke at Daskop, looking towards the west, are shown above. This is near the centre of the impact. Its width at the surface is a few metres, but it is hundreds of metres long where it is exposed here.
The boulder in the dyke shown above on the left shows the small, fractured inclusions of unmelted rock that are typically 1 - 3 cm in size. This is much smaller than the rocks embedded in the pseudotachylite at the quarry, which are up to metres in size. The small inclusions may have come from considerable distances - tens of kilometres away.
These rocks have also been the target of graffiti artists - in this case San hunters perhaps 2000 years ago. On the right above is an enigmatic figure carved in the rock.
Shown above left is a very accurately proportioned engraved hippopotamus. Pictured above right is an equally accurate engraving of a rhinoceros. Less obvious is the eland, the largest antelope, engraved inverted (from this perspective) in front of the rhino. It shows up more clearly in the large version of this image (click on picture).
The Shatter Cones - Another signature of an impact is left by the passage of shockwaves through the underlying rock. This produces fractures with a characteristic "fir tree" pattern. In this particularly clear example found next to the Vaal river at Schoemansdrif, the shock wave passed through from upper left to lower right. The lenscap from a 35mm camera provides the scale in one picture.
The Hills uplifted around the Dome - The hills surrounding the granite dome reproduce the layered rock formations seen in Johannesburg (the Witwatersrand). The Vaal river flows westwards through gaps in the hills.
The view above left is a panorama over the Vaal river. It was taken facing west, at Schurwedraai. The next ring of hills forms the horizon. The rocks at the site where the photograph of the river was taken at Schurwedraai are quite different to the basement granite, but also show dark grey veins of pseudotachylite - melted rock. The pen gives the scale in the picture on the right.
This ring of hills comprises quartz conglomerates as found in the gold-bearing strata of the Witwatersrand reefs. The white quartz pebbles are evident. This was once the bed of a fast flowing water course which deposited grains of quartz and the pebbles.
This area was mined for gold in the 1880's. However the concentration of gold was much poorer than at Johannesburg, and the diggings were soon abandoned. Old mine adits are still to be seen in the hills. This is the Amazon Reef.
The outermost ring of hills was home to a quite different group of people in the 1500's to 1700's. These were SeSotho / SeTswana-speaking farmers.
This village at Askoppies was a defensive position on the crest of the hill, but it did not save the village from destruction, by the warriors of Mzilikazi. The views shown above left look southeast and east respectively, back in towards the inner rings of the Vredefort dome.
The stone walls of the village are shown above right. They are made of the fine-grained grey Ventersdorp lavas that comprise this ridge. These rocks are 2700 million years old.
The Tswaing Crater - The 200 000 year old, 1 km wide Tswaing crater, 40 kilometers north of Pretoria, provides an interesting contrast to the Vredefort impact structure.
For more information the book "An Introduction to South Africa's Geological and Mining Heritage" by MJ Viljoen and WU Reimold, published by Mintek, 1999, ISBN 0-86999-941-9 is a valuable reference for an overall view of the country, and includes sections on the geology of Vredefort and other impact structures.
It is well illustrated, very readable, and is intended for a popular audience. It is available from the Johannesburg Planetarium and Exclusive Books.
In 2005 July WU Reimold and RL Gibson published "Meteorite Impact! The danger from space and South Africa's mega-impact the Vredefort Structure", ISBN 1-919908-62-5. Contact Chris van Rensburg Publications at +27 (0)11 726-4350 or the Johannesburg Planetarium. Intended for a general audience, it is copiously illustrated.
The photographs shown here were taken on a very informative tour of the area led by Roger Gibson and Uwe Reimold in 2001 September. They are with the School of Geosciences at the University of the Witwatersrand. For serious enquiries, these are experts.
For the geologist, 1:50 000 scale geological maps of the area are available from the South African Council for Geosciences, together with an explanatory booklet "The Geology of the Vredefort Dome", written by A.A. Bisschof, ISBN 1-875061-60-6, published 1999 by the Council.
The 'Earth Impact Effects Program' by Robert Marcus, H. Jay Melosh, and Gareth Collins, is an easy-to-use, interactive web site for estimating the regional environmental consequences of an asteroid impact on Earth.
This program will estimate the ejecta distribution, ground shaking, atmospheric blast wave, and thermal effects of an impact as well as the size of the crater produced, after you set up the asteroid parameters.
...
Newsflash - 2005 July 14 - The Vredefort Dome is declared a World Heritage Site.
http://www.hartrao.ac.za/other/vredefort/vredefort.html
Q: Why do planets rotate? I have been told the effects of their spinning, but never why they spin in the first place. — Carson Lee Fifer Jr., Alexandria, Va.
A: To answer this question, it helps to picture a game of pool. Hit the cue ball, and sometimes it strikes only a glancing blow on your target, setting it into a spin instead of launching it across the table. Most experts believe planets probably acquired their spin in much the same way, when clumps of matter collided during the planets’ formation about 4.5 billion years ago.
But why do they spin in the same direction? When our solar system was nothing but a cloud of gas and dust, what was likely a shock wave from a nearby supernova bounced up against it and caused it to collapse. As it collapsed, its own gravitational forces pulled it into a flat, spinning disk.
And since everything in our solar system was formed from that same disk, its momentum sent nearly everything spinning in the same direction. (Notable exceptions include Uranus and Venus, whose odd spins probably stem from subsequent collisions with asteroids.)
Our planets have continued spinning because of inertia. In the vacuum of space, spinning objects maintain their momentum and direction — their spin — because no external forces have been applied to stop them. And so, the world — and the rest of the planets in our solar system — keeps spinning.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/why-do-planets-rotate
The Maya calendar is a system of three interlacing calendars and almanacs which was used by several cultures in Central America, most famously the Maya civilization.
The Maya calendar is cyclical - The Mayan calendar is an ancient calendar system that rose to fame in 2012, when a “Great Cycle” of its Long Count component came to an end, inspiring some to believe that the world would end at 11:11 UTC on December 21, 2012. The media hype and hysteria that ensued was later termed the 2012 phenomenon.
Of course, the predictions did not come true—just like hundreds of other doomsday prophecies that fizzled out in the past. The Mayan calendar dates back to at least the 5th century BCE and it is still in use in some Mayan communities today.
However, even though the Mayans contributed to the further development of the calendar, they did not actually invent it. The same system was used by most cultures in pre-Columbian Central America—including those predating the Maya.
Wheels Working Together - The Mayan Calendar consists of three separate corresponding calendars: the Long Count, the Tzolkin (divine calendar), and the Haab (civil calendar). Each of them is cyclical, meaning that a certain number of days must occur before a new cycle can begin.
The three calendars are used simultaneously. The Tzolkin and the Haab identify the days, but not the years. The Long Count date comes first, then the Tzolkin date, and last the Haab date. A typical Mayan date would read: 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ahau 8 Kumku, where 13.0.0.0.0 is the Long Count date, 4 Ahau is the Tzolkin date, and 8 Kumku is the Haab date.
The Haab is a 365-day solar calendar which is divided into 18 months of 20 days each and one month which is only 5 days long (Uayeb). The calendar has an outer ring of Mayan glyphs (pictures) which represent each of the 19 months. Each day is represented by a number in the month followed by the name of the month. Each glyph represents a personality associated with the month.
The Haab is somewhat inaccurate as it is exactly 365 days long. An actual tropical or solar year, the time it takes Earth to orbit the Sun, takes about 365.24219 days on average. In today’s Gregorian calendar, we adjust for this discrepancy by making almost every fourth year a leap year, when an extra day—a leap day—is added on the 29th of February.
The Tzolkin -The Tzolkin, meaning “the distribution of the days,” is also called the Divine Calendar and the Sacred Round. It is a 260-day calendar with 20 periods of 13 days, and it is used to determine the time of religious and ceremonial events. The days in each period are numbered from one to 13. Each day is also given a name (glyph) from a sequence of 20 day names.
The Long Count - The Long Count is an astronomical calendar which is used to track longer periods of time. The Maya called it the “universal cycle.” Each such cycle is calculated to be 2,880,000 days long (about 7885 solar years).
The Mayans believed that the universe is destroyed and then recreated at the start of each universal cycle. This belief caused the 2012 phenomenon described above, and it still inspires a myriad of prophecies about the end of the world.
The “creation date” for the current cycle is 4 Ahau, 8 Kumku. According to the most common conversion, this date is equivalent to August 11, 3114 BCE in the Gregorian calendar and September 6, 3114 BCE in the Julian calendar.
How to Set the Date - A date in the Mayan calendar is specified by its position in both the Tzolkin and the Haab calendars. This creates a total of 18,980 unique date combinations, which are used to identify each day within a cycle lasting about 52 years. This period is called the Calendar Round.
In practice, the date combinations are represented by two wheels rotating in different directions. The smallest wheel consists of 260 teeth with each one having the name of the days of the Tzolkin. The larger wheel consists of 365 teeth and has the name of each of the positions of the Haab year. As both wheels rotate, the name of the Tzolkin day corresponds to each Haab position.
The date is further identified by counting the number of days from the “creation date”, using the Long Count calendar. A typical Long Count date has the following format: Baktun.Katun.Tun.Uinal.Kin.
Kin = 1 Day.
Uinal = 20 kin = 20 days.
Tun = 18 uinal = 360 days.
Katun = 20 tun = 360 uinal = 7,200 days.
Baktun = 20 katun = 400 tun = 7,200 uinal = 144,000 days.
The kin, tun, and katun are numbered from zero to 19; the uinal are numbered from zero to 17; and the baktun are numbered from one to 13. The Long Count has a cycle of 13 baktuns, which will be completed 1.872.000 days (13 baktuns) after 0.0.0.0.0. This period equals 5125.36 years and is referred to as the “Great Cycle” of the Long Count.
Mayan Culture Today - The Maya still form sizable populations that include regions encompassing present-day Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, and parts of Mexico. They maintain a distinctive set of traditions and beliefs, which was inspired by a combination of pre-Columbian and post-conquest ideas and cultures.
https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/mayan.html
...
We’re creatures of habit, routine and organisation. We like to know the date of famous events in history, and how long we have to wait until our next birthday party. We arrange with friends to do something ‘next week’, make a dentist appointment ‘for 21 October’ or talk about what we’ll do during our holiday ‘next year’.
We take calendars, and the way we use them to keep track of our lives, for granted, but where did these allotments of time that are such a crucial part of how our society functions actually come from?
The changing appearance of the moon in the night sky is one obvious marker of the passage of time. At the start of its cycle (‘new moon’) the moon lies directly between the sun and Earth and we can’t see its illuminated face. As the moon moves in its orbit, we see a crescent.
The crescent grows over a period of nights until the entire face can be seen—when it becomes a ‘full moon’. The face then wanes until, once again, it can’t be seen from Earth. This cycle is called a ‘lunation’ and it formed the basic unit (month = moon-th!) of many early calendars. A lunation takes an average of 29.53 days.
Samanea Saman
Trying to solve the problem by alternating the length of the month between 29 and 30 days, giving an average month of 29.5 days, still results in a calendar that gets out of step pretty quickly, since the actual length of a lunation is a bit more than 29.5. So what happens is that these calendars must be ‘adjusted’ from time to time.
This is usually done by periodically adding days (intercalations) or subtracting days (extracalations). Solar. Other calendars measure time in terms of how long it takes Earth to complete one circle of the sun—this is a solar calendar.
Solar calendars have similar issues to lunar calendars. Early astronomers used solstices (when the sun is at its furthest from the equator) and equinoxes (when the sun crosses the plane of Earth’s equator) as starting and finishing points.
One of the most common ways of measuring the length of a year in ancient times involved the use of a gnomon—a structure that casts a shadow, like the vertical stick or triangle in the centre of a sundial.
The shadow cast by the gnomon tracks across the sundial as the sun moves across the sky, and is used to tell the time of day. Sundials were first developed by the ancient Egyptians.
As the shadow cast by a vertical gnomon is shortest at noon on the day of the summer solstice, a count of the days between two summer solstices would give an estimate of the length of the year.
This was refined by interpolation between readings on successive days around the summer solstice, and by the construction of ever-larger gnomons, which provided increasingly accurate estimates of the exact time of the solstice. Year lengths were also determined by counting the days between two equinoxes.
Lunisolar calendars attempted to keep in sync with both the moon and the solar year. This was not an easy task, as there are about 12.368 lunations in a solar year. A lunar calendar consisting of 354 days (12 lunations) would keep in step with the moon—with some days added in from time to time—but would very soon get out of step with the year and, therefore, the seasons.
All calendars were—and still are—plagued by the lack of synchrony between the moon’s cycle and the length of the year, and by the fact that neither the length of the solar year nor the length of the lunar month is a whole number.
The precursor of the calendar in common use today was the Roman calendar. According to legend, it was first used at the time of the founding of Rome, around 750 BCE. It is said to have been invented by Romulus, so is also known as the Calendar of Romulus.
The Calendar of Romulus contained 10 months, starting in March. A complex series of intercalations was required to keep this calendar in step with the moon, the year and the seasons. However, some of the intercalations were at the discretion of certain officials, who, it seems, didn’t always do their job adequately.
Martius - Named for the Roman god Mars
Aprilis - Perhaps from the Latin word ‘aperire’, to open, or perhaps from Aphrodite, the Greek name for Venus
Maius - Perhaps named for the Greek goddess Maia, or for ‘maiores’, Latin for ‘elders’
Iunius - Perhaps named for the Roman goddess Juno, or for ‘junior’
Quintilis - 5th month—from ‘quin’, Latin for 5
Sextilis - 6th month—from ‘sex’, Latin for 6
September - 7th month—from ‘septem’, Latin for 7
October - 8th month—from ‘octo’, Latin for 8
November - 9th month—from ‘novem’, Latin for 9
December - 10th month—from ‘decem’, Latin for 10
The Roman months were divided into periods of days marked by Kalendae, Nonae and Idus (Kalends, Nones and Ides). The Kalend was the first day of the month, coinciding with the new moon. The Nonae was the day when the half moon occurred, and fell 8 days before the Idus.
The Idus was the 15th day of March, May, July and October, and the 13th day of the other months, and coincided with the full moon. The diagram below illustrates these three milestones, as seen from the northern hemisphere.
Winter was not assigned any months—it was a separate period of 61 days. Ianuarius (January) and Februarius (February) were later added to the beginning of the year to better align the calendar with the seasons and the year.
This had the slightly confusing end result that the months named for their place in the year no longer matched up with their position. For example, December was no longer the 10th month (‘decem’ being Latin for 10), but the 12th.
And even with the addition of Ianuarius and Februarius, the calendar still had some issues, which officials attempted to resolve by including an ‘intercalary month’ in some years.
This extra month was added at the discretion of the pontifex maximus (the high priest of Ancient Rome). As the length of political office was determined by the Roman calendar, this gave the pontifex maximus significant political power.
The Julian calendar - By the time of Julius Caesar (100–44 BCE), it had all become quite muddled. Caesar requested a Greek astronomer called Sosigenes to advise him on reforming the calendar. Sosigenes recommended abandoning the lunar calendar and adopting one that focused solely on the solar year.
Caesar decreed that each year would consist of 365 days, with an extra day added to every fourth year (this later became known as a ‘leap’ year) in the month of February. To accommodate the change, a once-off adjustment was needed: the year 46 BCE was decreed to be 445 days long—giving some indication of how confused the Roman calendar had become.
The calendar was named in honour of the ruler who began the calendar reform, and the month of Quintilus also became Iulius (July). Sextilis became Augustus (August) in honour of Augustus Caesar, who completed the transition to the Julian calendar during his reign. The Julian calendar retained the names of the rest of the Roman calendar months.
Months of the Julian calendar
Ianuarius - From Janus, the Roman god of doors, sunset and sunrise. Janus had one face looking forward, and one looking back
Februarius - From the Latin word ‘februare’, to purify. The Roman festival of forgiveness of sins was celebrated in this month
Martius - From Mars, the Roman god of war.
Aprilis - Perhaps from the Latin word ‘aperire’, to open, or perhaps from Aphrodite, the Greek name for Venus
Maius - Maia, Roman goddess, daughter of Atlas and mother of Mercury
Iunius - Juno, chief Roman goddess
Iulius - Previously known as quintilus, ‘5th month’, renamed for Julius Caesar
Augustus - Previously known as sextilis, ‘6th month’, renamed for Augustus Caesar
September - 7th month—from ‘septem’, Latin for 7
October - 8th month—from ‘octo’, Latin for 8
November - 9th month—from ‘novem’, Latin for 9
December - 10th month—from ‘decem’, Latin for 10
But Caesar’s reform didn’t quite end the confusion. His calendar assumed that each year was 365.25 days long, and that the addition of one extra day every four years would be adequate compensation.
However, even then it was known that the actual length of a year was slightly shorter than this—the modern estimate is 365.24219 days. The difference between this and 365.25 is not much—0.00781 days, or about 11.25 minutes. But over time it adds up: in a thousand years, the discrepancy is 0.00781 × 1,000 = 7.8 days.
By the Middle Ages, the Julian calendar was well entrenched in Europe. The system of counting the years since the birth of Christ had been introduced by Dionysius Exiguus, and leap years were deemed to be those divisible by four (the year 1212, for example, was a leap year).
But the cumulative error was beginning to be noticed. The vernal equinox, traditionally observed on 21 March, was actually taking place earlier and earlier, and other dates of religious significance were becoming similarly confused.
The Gregorian calendar - Calendar reform was talked about in the Catholic Church for more than 300 years. But it wasn’t until 1582 that Pope Gregory took the advice of mathematicians and astronomers and decreed that the problem would be addressed by omitting three leap years every 400 years.
He declared that new centuries would not be leap years unless divisible by 400. This became known as the Gregorian calendar, and is the one we use today. Most European countries adjusted for the accumulated errors of the Julian calendar by omitting 10 days from the year 1582. In fact, people living in what is now Belgium missed out on Christmas because of these cancelled days.
However, Protestant countries largely ignored the decree of the Catholic Pope Gregory. It wasn’t until the 1700s, when the problem of the extra days had become so acute in England, that an adjustment was decreed by parliament.
Eleven days were omitted from the month of September in 1752 and Pope Gregory’s system for dealing with century-years was adopted. We no longer measure a year by the time between two solstices or a day by the time it takes Earth to complete one rotation on its axis—it’s too imprecise!
Earth has a slow wobble in its rotation around its axis, called precession. It’s caused primarily by the moon’s gravitational influence—it acts like brakes on a wheel and gradually slows Earth’s daily spin, making each day ever-so-slightly longer.
So, we now use atomic clocks to precisely measure time. Atomic clocks use a special property of the way a caesium atom holds its 55th (and outermost) electron. A photon of a specific radio frequency is used to knock the electron up to the next highest energy level. Then, when the excited electron relaxes back down to the lower energy level, it kicks out a certain amount of energy.
This packet of energy can be thought of as a photon. Caesium is special because its energy levels are remarkably consistent if we’re careful with the radio waves we use to excite that 55th electron.
There’s only one excited state and only one lower state, so all the photons it emits have exactly the same energy, which means they have exactly the same frequency: 9,192,631,770 oscillations per second.
Having such a precise way to make a known frequency is useful. We can use it to count time: count to 9,192,631,770 with the sensors in an atomic clock and you have exactly one second.
This method is so precise and consistent that every now and again we need to use ‘leap seconds’ to keep the very constant atomic clocks in line with the comparatively inconstant orbit of Earth around the sun.
It’s this incredibly precise measurement that forms the basis of time as we now know it. Sixty of these seconds make an minute; 86,400 seconds make a day; and so on. It’s transmitted out via satellites and mobile phone towers to all our smartphones, keeping them, and us, in sync.
The precision is crucial. For example, the signals sent between GPS satellites and receivers on the ground travel at the speed of light (that’s around 30 centimetres every billionth of a second). If the clocks in these systems are out of sync by just one millionth of a second, it can translate to a discrepancy of around 650 metres on the ground in terms of location pinpointing.
What’s known as the Mayan calendar was used by several societies throughout what we now call Central America. It comprises three cycles overlaid on top of each other: the Haab, the Tzolkin and the Long Count.
The Haab is a solar calendar, with 365 days, split up into 19 months. Eighteen of the months have 20 days, and one month has just five days. Each month is named with a glyph (picture) that represents a personality trait connected to that month. Each day is documented with a number, followed by the glyph for the month.
The Tzolkin cycle has 260 days, divided up into 20 periods of 13 days each. Each day is represented by a glyph. The Tzolkin is the sacred calendar, used for keeping track of religious events.
The Long Count, known as the ‘universal cycle’, covers much longer periods of time, with each cycle comprising 2,880,000 days. The Mayans believed that the world was destroyed and created anew at the end of each Long Count cycle.
The three cycles are arranged in wheels. There is a smaller wheel, with 260 positions, for the Tzolkin cycle and a larger one, with 365 positions, for the Haab. The wheels rotate in different directions, and, for any given day, the Tzolkin day will align with a day in the Haab cycle. Together, these are known as the Calendar Round, which takes around 52 years to complete.
The Long Count is divided up into kin, uinal, tun, katun and baktun.
kin 1 day
uinal 20 days (20 kin)
tun 360 days (18 uinal)
katun 7,200 days (20 tun)
baktun 144,000 days (20 katun)
Long Count cycle 2,880,000 days (20 baktun)
The date notation was given in the form: baktun.katun.tun.uinal.kin—so 3.17.6.0.9 would indicate 3 baktun, 17 katun, 6 tun, zero uinal, 9 kin. Obviously, the Mayans would use their number glyphs, not our numerals!
There is evidence—inscriptions on what are known as Shang oracle bones—that the Chinese were using a calendar based on a solar year of 365.25 days as far back as the 14th century BC. China used the traditional Chinese calendar until 1912—the Gregorian calendar only became widely used after the Communist Party came into power in 1949.
A lunisolar calendar, the Chinese calendar incorporates observations of the sun and the phases of the moon. Years are determined by the sun, and months are set by lunations. An ordinary year has 12 months (353–355 days), and leap years have 13 months (383–385 days).
Each year in the Chinese calendar has a twofold name—with a ‘celestial’ component and a ‘terrestrial’ component. The names of the years cycle through the celestial and terrestrial sequences, and a full cycle takes 60 years. It is thought this naming system began in the year 2637 BC.
Celestial branches
jiǎ
yǐ
bǐng
dīng
wù
jǐ
gēng
xīn
rén
guǐ
Terrestrial branches
zǐ (rat)
chǒu (ox)
yín (tiger)
mǎo (hare, rabbit)
chén (dragon)
sì (snake)
wǔ (horse)
wèi (sheep)
shēn (monkey)
yǒu (rooster)
xū (dog)
hài (pig)
The Hijri calendar is a lunar calendar, with its first day being the day that Mohammed travelled from Mecca to Medina, the event known as the Hijra. This day was 16 July, 622 AD (on the Julian calendar). Being a lunar calendar, it’s around 11 days shorter than the Gregorian calendar. It has 12 months, each beginning with a new lunar cycle.
Some Muslims rely on a visual sighting of the new moon phase to start a new month, while in other parts of the world, a new month begins on days calculated by astronomical projections of the moon phases.
As they’re based on the lunar cycle, months have either 29 or 30 days, and their starting day can vary according to the method used to mark the new month.
The Hijri is used to observe all the significant occasions of the Muslim faith, including Ramadan, the month of fasting; the time of Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca; and other festivals and important events.
See what today's date looks like in the Islamic calendar on the Fourmilab website's calendar converter. Indigenous Australians also used astronomical movements, particularly of stars or certain constellations—often their heliacal rising, which is the time when they are first visible on the eastern horizon just before sunrise—to track time and signify events.
The rising of the Pleiades constellation in the dawn sky indicates the beginning of Nyinng (the cold season) for the Pitjantjatjara people of southern central Australia.
The Kaurna people of the Adelaide Plains recognise a number of seasons according to certain stars or constellations: the beginning of Parnatti (the autumn rainy season) is marked by the appearance of the ‘Parna’ star, which indicates rains are coming and it’s time to build strong waterproof shelters.
Willutti (spring) is marked by the eagle star ‘Wilto’, and Woltatti (the hot season) by ‘Wolta’, the bush turkey constellation. When the malleefowl constellation (Lyra) appears in the night sky during March, it indicates to the Boorong people of north-western Victoria that malleefowls are building their nests.
By the time the constellation disappears in October, eggs will have been laid in the nests and can be collected. Some ceremonies are also conducted according to the timing of astronomical events.
The Yolngu people of Arnhem Land, in the Northern Territory, track the path of Venus through the sky, holding their ‘Morning Star’ ceremony at times when Venus rises before dawn.
There are other calendar systems based on observations of weather and changes in climate, the flowering and fruiting of plants and the behaviour of animals within the environment in which people live.
This makes perfect sense in a society that depends upon and manages its environment, where observations of how the landscape and the food sources change over time are essential for survival.
Seasons are marked by events relevant to people’s everyday life—the abundance of a particular food source, such as shellfish, fruits, eggs or berries, or the appearance of particular flowers that act as a cue to target particular animal species. Just one example of this is the calendar documenting traditional knowledge from the Tiwi Islands, north of Darwin in the Northern Territory. This seasonal calendar is split up into three major seasons, with 13 minor overlapping shorter seasons.
Kumunupunari Dry season of fire and smoke. (March–August)
Tiyari Season of hot weather and high humidity. (September–November)
Jamutakari Wet season when pakitiringa (rain) falls consistently and the swamps, creeks and rivers are full. Wunijaka, the north-west wind blows and brings rain. There is much pumurali (lightning) and thunder with the rain. (December–February)
Wurringawunari Season of the knock-em-downs. This is the first part of the dry season when winds blow from the south-east, flattening the tall grass and drying up surface water.
Kimirrakinari Season of fire; dry grass is burnt.
Pumutingari Season of wind that flakes the skin.
Yirriwnari and Mirniputari Season of cold weather in the middle of the dry season is signalled by the flowering of Wurritjinga (Eucalyptus confertiflora).
Kumwari Season of fog. Temperatures are low; mornings are foggy.
Yartupwari Season of the dry creek bed. Waterholes and creeks dry up.
Milikitorinari Season of hot feet. The hot ground burns the soles of the feet. Food gathering is mainly among mangroves and jungle patches rather than on dry plains and in woodlands.
Pumwanyingari Season of thunder. Humidity is high, afternoons are cloudy, and there is little rain.
Kurukurari Season of the mangrove worm. Worms are abundant, sweet and filling.
Mumpikari Season of muddy possum tracks. With the first rains, muddy tracks of possums are seen as they return to their trees after foraging on the ground, making them easier to track and hunt.
Tawutawungari Season of the clap sticks. Kurlama (special yam) ceremonies are held.
Wurrijingari Season of flowers.
Marrakatari Season when tall grass flowers. This indicates end of the wet season.
CSIRO has worked with this Tiwi Islands community and various other Indigenous groups around Australia to document and record their traditional knowledge of the seasons, creating pictorial calendars.
With their deep associations with the local climate, flora and fauna, these systems have direct relevance, and often a more practical application, than the comparatively arbitrary notion that the month of September has 30 days, after which we move on to October.
CSIRO research with Tiwi Islanders to document and record their traditional knowledge of the seasons and the environment was supported by an Inspiring Australia Unlocking Australia’s Potential grant.
CSIRO also worked with a number of other Aboriginal language groups across northern Australia to create seasonal calendars, as part of the Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge and National Environmental Research Programs.
The calendars reveal the annual cycles of meteorological events, water flow, lifecycle stages of plants and animals, and key environmental indicators.
This rich phenological knowledge is a key driver of people’s behaviour, particularly the harvesting of bush resources and has more practical application than the comparatively arbitrary notion of dates on a calendar.
We think of time as something constant, inexorable. But the ways we measure it are hugely influenced by our culture and religion—a calendar is the result of a complex interplay between the underlying science of the astronomy, climate, or natural environment on which it is based, and the social fabric of the society that uses it.
https://www.science.org.au/curious/everything-else/calendars
The Julian calendar was abolished because it did not reflect the length of a year on Earth accurately. Today's Gregorian calendar does a better job, but is there such a thing as a perfect calendar?
A Year is Not 365 Days Long - The length of a year on Earth is defined by the time it takes our planet to complete a full orbit around the Sun. Called a tropical year, solar year, astronomical year or equinoctial year, it is approximately 365.242189 days long on average. Its length changes slightly over time.
Because a common year has 365 days in today's Gregorian calendar, a leap day is regularly added to bring it in sync with the tropical year.
Without leap days, our calendar would be off by 1 day approximately every 4 years, causing the astronomical seasons to occur at an increasingly later date as time goes by. In less than 50 years, the March equinox would be in April and the June solstice would occur in July.
Which Years Are Leap Years? Is There A Perfect Calendar? The simple answer is no. None of the calendar systems currently in use around the world perfectly reflect the length of a tropical year. However, there are calendar systems that are more accurate than the Gregorian calendar we use today. One of them is the Revised Julian calendar.
The table shows how accurately the different systems reflect the length of a tropical year (sorted from most to least accurate). Calendars that are designed to reflect time spans other than the tropical year are not listed. This includes the Islamic, Buddhist, and Hindu calendar systems.
There is no 365-day calendar system currently in use for civil purposes. Past examples include the ancient civil Egyptian calendar, the Maya Haab' calendar, and the Aztec Xiuhpohualli calendar.
The Julian Calendar - In the Julian calendar, a leap day is added every four years without exception, so an average Julian year is 365.25 days long. The difference between the tropical and the Julian year is about 11 minutes per year, amounting to an error of 1 day every 128 years.
Because of this inaccuracy, the Julian calendar was eventually replaced by the Gregorian calendar. Today's Gregorian calendar uses more elaborate leap year rules, making it far more accurate. However, it is not perfect either. Compared to the tropical year, it is 27 seconds too long, so it is off by 1 day every 3236 years.
About the Gregorian Calendar - The Revised Julian Calendar - This calendar system uses even more complex rules to determine when a leap day is to be added. With an error of only about 2 seconds per year or 1 day in 31,250, it is roughly 10 times more accurate than today's Gregorian calendar and one of the most accurate calendar systems ever devised.
Calendar Introduced Average Year Length Approximate Error
Persian calendar 2nd millennium BCE 365.2421986 days Less than 1 sec/year (1 day in 110,000 years)
Revised Julian calendar 1923 CE 365.242222 days 2 sec/year (1 day in 31,250 years)
Mayan calendar ~2000 BCE 365.242036 days 13 sec/year (1 day in 6500 years)
Gregorian calendar 1582 CE 365.2425 days 27 sec/year (1 day in 3236 years)
Jewish calendar 9th century CE 365.246822 days 7 min/year (1 day in 216 years)
Julian calendar 45 BCE 365.25 days 11 min/year (1 day in 128 years)
Coptic calendar 25 BCE 365.25 days 11 min/year (1 day in 128 years)
365-day calendar
(no leap years)*
365 days 6 hours/year (1 day in 4 years)
https://www.timeanddate.com/date/perfect-calendar.html
There really aren't any advantages. I suppose a lunar calendar might make it easier to calculate tides, but since the sun and the seasons also figures into tide calculations, it will be very vague on the details.
A period of 29 days happens to be a convenient unit as a subdivision of a year, and with the changing moon it's easier to track than the position of the sun. And since everybody can see it, you can coordinate stuff over a fairly wide area. But it quickly gets out of track with the seasons unless you jigger it around, and seasons tend to be the things that matter.
So people picked up lunar calendars because it was convenient, but that's about it. If you can do the observations to get a good solar calendar, it's going to be more useful. We still have "months", a word cognate to "moon", but no modern calendar bothers to keep them in synch with the moon. It requires too much fiddling about. The only calendars that do it are ancient ones that do it because their ancestors did it, when the moon was easier to observe than the sun and coordinating by just counting days was too hard.
One major advantage is "Agriculture", many cultures from the ancient times till now still uses "Lunar Calendar" to cultivate and farm. Another advantage is the traditional festival celebrations from different cultures, that is always fun, for example, Chinese New Year is still based from the Chinese Lunar Calendar.
Lunar calendar did not evolve. It’s the oldest and natural system of date calendar. So to summarize, Lunar calendar is as old as the Moon itself. Lunar calendar is based on the Moon cycle, first day of moon is 1st of the month, full moon is 14th day of the moon until either 29 or 30 days.
First, it should be stated that the calendar used in China before 1912 is a lunisolar calendar, meaning that it doesn’t just calculate the moon’s movement around earth. One of the advantages of the lunar calendar is that seasonal events are much more accurate than the solar calendar.
For example, the first day of summer in the Northern Hemisphere (lixia, 立夏) on the lunar calendar is 5 May (on the Gregorian calendar), while that on the solar calendar is 21 Jun (or summer solstice). The West’s start of the summer season starts on the longest day of the year (meaning days will only get shorter until winter solstice)
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-lunar-calendar-evolve-What-are-the-advantages-of-a-lunar-calendar
Solar calendars are more accurate because we can measure a complete tropical year (the time it takes the earth to make a complete cycle around the sun).
Lunar calendars are less accurate because a group of astrologers would get together and decide when a moon had reached it's zenith. With 13 moon cycles per year as opposed to one lap around the sun, you can see how it would be less accurate.
Solar calendars actually track the seasons, making it useful. Lunar calendars are easier to follow by looking at the moon, but they get fiendishly complicated by requiring things such as leap months, otherwise the information has no bearing on the season.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/7e4sus/what_are_the_pros_and_cons_of_the_lunar_and_solar/
The Chinese calendar has 12 or 13 lunar months per year, and is about 20 to 50 days behind the Gregorian calendar. It’s used to determine the dates of traditional Chinese festivals, like Chinese New Year and Mid-Autumn.
It’s also used for Chinese zodiac astrology, and many Chinese still celebrate their Chinese calendar birthdays. Although China uses the Gregorian (global) calendar for most official and business purposes, the Chinese calendar is still used to determine the days of traditional festivals, such as Chinese New Year and Mid-Autumn.
https://www-chinahighlights-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.chinahighlights.com/travelguide/guidebook/chinese-calendar.htm?amp_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&prerenderSize=1&visibilityState=prerender&paddingTop=32&p2r=0&horizontalScrolling=0&csi=1&aoh=15790122407799&viewerUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Famp%2Fs%2Fwww.chinahighlights.com%2Ftravelguide%2Fguidebook%2Fchinese-calendar.htm&history=1&storage=1&cid=1&cap=navigateTo%2Ccid%2CfullReplaceHistory%2Cfragment%2CreplaceUrl
That's why most of the modern world has adopted the Gregorian calendar and its leap year system to allow days and months to stay in step with the seasons. (Also see "World Will Gain a Leap Second on Tuesday: Here's Why.") “We've made a calendar that comes close,” Lowe says, “but to make it work you have to do these leap day tricks that have some quirky rules.”
Ancient Timekeeping - Efforts to make nature's schedule fit our own have been imperfect from the start. Some ancient calendars, dating to the Sumerians 5,000 years ago, simply divided the year into 12 months of 30 days each. Their 360-day year was nearly a week shorter than our annual journey around the sun. (Also see "Where Our Fear of Friday the 13th Came From.")
The practice of adding extra days to the year is at least as old as these 360-day systems. “When the Egyptians adopted this calendar they were aware that there was a problem, but they didn't add any more days to the calendar,” says Lowe. “They just added an extra five days of festivals, of partying, at the end of the year.”
Earlier Egyptians (prior to about 3100 B.C.) and other societies from China to Rome once used lunar calendars to track time. (See National Geographic's moon facts.)
But lunar months average 29.5 days and years only about 354. So societies that kept lunar time quickly drifted well out of sync with the seasons due to the 11-day lag. The Romans regularly tried to tweak this calendar by irregularly adding days or months, but those patchy efforts only highlighted the need for reform.
"Year of Confusion" - By the time Julius Caesar enjoyed his famed affair with Cleopatra, Rome's calendar had diverged from the seasons by some three months. But Egypt was observing a 365-day year, and as early as the third-century B.C. had even established the utility of a leap-year system to correct the calendar every four years.
Julius adopted the system by decreeing a single, 445-day-long Year of Confusion (46 B.C.) to correct the long years of drift in one go. He then mandated a 365.25 day-year that simply added a leap day every fourth year.
https://relay-nationalgeographic-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/news/2016/02/160226-leap-year-science-time-world-cultures-february?amp_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&prerenderSize=1&visibilityState=prerender&paddingTop=32&p2r=0&horizontalScrolling=0&csi=1&aoh=15790119881659&viewerUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Famp%2Fs%2Frelay.nationalgeographic.com%2Fproxy%2Fdistribution%2Fpublic%2Famp%2Fnews%2F2016%2F02%2F160226-leap-year-science-time-world-cultures-february&history=1&storage=1&cid=1&cap=navigateTo%2Ccid%2CfullReplaceHistory%2Cfragment%2CreplaceUrl
It's that time again: This Monday, February 29, is a leap day, the calendar oddity that occurs (almost) every four years. For centuries, trying to sync calendars with the length of the natural year caused confusion—until the concept of leap year provided a way to make up for lost time.
“It all comes down to the fact that the number of Earth's revolutions about its own axis, or days, is not equal to or connected in any way to how long it takes for the Earth to get around the sun,” says John Lowe, leader of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)'s Time & Frequency Division.
The solar, or tropical, year is approximately 365.2422 days long. No calendar comprised of whole days can match that number, and simply ignoring the seemingly small fraction creates a much bigger problem than one might suspect. The evidence lies in a long history of wildly shifting dates and accompanying civil, agricultural, and religious chaos.
That's why most of the modern world has adopted the Gregorian calendar and its leap year system to allow days and months to stay in step with the seasons. (Also see "World Will Gain a Leap Second on Tuesday: Here's Why.") “We've made a calendar that comes close,” Lowe says, “but to make it work you have to do these leap day tricks that have some quirky rules.”
Ancient Timekeeping - Efforts to make nature's schedule fit our own have been imperfect from the start. Some ancient calendars, dating to the Sumerians 5,000 years ago, simply divided the year into 12 months of 30 days each. Their 360-day year was nearly a week shorter than our annual journey around the sun. (Also see "Where Our Fear of Friday the 13th Came From.")
The practice of adding extra days to the year is at least as old as these 360-day systems. “When the Egyptians adopted this calendar they were aware that there was a problem, but they didn't add any more days to the calendar,” says Lowe. “They just added an extra five days of festivals, of partying, at the end of the year.”
Earlier Egyptians (prior to about 3100 B.C.) and other societies from China to Rome once used lunar calendars to track time. (See National Geographic's moon facts.) But lunar months average 29.5 days and years only about 354. So societies that kept lunar time quickly drifted well out of sync with the seasons due to the 11-day lag.
The Romans regularly tried to tweak this calendar by irregularly adding days or months, but those patchy efforts only highlighted the need for reform. "Year of Confusion" - By the time Julius Caesar enjoyed his famed affair with Cleopatra, Rome's calendar had diverged from the seasons by some three months.
But Egypt was observing a 365-day year, and as early as the third-century B.C. had even established the utility of a leap-year system to correct the calendar every four years. Julius adopted the system by decreeing a single, 445-day-long Year of Confusion (46 B.C.) to correct the long years of drift in one go.
He then mandated a 365.25 day-year that simply added a leap day every fourth year. But even this system was flawed, because the 0.25 day leap year adds annually is a bit longer than the solar year's leftover 0.242 day. That made the calendar year some 11 minutes shorter than its solar counterpart, so the two diverged by an entire day every 128 years.
“As it turns out, if you stick in one every four years, that's a few too many,” says James Evans, a physicist at the University of Puget Sound and an editor of the Journal or the History of Astronomy.
Between the time Julius Caesar introduced the system in 46 B.C. and the 16th century B.C., this small discrepancy had caused important dates, including the Christian holidays, to drift by some ten days. Pope Gregory XIII found the situation untenable, so his Gregorian calendar was unveiled in 1582—after another drastic adoption of time-warp tactics.
“Gregory reformed the calendar and they dropped ten days from the month of October that year,” Evans says. “Then they changed the leap day rules to correct the problem.”
Now leap years divisible by 100, like the year 1900, are skipped unless they're also divisible by 400, like the year 2000, in which case they're observed. Nobody alive remembers the last lost leap day, but dropping those three leap days every 400 years keeps the calendar on time.
Alternative Calendars - Even today, some calendars discount the leap year meant to keep us in time with our orbit, or ignore the sun altogether. The Islamic calendar is a lunar system that adds up to only 354 days and shifts some 11 days from the Gregorian calendar each year—though a single leap day is sometimes added.
And while China uses the Gregorian calendar for official purposes, a traditional lunar-solar calendar is still popular in everyday life. It follows the phases of the moon and implements an entire leap month about once every three years.
“There's nothing sacrosanct about locking a calendar to the solar year the way ours is,” says Evans. “People can get used to any calendar system. But once they are used to it what really seems to rile them up is when something is changed.” (Related: "The Politics of Daylight Saving Time.")
Future Decisions - The current Gregorian calendar system makes the fractional days of the solar year and leap year calendar nearly equal by occasionally skipping a leap day.
This system produces an average year length of 365.2425 days, just half a minute longer than the solar year. At such a rate it will take 3,300 years before the Gregorian calendar moves even a day from our seasonal cycle. That means future generations will have a decision to make on leap year, though not for a long time. “So 3,000 years from now, people may decide to tweak it," Lowe says. "We'll just have to wait and see.”
https://relay-nationalgeographic-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/news/2016/02/160226-leap-year-science-time-world-cultures-february?amp_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&prerenderSize=1&visibilityState=prerender&paddingTop=32&p2r=0&horizontalScrolling=0&csi=1&aoh=15790119881659&viewerUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Famp%2Fs%2Frelay.nationalgeographic.com%2Fproxy%2Fdistribution%2Fpublic%2Famp%2Fnews%2F2016%2F02%2F160226-leap-year-science-time-world-cultures-february&history=1&storage=1&cid=1&cap=navigateTo%2Ccid%2CfullReplaceHistory%2Cfragment%2CreplaceUrl
Yoko had gotten out of bed and was slowly padding across the studio floor, finally coming to a stop at Harrison's Leslie cabinet, which had a packet of McVitie's Digestive Biscuits on top. Idly, she began opening the packet and delicately removed a single biscuit.
Yoko was initially thrust on the Beatles when they first went in to record the White Album. There were tremendous good feelings among the band during the rehearsal process and her presence was a disruption.
The Beatles’ policy regarding visitors wasn’t really no one or no wives and girlfriends as they have sometimes stated - it was really about no one gawking and being disruptive. Brian Epstein, whom the Beatles loved, was not permitted in the studio because he had nothing to add and tried, once, to use it as an opportunity to impress a friend.
Paul had invited someone who camped out in front of his house and claimed to be Jesus during the recording of Sgt. Pepper as long as he promised to be quiet and unobtrusive, which he did. If Yoko had sat in and quietly watched and let the band work, her presence would not have been an issue.
She wasn’t just pushy and she didn’t just interject her uninformed opinions, she was outright rude to the people who worked at Abbey Road and she even got John to take part in talking down to people.
This is remarkable, because Lennon had been particularly vocal about the way the British were treating the people in the Bahamas during the filming of Help. Lennon had been a voice for the downtrodden working class, but now was perfectly happy to revel in Yoko’s aristocratic disdain and disregard for “inferiors”.
Barry Miles in the Zapple Diaries discusses Tony Bramwell and Derek Taylor’s observation of this. “the real reason people disliked Yoko (wasn’t racism but) because she ordered them about and sent them on errands in a particularly rude way; she was brought up with servants and that’s how she treated the staff of Apple.
Goerge found it particularly galling that she never gave the Beatles their definite article. He told me, ‘She would say, “Beatles do that” and “Beatles do that”, and we would say, “Uh, it’s ‘The’ Beatles actually, love.”
Not only did this attitude turn George off, he did not respect her as an artist. George was the first of the Beatles to have real issues with her. When Harrison was in NY and spent time with Dylan and The Band, they apparently told him what they knew about Yoko and it wasn’t good. In “Lennon Remembers”, he told Rolling Stone magazine, “
And George, shit, insulted her right to her face in the Apple office at the beginning; just being ‘straight forward’ you know, that game of ‘Well, I’m going to be upfront because this is what we’ve heard and Dylan and a few people said she’s got a lousy name in New York, and you gave off bad vibes.’ That’s what George said to her and we both sat through it, and I didn’t hit him. I don’t know why.”
It should be noted that George had grown very attached to John after they had their first LSD experience together and Yoko created a wedge, but it would be wrong to conclude that jealousy was the driving force.
Yoko went out of her way to make herself unlikable and she was possessive of John in such a way that her insecurities required John be isolated from all of his friends and family including his son.
Things got so bad during the Let it Be sessions that John had stopped talking and let Yoko speak for him. This meant that George, who had been the #3 person in the band, was now #4 behind Yoko, so he quit. This is documented in Doug Sulpy’s excellent, “Drugs, Divorce, and a Slipping Image.”
During the Abbey Road sessions, John and Yoko were away during part of the recording because John crashed his car and they had to be hospitalized. When John returned, he had a bed placed in the studio for Yoko who claimed she was still recuperating.
The often told story about Yoko getting up to take George’s biscuits that he kept on his amp and George erupting in anger, was not about her taking his biscuit, but that it was clear evidence that she was not really bedridden and having a bed in the studio was just her being manipulative and demanding.
The issue about her introducing John to heroin was a complaint that was raised by Paul. I have not read George address this. Yoko claims that she did not push this on John, but that he asked her how it was and she said it was nice. Was John capable of making his own decision and not forced to try heroin? Yes.
Would he have tried heroin if he hadn’t met Yoko? Maybe - maybe not. It is hard to say, but keep in mind that John’s great love was for Alma Cogan who died 2 weeks before he met Yoko, and Cogan certainly wouldn’t have introduced Lennon to heroin. Keep in mind, Yoko has free well as well.
If Paul had emphatically insisted that Linda be included in Beatles promo photos, Linda would have dug in her heels and adamantly refused. Yoko either accepted John’s invitation or insisted she be included in photos, which understandably did not please George (or Paul or Ringo).
This is a little gossipy. We don't know these people and sometimes people just don't like each other and there is no specific incident that caused it. They may not even dislike each other as much as it appears to us.
However there is an interview with Yoko where she says something to the effect of- I got John off his crippling LSD addiction by giving him heroin… I didn't offer it to him he insisted that we share the same drug habit and … George seems to blame me for it. (I'm sorry that this isn't better sourced, it's what I remember)
My impression was always that George didn't want Yoko in the studio with them. Thought that her joining the group was ridiculous, that her art was ridiculous, and that she was bad for John. She and John made some very dismissive comments about his intelligence. Yoko- George is fashion smart (As a summery of his intelligence)
To my ears these two people simply didn't respect one another. It's worth noting though that they knew each other for decades in the end and mostly got along. According to Paul one of the last things George asked of him was to bury the hatchet with Yoko and try to get along.
In principle I believe George felt that resenting Yoko wasn't worth it. He forgave the past even if he didn't respect or like her. (And what do we know, maybe at sometime he did)
George simply didn’t like her demeanor. She butted in on Beatle discussions in the studio, would sit next to John at recording sessions. She was rude, self imposing and bent John’s ear.
None of other Beatles or their producer George Martin liked her in the studio. John didn’t even introduce her to people beforehand. One day, there she was sitting next to John in the studio during the White Album sessions.
The Beatles were a tight knit group of “guys” and sticklers for “no girlfriends or wives” in the studio as they were there to work. John broke that rule without even asking permission. And to top it all off she was just butting in to band discussions like she was part of the group.
That pissed George off a lot. There was also an incident where George asked John to appear at the ‘Concert for Bangladesh’ and John said he would do it, then called back and said he’d only do it now if Yoko was allowed to be on stage with him.
George knew that was Yoko annoying John about not being invited and he refused. John hung up on him. Nothing more annoying than someone’s wife making your long time friend be a wimp around you.
He probably resented her from the very first time he met her. He felt threatened by her perhaps as well. Harrison couldn’t adapt probably to the new change in the personalities of the other 2 Beatles’ guitarists. John Lennon of course, softened his macho views on the women being allowed to enter their workplace.
Before that, the recording studio was no place for a “lady” to be. Yoko insisted that they change and at least listen to what she had to say, and one must have been to at least allow one woman in so that she could see and hear the workings of their magic.
Later on Paul then allowed Linda to go in and record some music with him. George was married to Patti but wasn’t really getting along too well, as their marriage was beginning to slowly disintegrate. Nonetheless, Patti still began sneaking in there too after awhile. Then she began flirting around with whomever. I think her and Ringo had an affair.
So that’s a given. George resented Yoko because she started this new organization in feminism within the Beatles inner circle. Plus, for all the other petty reasons too, like her eating his biscuits without asking according to him, and Yoko having a bed brought into the studio after she and John were in a bad car accident in Scotland. There was mostly ill will over much of it some of it may have had to do with racism as well. But, who really knows for certain?
George disliked Yoko. That is a known fact. As to why, exactly, one can only speculate, and I speculate that he disliked her for the same reasons that I dislike her. She was pushy and demanding, she expected The Beatles to treat her like a musical equal even though she had no musical talent at that time.
She interrupted their studio work, she made disparaging comments about their songs, she dominated Lennon’s time, and she turned him onto heroin. She also evidenced no respect toward the group, she behaved like a free-loader, and she generally brought the mood down wherever she went.
Even worse, she treated Julian and Cynthia abominably. Even one of those reasons would be justification enough for Harrison to feel as he did, but taken all together, how could he NOT dislike her?
It was for many of the reasons folks already mentioned. Butting in on sessions when it was a true “no girls” environment. The “biscuits”. Dylan bad-mouthing her. Her general “demeanor”. Her occupying John’s attention.
Remember Japan didnt have a generally great reputation with the Brits as there were severe atrocities commited by the Japanese Empire vs British soldiers in SE Asia during the war. Many people think McCartney’s Admiral Halsey as a very subtle dig at Yoko.
Also, the Beatles (particularly George, Paul and Ringo) came from poor families. The Ono family is one of the richest familial legacies in the empire….serving as the bankers to the empirial crown. There was a sense that Yoko’s financial resources gave her an advantage in the art world that was not earned.
I think as time went by, there was a thaw in the relationship. Though they were never likely great friends, they were at least on friendly terms. Consider that Olivia Harrison and Yoko are reasonably friendly and frequently sit next to each other at Beatle events (Circ de solei “Love” performances, Ringo or Paul concerts, etc…).
When Paul had his last visit with George before his death, Harrison told him to try to forgive Yoko, telling McCartney “you don’t want to carry that around the rest of your life”.
In a scene torn from history, all of George’s anger and resentment about Yoko finally culminated into her theft of his biscuit supply. He lost his composure and called her a bitch I believe.
We should all remember “birds of a feather flock together,” and there are parallels between John and Yoko and Kurt and Courtney and Sid and Nancy and many, many others—the same narcissistic dynamic, an intense honeymoon period followed by an impossible need to control.
We “choose” the romantic other because they hide the same things behind their unconscious “screens.” It’s amazing how complicated people are and how failed is the human dilemma. That a man of John’s stature and success could devolve into Yoko’s passive slave is all the proof we need.
I find acceptance is useful in such situations, rather than blame. Two people made a conscious choice to be with each other and allow and tolerate the behavioral fallout, just as the Beatles enabled it by allowing her to be in the studio. That was a choice they made, don’t forget.
It’s quite perplexing to normal people when the basic way a person is and moves through the world consistently does not add up or make coherent sense.
But inside their inner world, everything not only adds up, it is both rational and logical. That they are massively incongruent often never occurs to them, as their insight is impaired.
Most people it seems want to blame the partners of the musician for their downfall, but nothing could be further from the truth. Their dance is a game, and if it’s a sick one, everyone else gets to suffer.
This can't be the only reason (I hope), but at one point while they were in the recording studio, Yoko absentmindedly ate a biscuit that George considered his. I doubt she knew it was his--and I'm not a Yoko fan, far from it--but the Beatles were well known for not sharing their food in the studio and at the same time considered all food within their sight as fair game.
George turned to the others, who were in the control booth, and exploded, “That bitch!” I assume he had already put up with a lot at her hands, but that was the first time he gave voice to those feelings.
When they closed their Apple store, they had a night before closing, when friends were invited to come in and pick up items they liked at good prices. Yoko sent a truck to get all kinds of items, which did not further endear her to the others.
In response to another person, who answered that Yoko did not have musical talent ‘at that time', I would suggest she NEVER had any talent, still doesn't, and her master plan included using John to become a superstar on her own, which even with his total support did not happen.
There's a clip of the two on the Dick Cavett Show, when she tried to sing. Nothing I've ever heard sounds more like nails on a chalkboard than that. It's a scream. Literally.
While Yoko was probably a bit abrasive, it's more what Yoko represented, and became the catalyst for, that made George so irritated with her. When Yoko showed up, George had just been working very hard on his songwriting skills as well as his overall musicianship. At the time of the White Album sessions, he had a backlog of music.
He really wanted John and Paul to give it a listen and help him develop it. As I mentioned in another post, each of the Beatles’ characters had defects that were showing up at this time.
John was getting pretty zoned out and was only interested in his own stuff. Yoko was wandering around the studio, going against former band policy (no girlfriends in the studio). One rumored story was that she dipped into George’s bag of potato chips without asking.
If you’re already ticked off at someone, this can really take it to a new level. Yoko was crossing boundaries and setting up barriers to his friend, and in the process, stopping his creative process. Yeah, that would tick me off today and I'd have trouble coming up with good stuff to say about her.
Brrrr. The air has suddenly grown rather chilly. I have no particular bias - some people didn’t have nice things to say about George. But if you want to see just how cold and uncharismatic a person she is watch her performance at Glastonbury 2014, it is a masterclass in how to disperse a large crowd.
I would like to think it was because he didn’t consider her to be an equal artist. She was manipulative, demanding and self deserving. It would have and did stifle the bands creativity. Her presence was the beginning of the end.
If you had to pinpoint one reason which lead to the end of the Beatles I think that would be it. Reedit: I have discovered quite a lot more in the last year, she worked at Warhol’s infamous Studio 59 (the factory) and was fired because he said she had no talent.
She supposedly withheld inheritance from John Lennon’s children. And also stole George Harrison’s biscuits in a which lead to the end of the Beatles - for that she should never be forgiven. Sound engineer reveals it was a biscuit that really broke up The Beatles.
George’s business partner ripped him off and left Greorge in dire financial straights at a vulnerable time in his life. Paul, Ringo and Yoko got together and authorized reissues of the band’s catalogue in the Anthology and BBC releases to generate sufficient revenue to make him right again.
Yoko didn’t have to do this. But she agreed because, while she and the others may have benefited from it too, they felt it was an honorable way to help George that he wouldn’t mistake for charity.
That is the action of kind and compassionate friends.Yoko is vilified but, to paraphrase Paul, the Beatles were already breaking up; Yoko just happened to be there while it took place.
YOKO STOLE GEORGE’S COOKIES. yoko had a bad back and so took up heroin which she later gave to john. due to her bad back yoko had a bed brought into Abbey Road Studios and camped out while the Beatles worked. George left his cookies in the studio and went upstairs to hear playback and yoko uninvited mind you…ate all of georgie boy’s cookies.
They had other issues too but that cookie theft broke the sitar players back. someone commented on all the fabs growing beards and moustaches at the same time……&…..either george or ringo said….yes -even yoko’s growing one. all this from geoff emerick’s superb book on the studio life of the Beatles—-read it!please.
Others have given some valid reasons, but the root cause of the discord is far more basic - Yoko Ono is thoroughly obnoxious. She has no musical or artistic talent but insisted on interfering in the music of the Beatles and John allowed it to keep her happy.
She was – and is – a gold digger who was after John’s fame and fortune and nothing else. She is a perfect example of someone to avoid at all costs.
I think it can be summed up best by George’s famous quote about Yoko when she started coming around in the studio: “I honestly don’t remember ever being introduced to her, she just started showing up and wouldn’t go away.”
I don’t blame George for his statement and his feelings were completely justified. She was an usurper and distraction in the studio and totally threw off the Beatles’ chemistry. Yes I know she is not the sole reason the Beatles broke up but she sure as hell didn’t do anything to help keep them together either!
One incident I remember is when he went off on her for eating the last of his biscuits he left on his amp. “It became stifling, so that although this new album was supposed to break away from that type of recording (we were going back to playing live) it was still very much that kind of situation where he already had in his mind what he wanted.
Paul wanted nobody to play on his songs until he decided how it should go. For me it was like: 'What am I doing here? This is painful!' Then superimposed on top of that was Yoko, and there were negative vibes at that time.
John and Yoko were out on a limb. I don't think he wanted much to be hanging out with us, and I think Yoko was pushing him out of the band, and as much as she didn't want him hanging out with us.” - George Harrison.
I believe that George resented the inclusion of Yoko’s input into the band's musical production. John had her ever present in the band's recording sessions. I don't know if it was personal, I tend to think it was a problem with outside intrusion into the production process.
It's very distracting to play music in practice, or recording with people's interjection who are unqualified, and not invited by all the members. John used poor judgment allowing the imposition on the other members of his band. George has made it clear the leadership vacuum created by Brian Epsteins death caused problems with their production model.
George was a young man and like many young men then and now he was a tad misogynist and maybe unconsciously racist. Yoke was his friend’s partner and he should have accepted that from the start.
To his credit, he did later. He was probably also jealous that his friend was moving on and leaving the old gang behind. John was the first to realize the Beatles as an entity was done. If they had all realized that together they could maybe have kept the band together in a new way.
https://www.quora.com/George-Harrison-had-very-little-good-to-say-about-Yoko-Ono-What-were-the-incidents-that-led-to-this
In the late ‘60s, George Harrison, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr were not great fans of Yoko Ono or her relationship with bandmate, John Lennon. While The Beatles were still together, there were many tense moments among the group as a result of Ono’s presence in the recording studio.
A favorite example of mine is what is now known as the “biscuit incident.” The Beatles had been recording “Abbey Road” at Abbey Road Studios in London. Ono, who had been recuperating from a car accident, was resting in a bed that Lennon had set up for her in the studio.
The story goes that Ono was hungry, but didn’t want to travel far from her “sick bed,” so she crept out of it just long enough to steal a biscuit (cookie) from the package Harrison left on his guitar amplifier.
Harrison was livid with Ono. He found it incredibly disrespectful that she would touch his food without asking. He made it clear to Ono that she had crossed the line.
Soon afterward an argument broke out between him and Lennon. Although the quarrel dissipated after a short time, the damage was done; Ono was on Harrison’s sh*t list.
https://thebeatles365.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/the-biscuit-that-broke-the-beatles-back/
His section is a little different from others on this site, because it’s about the findings of my own research. I am a University of Georgia trained geneticist (M.S., Ph.D.) who worked in various genetics laboratories at the University of Georgia and conducted research there from 1989 to 2007. During those years I also taught biology and genetics at UGA.
My work focuses on hybrids and, particularly, the role of hybridization in the evolutionary process. Here, I report certain facts, which seem to indicate that human origins can be traced to hybridization, specifically to hybridization involving the chimpanzee (but not the kind of hybridization you might suppose!).
You can access detailed and documented discussions supporting this claim from the table of contents. But I’ll summarize the basic reasoning here, without a lot of citations and footnotes (see below).
So why do I think humans are hybrids? Well, first of all, I’ve had a different experience from most people. I’ve spent most of my life (the last thirty years) studying hybrids, particularly avian and mammalian hybrids. I’ve read thousands of reports describing them. And this experience has dispelled some mistaken ideas I once had about hybrids, notions that I think many other people continue to take for granted.
For example, one widespread, but erroneous, belief is that all hybrids are sterile. This idea keeps a lot of people from even considering the possibility that humans might be of hybrid origin. The reality, however, is something quite different.
For instance, in reviewing the reports I collected for my book on hybridization in birds (Handbook of Avian Hybrids of the World, Oxford University Press, 2006), which documents some 4,000 different kinds of hybrid crosses among birds, I found that those crosses producing partially fertile hybrids are about eight times as common as crosses known to produce sterile ones.
The usual result is a reduction in fertility, not absolute sterility. My current work documenting hybridization among mammals shows that partially fertile natural hybrids are common, too, in Class Mammalia. And yet, it seems most people base their ideas of hybrids on the common mule (horse x ass), which is an exceptionally sterile hybrid, and not at all representative of hybrids as a whole.
I should, perhaps, also mention that differences in parental chromosome counts, even rather large ones, do not preclude the production of fertile hybrids. While differences of this sort do bode ill for the fertility of the resulting progeny, it is only a rule of thumb.
For example, female geeps, the products of hybridization between sheep (2n=54) and goats (2n=60), can produce offspring in backcrosses. Likewise, female zeedonks (Burchell’s Zebra, 2n=44 x Ass, 2n=62) have also been fertile in backcrosses.
There are many other examples of this sort among mammalian hybrids. Therefore, such differences between the parents in a cross do not in any way guarantee an absolute sterility in the hybrid offspring.
(For those readers who do not know, backcross hybrids are produced when hybrids from a first cross mate with either of the two types of parents that produced them. When the resulting progeny mate again with the same parental type, the result is the second backcross generation, and so forth.)
A second so-called fact, which might make it seem impossible for humans to have had a hybrid origin, is the equally erroneous notion that hybrids, especially successful hybrids, do not occur in a state of nature.
A third is the mistaken idea that only plants hybridize, and never animals. In fact, however, natural, viable, fertile animal hybrids are abundant. A wide variety of such hybrids occur on an ongoing basis (read a detailed discussion documenting these facts).
For example, of the more than 4,000 different types of hybrid crosses listed in my book on hybridization in birds, approximately half are known to occur in a natural setting (download a PowerPoint presentation summarizing data on hybridization in birds). My current research indicates a comparable rate for mammals.
Sequence data. 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 (Vähä and Primmer 2006, Engler et al. 2015).
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. To better understand why backcross hybrids are hard to analyze with sequence data, take a look at this diagram:
Instead, as is the case with other later-generation backcross hybrids, the most revealing data is of an anatomical and/or physiological nature. And this is exactly the kind of hybrid that humans seem to be, that is, it appears that humans are the result of multiple generations of backcrossing to the chimpanzee.
The thing that makes backcross hybrids hard to analyze using genetic techniques is that, in terms of nucleotide sequences, they can differ very little from the parent to which backcrossing occurs.
It’s important to realize, however, that a lack of such differences does not prevent them from differing anatomically. Sequence differences are not necessary for anatomical differences to be present.
An obvious example of this phenomenon is Down’s syndrome. Individuals affected by Down’s regularly exhibit certain distinctive anatomical features, and yet in terms of their nucleotide sequences they do not differ in any way from other humans.
To detect someone with Down’s syndrome, sequence data is completely useless. But with anatomical data, detecting affected individuals is easy.
This issue is discussed in more detail in a subsequent section. The key fact is that with Down’s syndrome the differences that we see are due to differences in the number of genes present, that is, dosage differences, and not to differences in the nucleotide sequences of those genes. Dosage differences of this sort are exactly what hybridization typically produces.
Human infertility. Another observation that appears significant in connection with the theory of human origins here under consideration is that it has been well known for decades that human sperm is abnormal in comparison with that of the typical mammal.
Human spermatozoa are not of one uniform type as in the vast majority of all other types of animals. Moreover, human sperm is not merely abnormal in appearance — a high percentage of human spermatozoa are actually dysfunctional.
These and other facts demonstrate that human fertility is low in comparison with that of other mammals (for detailed documentation of this fact see the article Evidence of Human Infertility). Infertility and sperm abnormalities are characteristic of hybrids.
So this finding suggests that it's reasonable to suppose, at least for the sake of argument, that human origins can be traced to a hybrid cross. It is also consistent with the idea that the hybridization in question was between two rather distinct and genetically incompatible types of animals, that is, it was a distant cross.
Methodology. The chimpanzee is plausible in the role of one of the parents that crossed to produce the human race because they are generally recognized as being closest to humans in terms of their genetics.
Mochi
(here, I use the term chimpanzee loosely to refer to either the common chimpanzee or to the bonobo, also known as the pygmy chimpanzee; the specific roles of these two rather similar apes within the context of the theory of human origins now under consideration will be explained in a subsequent section).
But then the question arises: If an ancient cross between the chimpanzee and some parental form “X” produced the first humans, then what was that parent? Does it still exist? What was it like?
As the reader might imagine, if the assumption is correct that one of our parents is the chimpanzee, then it should be possible actually to identify the other parent as well.
A hybrid combines traits otherwise seen only separately in the two parental forms from which it is derived, and it is typically intermediate to those parents with respect to a wide range of characters. Naturalists routinely use these facts to identify the parents of hybrids of unknown origin, even backcross hybrids.
First they posit a particular type of organism as similar to the putative hybrid (in the present case, this organism is the chimpanzee). They then list traits distinguishing the hybrid from the hypothesized parent, and this list of distinguishing traits will describe the second parent.
A detailed analysis of such a triad will often establish the parentage of the hybrid. The traits in question in such studies are generally anatomical, not genetic. DNA evidence is used in only a very small percentage of such identifications (and even then, rarely in efforts to identify backcross hybrids), and yet firm conclusions can generally be reached.
So in the specific case of humans, if the two assumptions made thus far are correct (i.e., (1) that humans actually are hybrids, and (2) that the chimpanzee actually is one of our two parents), then a list of traits distinguishing human beings from chimpanzees should describe the other parent involved in the cross.
And by applying this sort of methodology, I did in fact succeed in narrowing things down to a particular candidate. That is, I looked up every human distinction that I could find and, so long as it was cited by an expert (physical anthropologist, anatomist, etc.), I put it on a list. And that list (see next page), which includes many traits, consistently describes a particular animal. Keep reading and I’ll explain.
http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html
And why might one suppose that humans are backcross hybrids of the sort just described? Well, the most obvious reason is that humans are highly similar to chimpanzees at the genetic level, closer than they are to any other animal.
If we were descended from F hybrids without any backcrossing we would be about halfway, genetically speaking, between chimpanzees and whatever organism was the other parent.
But we’re not. Genetically, we’re close to chimpanzees, and yet we have many physical traits that distinguish us from chimpanzees. This exactly fits the backcross hypothesis.
Moreover, in mammalian hybrid crosses, the male hybrids are usually more sterile than are the females. In a commercial context, this fact means that livestock breeders typically backcross F₁ hybrids of the fertile sex back to one parent or the other.
They do not, as a rule, produce new breeds by breeding the first cross hybrids among themselves. Often, even after a backcross, only the females are fertile among the resulting hybrids. So repeated backcrossing is typical.
Commonly there are two or more generations of backcrossing before fertile hybrids of both sexes are obtained and the new breed can be maintained via matings among the hybrids themselves. More backcrossing tends to be necessary in cases where the parents participating in the original cross are more distantly related.
Many characteristics that clearly distinguish humans from chimps have been noted by various authorities over the years. The task of preliminarily identifying a likely pair of parents, then, is straightforward: Make a list of all such characteristics and then see if it describes a particular animal.
One fact, however, suggests the need for an open mind: as it turns out, many features that distinguish humans from chimpanzees also distinguish them from all other primates.
Features found in human beings, but not in other primates, cannot be accounted for by hybridization of a primate with some other primate. If hybridization is to explain such features, the cross will have to be between a chimpanzee and a nonprimate — an unusual, distant cross to create an unusual creature.
The fact that even modern-day humans are relatively infertile may be significant in this connection. If a hybrid population does not die out altogether, it will tend to improve in fertility with each passing generation under the pressure of natural selection.
Fossils indicate that we have had at least 200,000 years to recover our fertility since the time that the first modern humans (Homo sapiens) appeared. The earliest creatures generally recognized as human ancestors (Ardipithecus, Orrorin) date to about six million years ago.
So our fertility has had a very long time to improve. If we have been recovering for thousands of generations and still show obvious symptoms of sterility (see previous section), then our earliest human ancestors, if they were hybrids, must have suffered from an infertility that was quite severe.
This line of reasoning, too, suggests that the chimpanzee might have produced Homo sapiens by crossing with a genetically incompatible mate, possibly even one outside the primate order.
For the present, I ask the reader to reserve judgment concerning the plausibility of such a cross. I’m an expert on hybrids and I can assure you that our understanding of hybridization at the molecular level is still far too vague to rule out the idea of a chimpanzee crossing with a nonprimate.
Anyone who speaks with certainty on this point speaks from prejudice, not knowledge. No systematic attempts to cross distantly related mammals have been reported. However, in the only animal class (Pisces) where distant crosses have been investigated scientifically, the results have been surprisingly successful (399.6, 399.7, 399.8).
In fact, there seems to be absolutely nothing to support the idea that inter-ordinal crosses (such as a cross between a primate and a nonprimate) are impossible, except what Thomas Huxley termed “the general and natural belief that deliberate and reiterated assertions must have some foundation.”
Besides, to deny that inter-ordinal mammalian crosses are possible would be to draw, at the outset of our investigation, a definite conclusion concerning the very hypothesis that we have chosen to investigate.
Obviously, if humans were the product of such a cross, then such crosses would, in fact, be possible. We cannot tell, simply by supposing, whether such a thing is possible — we have to look at data.
Let’s begin, then, by considering the list in the sidebar at right, which is a condensed list of traits distinguishing humans from chimpanzees — and all other nonhuman primates. Take the time to read this list and to consider what creature — of any kind — it might describe.
Most of the items listed are of such an obscure nature that the reader might be hard pressed to say what animal might have them (only a specialist would be familiar with many of the terms listed, but all the necessary jargon will be defined and explained).
For example, consider multipyramidal kidneys. It’s a fact that humans have this trait, and that chimpanzees and other primates do not, but the average person on the street would probably have no idea what animals do have this feature.
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? That is, could it be a mere coincidence? It’s only my opinion, but I don’t think so.
Of course, it must be admitted that two human traits do, at first, seem to pose a contradiction. The animal in question lacks a large brain and it is not bipedal.
An analysis of the relevant anatomy, however, reveals that these two human features can be understood as synergistic (or heterotic) effects, resulting from the combination (in humans) of certain traits previously found only separately, in the two posited parent forms.
(The origins of human bipedality is explained in terms of the the hybrid hypothesis in a subsequent section. Another section offers an explanation of the factors underlying human brain expansion and, therefore, accounts not only for the large size of the human brain itself, but also for certain distinctive features of the human skull that are, themselves, obvious consequences of brain expansion).
Nevertheless, even initially, these two flies in the theoretical ointment fail to obscure the remarkable fact that a single nonprimate has all of the simple, non-synergistic traits distinguishing humans from their primate kin.
Such a finding is strongly consistent with the hypothesis that this particular animal once hybridized with the chimpanzee to produce the first humans. In a very simple manner, this assumption immediately accounts for a large number of facts that otherwise appear to be entirely unrelated.
What is this other animal that has all these traits? The answer is Sus scrofa, the ordinary pig. What are we to think of this fact? If we conclude that pigs did in fact cross with apes to produce the human race, then an avalanche of old ideas must crash to the earth.
But, of course, the usual response to any new perspective is “That can’t be right, because I don’t already believe it.” This is the very response that many people had when Darwin first proposed that humans might be descended from apes, an idea that was perceived as ridiculous, or even as subversive and dangerous.
And yet, today this exact viewpoint is widely entertained. Its wide acceptance can be attributed primarily to the established fact that humans hold many traits in common with primates. That’s what made it convincing.
But perhaps Darwin told only half the story. Scientists argue that humans are related to chimpanzees because humans share so many traits with chimpanzees. Is it not rational then also, if pigs have all the traits that distinguish humans from other primates, to suppose that humans are also related to pigs?
Let us consider, then, the hypothesis that humans are the product of ancient hybridization between pig and chimpanzee. Given the facts presented in the discussion of stabilization theory on this website, it seems highly likely that humans are hybrids of some kind.
This particular hypothesis concerning the nature of our parentage is, as we shall see, a fruitful one. For the present there’s no need to make a definite decision on the matter, but certain lines of reasoning do suggest the idea should be taken seriously:
First of all, the notion is set forward strictly as a hypothesis. No claim whatever is made that it is actually a fact that humans somehow arose through hybridization of pigs with chimpanzees. In contrast, proponents of the idea that humans are closely related to apes (and not to pigs) often speak as if their case has been proved beyond doubt.
But, of course, it has not. The wide acceptance of this idea may actually be due to the lack of any competitive theory. I merely propose an evaluation of two distinct hypotheses by the usual scientific criterion: The hypothesis less consistent with available data should be rejected.
Even if we could identify some objective unit of measure for “distance” or “similarity” (which is not at all a straightforward problem), we would still expect some crosses to be more distant than others — that is, the various types of possible crosses would constitute a continuum. Many would be “close” and some would be “distant.”
But we would expect at least a rare few to be very distant. While these few might be rare, they might be among the most interesting, because they would offer an opportunity to obtain something radically different. Perhaps, it is only a subjective bias, but I believe that a human being, when taken as a whole, is radically different from a chimpanzee.
On the other hand, if we first compare humans with nonmammals or invertebrates (e.g, crocodile, bullfrog, octopus, dragonfly, starfish), then pigs and chimpanzees suddenly seem quite similar to humans. Relative impressions of “close” and “far” are subjective and depend on context.
Pigs and chimpanzees differ in chromosome counts. The opinion is often expressed that when two animals differ in this way, they cannot produce fertile hybrids. This rule is, however, only a generalization.
While such differences do tend to have an adverse effect on the fertility of hybrid offspring, it is also true that many different types of crosses in which the parents differ in chromosome counts produce hybrids that are themselves capable of producing offspring.
As Annie P. Gray noted in the preface to her reference work Mammalian Hybrids (1972, p. viii), which compiled information about all known hybrid mammals, “no close correlation was found between the chromosome count or the duration of gestation and the ability of species to hybridize.”
Cow-horse hybrids
Pig-human hybrid Pig-human hybrids
cow-human hybridCow-human hybrids
Sheep-human hybrid Sheep-human hybrids
chicken-pigeon hybrid Chicken-pigeon hybrids
There have been no systematic, scientific surveys of the crossability of mammals belonging to different taxonomic orders (a cross between pig and chimpanzee would be inter-ordinal). Any firm opinion on such a point must therefore, necessarily, be prejudiced.
In fact, there is substantial evidence on this website supporting the idea that very distantly related mammals can mate and produce a hybrid (see the section on mammalian hybrids and, in particular, look at the videos shown there of ostensible rabbit-cat hybrids). Another relevant case involves ostensible hybridization between dog and cow.
In addition, certain fishes belonging to different orders have been successfully crossed, and available information on mammalian hybrids indicates that various other extremely distant crosses have occurred.
Evidence published in the journal Nature demonstrates that the platypus genome contains both bird and mammal chromosomes (Grützner et al. 2004). As Frank Grützner, the lead author of the study, stated in a related news story, “The platypus actually links the bird sex chromosome system with the mammalian sex chromosome systems.”
How could this be the case if a bird and a mammal did not at some time in the past hybridize to produce a fertile hybrid? Such a cross would be far more distant than one between a chimpanzee and a pig (and platypuses are, of course, fertile — otherwise they would not be able to propagate themselves). And seemingly, a cross between a primate and a pig did occur only a few years ago, in 2008.
Ultimately, the interaction of gametes at the time of fertilization, and the subsequent interplay of genes (derived from two different types of parents) during the course of a hybrid’s development cannot be predicted by any known laws because the interaction is between a multitude of extremely complex chemical entities that each have an effect on others.
It is for this reason that the degree of similarity perceived between two organisms is no sure indicator of their crossability. Another suggestive fact, probably known to the reader, is the frequent use of pigs in the surgical treatment of human beings. Pig heart valves are used to replace those of human coronary patients.
Pig skin is used in the treatment of human burn victims. Serious efforts are now underway to transplant kidneys and other organs from pigs into human beings. Why are pigs suited for such purposes?
Why not goats, dogs, or bears — animals that, in terms of taxonomic classification, are no more distantly related to human beings than pigs? (In subsequent sections, these issues are considered in detail.)
God did not place pigs and humans in different taxonomic orders. Taxonomists did. A great deal of evidence (read a discussion of this topic) exists to suggest that taxonomists are, in no way, infallible.
Our ideas concerning the proper categorization of animals are shaped by bias and tradition to such an extent that it would be rash to reject, solely on taxonomic grounds, the feasibility of such a cross.
The general examination of the process of evolution as a whole (as presented elsewhere on this site) strongly suggests that most forms of life are of hybrid origin. Why should humans be any different?
It might seem unlikely that a pig and a chimpanzee would choose to mate, but their behavior patterns and reproductive anatomy do, in fact, make them compatible (this topic is considered in detail in a subsequent section).
It is, of course, a well-established fact that animals sometimes attempt to mate with individuals that are unlike themselves, even in a natural setting, and that many of these crosses successfully produce hybrid offspring.
Accepted theory, which assumes that humans have been gradually shaped by natural selection for traits favorable to reproduction, does not begin to account for the relative infertility of human beings in comparison with nonhuman primates and other types of animals (see previous section).
How would natural selection ever produce abnormal, dysfunctional spermatozoa? On the other hand, the idea that humans are descended from a hybrid cross — especially a relatively distant cross — provides a clear explanation for Homo’s puzzling and persistent fertility problems.
If we supposed standard theory to be correct, it would seem most peculiar that pigs and humans share features that distinguish human beings from chimpanzees, but that pigs and chimpanzees should not.
Conventional theory (which assumes that pigs are equally as far removed from humans as from chimpanzees) says that pigs and chimpanzees would share about as many such traits as would pigs and humans.
And yet, I have never been able to identify any such trait—despite assiduous investigation. The actual finding is that traits distinguishing chimpanzees from humans consistently link pigs with humans alone.
It will be difficult to account in terms of natural selection for this fact. For each such feature, we will have to come up with a separate ad hoc argument, explaining how the feature has helped both pigs and humans to survive and reproduce.
On the other hand, a single, simple assumption (that modern humans, or earlier hominids that gave rise to modern humans, arose from a cross between pig and chimpanzee) will account for all of these features at a single stroke.
For my own part, curiosity has carried me away from my old idea of reality. I no longer know what to believe. Is it possible that so many biologists might be wrong about the nature of human origins?
Is it possible for a pig to hybridize with a chimpanzee? I have no way of knowing at present, but I have no logical or evidential basis for rejecting the idea. Before dismissing such a notion, I would want to be sure on some logical, evidentiary basis that I actually should dismiss it.
The ramifications of any misconception on this point seem immense. As Huxley put it long ago, “The question of questions for mankind — the problem which underlies all others, and is more deeply interesting than any other — is the ascertainment of the place which Man occupies in nature.”
Are we simply another type of primate, like the chimpanzee or the baboon? Or are we a complex melange, an alloy of two very distinct forms of life? These are questions that can only be resolved by examining the evidence.
I invite the reader to consider these two possibilities as simple hypotheses, to consider the data coldly, and then to determine which of the two is more consistent with available evidence.
http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins-2.html
Some of the most easily accessible evidence that can be used to evaluate the hybrid hypothesis is visible in the mirror. In this section, we will consider certain external features that link humans with pigs.
Much of my research on pigs has centered on the ordinary pig (Sus scrofa). Of course, ordinary pig is really a catchall term for a variety of breeds.
"There are currently some 87 breeds of domestic pigs in the world, most of them in Europe and North America," according to Pond and Houpt, and "another 225 or more groups of pigs not recognized as breeds but each having unique characteristics, appearance, or geographical location."1 However, the focus here will be on traits that are generally characteristic of Sus scrofa.
And now, let’s look a little more closely at some human distinctions that, as it turns out, are characteristics of pigs as well. Traits that distinguish us from chimpanzees and other primates are the only ones that will be discussed, because traits that humans share with primates have no bearing on the question of whether humans are of hybrid origin.
Under the hypothesis being considered, it would make no difference if humans are more similar to chimpanzees in most respects than to pigs. The interesting finding is that those features that do distinguish humans from chimpanzees and other primates can be consistently accounted for by reference to the pig.
This physical affinity of humans and pigs is easily observable in certain external features. This fact did not escape Thomas Mann (1955, p. 271), who once wrote "The pig with its little blue eyes, its eyelashes and its skin has more human qualities than any chimpanzee — think how often naked human beings remind us of swine."
Although I do not concur in Mann’s assertion that pigs share more traits with humans than do chimpanzees, I do think pigs and humans share more than enough traits to suggest a relationship. For example, lightly pigmented eyes, in shades of blue, green, and tan, are never found in chimpanzees or orangutans (Schultz 1947, p. 11).
There is, apparently, only one known case of a gorilla with blue eyes (Dixson 1981, p. 31). Light-colored eyes are also rare in other primates (ibid.). Why, then, are they common in certain human populations? Where did this trait come from?
One conceivable explanation is that it was inherited from blue-eyed pigs. Blue is a common eye coloration in swine (as are green, yellow, and tan). The dark pigment (melanin), found so consistently in the irises of nonhuman primates, is beneficial.
It absorbs ultraviolet light. To protect their eyes from these damaging rays, pigs depend on their narrowly slit, heavily lashed eyelids. Humans shield their eyes in a similar way, unlike the typical wide-eyed, sparsely lashed ape.
[A reader, by the name of Chase Dumont, wrote in with the following comment, which is of interest in the present context: "The outer appearance of the eye itself looks quite different from a chimpanzee’s and more like a pig’s — the pupil/iris in a chimpanzee eye covers the entire eye, while the pupil/iris in a pig eye occupy a much smaller footprint, displaying much of the 'white' of the eye — as in humans)."]
Neither is it clear how a protrusive cartilaginous nose might have aided early humans in their "savanna hunter lifestyle." As Morris (1967, p. 67) remarks, "It is interesting to note that the protuberant, fleshy nose of our species is another unique feature that the anatomists cannot explain."
This feature is neither characteristic of apes, nor even of other catarrhines (Hill 1966, p. 29). Obviously, pigs have a nose even more protuberant than our own.
In a pig’s snout, the nasal wings and septum are cartilaginous as ours are (Walker 1983, p. 1175). In contrast, a chimpanzee’s nose "is small, flat, and has no lateral cartilages" (Sonntag 1923, p. 397). A cartilaginous nose is apparently a rare trait in mammals.
Primatologist Jeffrey Schwartz goes so far as to say that "it is the enlarged nasal wing cartilage that makes the human nose what it is, and which distinguishes humans from all other animals" (Schwartz 1987, p. 185).
The cartilaginous structure of the pig’s snout is generally considered to be an "adaptation" for digging with the nose (rooting). Rooting is, apparently, a behavior pattern peculiar to pigs. Other animals dig with their feet.
A protruding nose is perhaps the most prominent difference between a human face and that of a chimpanzee, but discussions of human evolution rarely mention the nose, perhaps because its lack of utility precludes explanation in terms of adaptation.
Instead, most analyses deal with the fleshless skull, where the protrusiveness of the human nose is a bit less obvious (but visible nonetheless). It is a peculiar omission, because useles.
(nonadaptive) traits are widely considered to be the best indicators of relationship. What is the evolutionary utility of our unique nasal structure? Is it functional? Or is it the genetic residue of an ancient hybrid cross?
Another feature to consider is the philtrum, the dent seen on the center of the human upper lip. Apes lack this typical human feature.11 It seems a useless structure from a survival standpoint. Why is it seen, then, the world over in Homo? In both human beings and pigs, during the early stages of development, the upper lip is cleft, though I have not been able to find any evidence of such a cleft in the embryos of any nonhuman primate.
As development continues, this cleft usually closes in humans, but persists in pigs.12 The human philtrum is a visible residue of this primordial split lip. In those human beings where this split never closes, the condition is known as cleft lip, a common birth defect.
The frequent occurrence of cleft lip in humans is hard to explain if it is assumed that we are closely related only to primates. If the assumption, however, is that human beings are derived from a pig-chimpanzee cross, this finding becomes far more understandable.
Similar thinking explains the shortness of the human upper lip (distance between mouth opening and nostrils). Why has our upper lip become shorter and thicker in the course of evolution?
All apes have upper lips much longer than those of humans,13 but a pig’s upper lip is so short that it is scarcely more than an appendage of the snout.14 Morris15 makes much of the fact that human lips are covered on their exterior surface by glabrous (i.e., absolutely hairless) mucous membrane:
Like the earlobes and the protruding nose, the lips of our species are a unique feature, not found elsewhere in the primates. Of course, all primates have lips, but not turned inside-out like ours.
A chimpanzee can protrude and turn back its lips in an exaggerated pout, exposing as it does so the mucous membrane that normally lies concealed inside the mouth.
But the lips are only briefly held in this posture before the animal reverts to its normal ‘thin-lipped’ face. We on the other hand, have permanently everted, rolled-back lips.
He goes on to suggest that our peculiar lips are the product of "sexual selection." But other explanations are conceivable: In describing the skin of pigs, Getty16 states that "there are no true glabrous surfaces other than the labial borders," which are composed of red mucous membrane.
In reference to human earlobes, Morris observes that "anatomists have often referred to them as meaningless appendages, or `useless fatty excrescences.' By some they are explained away as `remnants' of the time when we had big ears.
But if we look to other primate species we find that they do not possess fleshy earlobes. It seems that, far from being a remnant, they are something new.
Perhaps, however, they are really something old on a new face. Sisson describes the lower portion of a pig’s ear as "strongly convex below, forming a prominence somewhat analogous to the lobule of the human ear."
An additional feature of the human ear should be mentioned here, the Darwinian tubercle (see Darwin’s illustration below). In his Descent of Man, Darwin comments on this feature sometimes found on the rim of human ears which he describes as "a little blunt point, projecting from the inwardly-folded margin, or helix.
These points not only project inward, but often a little outward, so that they are visible when the head is viewed from directly in front or behind.
They are variable in size and somewhat in position, standing either a little higher or lower; and they sometimes occur in one ear and not on the other. Now the meaning of these projections is not, I think, doubtful, but it may be thought that they offer too trifling a character to be worth notice.
This thought, however, is as false as it is natural. Every character, however slight, must be the result of some definite cause; and if it occurs in many individuals deserves consideration.
The helix obviously consists of the extreme margin of the ear folded inward; and this folding appears to be in some manner connected with the whole external ear, being permanently pressed backward.
In many monkeys, which do not stand high in the order, as baboons and some species of macacus, the upper portion of the ear is slightly pointed, and the margin is not at all folded inward, a slight point would necessarily project inward and probably a little outward.
This could actually be observed in a specimen of the Ateles beelzebuth in the Zoological Gardens; and we may safely conclude that it is a similar structure — a vestige of formerly-pointed ears — which occasionally reappears in man.
Primatologist Adolph Schultz (1973), however, flatly contradicts Darwin, saying that "clearly pointed ears, commonly called `satyr ears,' are among monkeys typical for only macaques and baboons and do not occur in any hominoids [great apes], not even in the early stages of development.
There is no justification, therefore, to interpret the occasional `Darwinian tubercles' on human ears as an atavistic manifestation of ancestral pointed ears."20 But Schultz has not, perhaps, taken into consideration the pointed ears of swine.
Swine have prominent eyebrow hair. On the brows of the chimpanzee fetus it is possible to discern a region of light-colored bumps following a pattern similar to that of the human eyebrow. Adult apes, however, have no eyebrow hair.
On their eyelids, pigs have luxuriant eyelashes, thicker even than those of human beings. In many pigs these cilia, as anatomists term them, are so thick that the animal seems to be wearing false eyelashes. But apes scarcely have eyelashes at all, despite the apparent survival value of this feature.
Also, pongids have prominent brow ridges while pigs and most humans do not. If we choose to explain the development of human eyelashes and eyebrows in terms of natural selection, we must wonder why apes, which have existed at least as long as any hominid, have failed to acquire them.
Perhaps their heavy brow ridges sufficiently protected their eyes, but if such is the case, why did not brow ridges also suffice for Homo? What was the pressing need that caused Homo to substitute tufts of hair for ridges of bone?
That humans lack the hair cover of nonhuman primates is an accepted fact. "It is this single factor that constitutes the chief difference between human skin and the skin of other mammals" (Montagna22). Some writers say that the hair coat of a chimpanzee is "sparse." But if "sparse" describes chimpanzee pelage, then "naked" accurately describes the skin of human beings. Any human who even approached the hairiness of other primates would be considered abnormal.
Pigs, however, are a different case. Many domestic pig breeds have skin just as naked as human skin. As Cena et al. (101.9,521) observe, "Hair densities [of animal coats] range from the sparse residual covering on man and the pig with 10-100 hairs per cm², to [the] dense coats of species such as the fox and rabbit with about 4,000 per cm²."
In wild Sus scrofa, according to Haltenorth, the density of hair coverage varies from "sparse to thick," depending on the specimen or variety in question.23 For example, the hair of the modern day wild variety of Sus scrofa present in Sudan (S. s. senaarensis) is quite sparse.
Other primates do not have the long mane of hair that tops the head of an unshorn human, nor do they have beards. Haltenorth notes that in some varieties of Sus scrofa, manes are found on the neck and back , beards on the cheeks, and shocks of hair on the forehead and atop the head. He also says that the last of these three traits is found, among pigs, in Sus alone.
A prehistoric painting of a pig found in Altamira Cave in northern Spain depicts an animal with a beard and thick hair atop its head (pictures). Sus barbatus, an extant pig native to southeast Asia (which forms fertile hybrids of both sexes in crosses with S. scrofa) has little hair on its body, but does have a very thick and bushy beard.
Panniculus adiposus. In an article on the evolution of human skin, renowned cutaneous comparative anatomist William Montagna (1985, p. 14) notes that, "Together with the loss of a furry cover, human skin acquired a hypodermal fatty layer (panniculus adiposus) which is considerably thicker than that found in other primates, or mammals for that matter.
This is not to say that only man has a fat skin, but a thick fatty layer is as characteristic an attribute of human skin as it is of pig skin." Similarly, Dyce et al. (1987, p. 742) note that there is a "well developed fat deposit present almost everywhere in the subcutis." Primatologist F. W. Jones (1929, p. 309) also noted this fat layer:
The peculiar relation of the skin to the underlying superficial fascia is a very real distinction [of human beings], familiar to everyone who has repeatedly skinned both human subjects and any other members of the primates.
The bed of subcutaneous fat adherent to the skin, so conspicuous in man, is possibly related to his apparent hair reduction; though it is difficult to see why, if no other factor is invoked, there should be such a basal difference between man and the chimpanzee.
Panniculus carnosus. "Another particularity of human skin is its general lack, or loss, of the cutaneous skeletal muscle layer (panniculus carnosus) found throughout the skin of most other mammals. Remnants of a panniculus carnosus in human skin are found at the front of the neck in the apron-like, thin platysma muscle
All other primates, even the great apes, have a panniculus carnosus over much of the body" (Montagna (1985, pp. 14-15; see also Sobotta 1983, figs. 459, 460). As in humans, the cutaneous musculature of pigs is well developed in the neck (platysma muscle) and face, but sparse or nonexistent elsewhere (Nickel et al. 1986, p. 230; Sack 1982).
In animals having a panniculus carnosus, the skin receives its blood supply from direct cutaneous arteries (large superficial vessels running parallel to the skin surface in the cutaneous muscle sheath). But when no panniculus carnosus is present, arteries feeding the skin rise up like little trees from deep within the body.
Arteries of this latter type are called musculocutaneous. These two forms of dermal circulation are depicted in the illustration below. Both pig skin and human skin are supplied by musculocutaneous arteries (Montagna and Parakkal 1974, pp. 143-144). As Daniel and Williams (1973, pp. 20-21) observed in an article on skin flap transfer, "Most experimental animals do not have a vascular supply to the skin similar to that of man.
The pig’s cutaneous vascular supply has been demonstrated anatomically and surgically to be more comparable than most to that of man … As in man, the pig’s skin is supplied by ubiquitous musculocutaneous arteries and by a few direct cutaneous arteries."
This observation has been confirmed by other authors: "Except for pigs, whose cutaneous vasculature resembles that of man, loose-skinned mammals are vascularized by direct cutaneous arteries" (Montagna and Parakkal 1974, p. 144).
Therefore, in this respect, human skin is more similar to pig skin than to that of nonhuman primates: "Actually, the vascularity of the skin of most nonhuman primates is essentially similar to that of other furred animals" (Montagna 1985, p. 16).
In particular, Baccaredda-Boy (1964, p. 211), as well as Moretti and Farris (1963, pp. 162, 170-171) found that the skin of chimpanzees differs from that of human beings in having numerous large, superficial vessels (i.e., direct cutaneous arteries).
http://www.macroevolution.net/hybrid-hypothesis-section-1.html
The Cave of Altamira in Spain is famous for its Upper Paleolithic cave paintings featuring drawings and colorful paintings of game animals and human hands. It was the first cave where prehistoric cave paintings were discovered.
The Altamira paintings, now recognized as some of the oldest and finest paleolithic paintings in Europe, were discovered by the now famous Spanish spelunker Marcelino Sanz de Sautuola (1831–1888). At the time, cave paintings were as yet unknown to archaeological science.
During the 1870s de Sautuola had begun spending his spare time probing the caves of his native Cantabria, a region in the extreme north of Spain, on the Bay of Biscay. It was in the summer of 1879, in Altamira cave, after many such excursions, that his little daughter Maria suddenly cried out — "Mira papá! Bueyes pintados!" (Look, papa! Painted bulls!).
De Sautuola followed his daughter's eyes to the ceiling — "No son bueyes," he whispered, gazing upward. "Son bisontes!" (They aren't bulls. They're bison!). He saw at once that this was prehistoric art — No bison had lived in Spain in historic times.
The wisent, or European bison (see figure right), is an animal to all appearances identical to the American bison, or buffalo. The two are treated, however, as separate species (their scientific names are, respectively, Bison bonasus and Bison bison).
Once widespread and abundant in Eurasia, the wisent has long teetered on the verge of extinction. A small herd survives in Bialowieski National Park in Poland.
When de Sautuola published, at his own expense, a book of illustrations presenting the paintings and drawings he had found in the cave, many people thought it was all a hoax.
They could not believe prehistoric humans would be able to produce art of any kind (especially given the fact that many modern humans can't draw!). In fact de Sautuola died without ever seeing his claims accepted. Of course, the fact that cave art is genuine is well accepted today.
Scientists are still evaluating the age of the art in Altamira Cave. Recent uranium-thorium dating studies suggest that the paintings were created piecemeal over a period of some 20,000 years, with the oldest dating to about 35,000 years B.P.
Because the paintings were deteriorating, Altamira was closed to the public in 1977. A very few visitors are still admitted, but the waiting time is long. Much easier of access is the replica of the cave which has now been built. Go see it next time you're in northwestern Spain.
http://www.macroevolution.net/altamira-cave.html
While this distant cross as yet lacks genetic confirmation, it is, in fact, far better documented than certain other cat crosses that, on first consideration, might seem more plausible (e.g., cat × dog or cat × raccoon). In particular, this cross is attested by many videos of ostensible cat-rabbit hybrids and innumerable eyewitness reports.
The alleged offspring of a buck rabbit and a cat is known as a cabbit (or rabcat), a creature with a long and contentious history. Many people consider such hybrids impossible, but it’s not as if evidence of their existence were lacking.
For example, there is a creature in Tucuman, Argentina, that seems to be an actual cabbit, not an impossible imaginary one. The following video clearly shows the Tucuman animal, in which the front half of the body looks just like that of a cat, and the rear half, just like a rabbit’s. It also moves around like a rabbit, not a cat. In short, it hops!
Not surprisingly, many have rejected, or even ridiculed, claims that cabbits exist. Thus, the nineteenth-century naturalist Francis Trevelyan Buckland, who believed all purported hybrids of this type to be “Manx cats with birth defects,” once joked (Buckland 1882, p. 33), “To Mr. [Abraham Dee] Bartlett [then Superintendent of the London Zoo], are brought sometimes supposed hybrids between a cat and a rabbit. Our friend says a cat with a short tail will not prove the argument. He wants a rabbit with a long tail.
On the other hand, there are many, often vehement claims that cabbits are real. For example, Sarah Hartwell, who wrote an article arguing that cabbits are impossible, quoted the following from an email she received from a cabbit proponent: “I just read your article on your web page and have to tell you that you are full of crap.
Cabbits are real, I have had them and bred them and they are abundant in Ontario. No one has become famous, as you say about some vets in your article. It isn’t rocket science and no one will be getting a Nobel for it. They are an accepted species in Ontario. I have pictures and can describe anything you want to know about them.
They have soft fur like the rabbit, look like a cat except they have the hind legs of the rabbit, they are silent, don’t meow and they kind of hop/walk. It is possible for some species to cross-breed, it just isn’t much thought of. You really should research before you go spouting off. What the hell are your qualifications anyways??
Barbara Marciniak
I and my parents before me have been registered breeders of the CKC [i.e., Canadian Kennel Club]. I can also tell you that I can tell when 2 animals are mating and when 8 weeks later babies are born and the only 2 “going at it” was the rabbit and the cat.
They are not manx and you really should have a few certificates on your wall before you judge those of us who actually know what we are talking about. Thus, it seems that participants on both sides of this unending debate view their opponents as ignorant, and perhaps even intentionally dishonest.
Originally, I myself dismissed the idea that such a distant hybrid might be possible. However, after seeing many of the videos on Youtube showing what appear to be living cabbits (quite a few of which can be seen here), I now wonder. I’d like to see some of these animals genetically tested, but no one with the proper laboratory facilities has chosen to do so.
It is certainly true, however, that buck rabbits have many times been observed to mount and mate with female cats. This fact is amply documented on YouTube. And numerous videos showing ostensible cabbits have been collected on a separate page of this website.
All show “cats” that appear to be similar to a rabbit in the posterior regions of their bodies, and which hop like rabbits. Manx cats with birth defects? Cat-rabbit hybrids?
Such evidence suggests, at the very least, that this issue should be investigated further. If these animals are hybrids, it would be easy to verify the fact via analysis of their DNA, given that they would, presumably, be F₁ hybrids. Only later-generation backcross hybrids raise difficulties in connection with DNA evaluation.
It’s significant that cats have been known to suckle and raise rabbits. Animals adopted by a female not of their own kind tend, upon reaching sexual maturity, to choose to mate with animals of that kind instead of their own (this phenomenon is known as imprinting). The result is often hybridization. The following video documents a case of a cat nursing rabbits:
Rabbits nursed in this way would no doubt be imprinted on cats when they reached maturity and therefore as adults, instead of mating with their own kind, would choose to mate with cats, a sine qua non of cabbit production (if cabbits can be produced at all!).
In the case of Manx cats, if they are of hybrid origin (see section on the origin of the Manx here), the rabbit parent in question would be Oryctolagus cuniculus, the European rabbit, which is the only rabbit occurring on the Isle of Man.
As to the various ostensible cabbits shown on the cabbit videos page, it is uncertain whether the European rabbit or some other type of rabbit might have been involved. Oryctolagus cuniculus, however, which is highly invasive, has been introduced into many different parts of the world, and numerous rabbit breeds, closely allied to the European rabbit, are widely popular as pets.
Chromosomes. One reason people often cite for the impossibility of producing cabbits is that rabbits and cats have different chromosome numbers (2n=44 and 2n=38, respectively) and that they therefore cannot produce hybrids together.
This claim, however, is not consistent with the fact that well-documented hybrids are known from many other types of mammalian crosses where the parents differ even more with respect to chromosome number than do a cat and a rabbit. Numerous cases of this sort are documented on this website. A few examples, among many, are:
horse x zebra
ass x zebra
and Indian muntjac x Chinese muntjac
The chromosome counts of sheep and goats differ by exactly six, just as do cats and rabbits, but it is well known that they occasionally produce hybrids.
Gestation period. A second argument is that the gestation period of a cat is a month longer than that of a rabbit (64 and 31 days, respectively), which is somehow supposed to make hybrids impossible.
During the course of my research into hybrids, I have often met with this assertion. It is, in fact, an age-old claim, dating back at least as far as Pliny the Elder (1st century A.D.). But various counterexamples invalidate this line of argument.
Two well-established examples are the cama, the hybrid of a dromedary camel (gestation period = 13 months) and a llama (g.p. = 11 months), and the wolphin, the hybrid of a false killer whale (g.p. = 15.5 months) and a bottle-nosed dolphin (g.p. = 11.5 months).
Both of these cases are documented on this website (here and here, respectively). In the latter case, the gestation periods of the two animals in question differ, by four months, and not merely one, as in the case of cat and rabbit.
The domestic pig has a gestation period of 115 days, whereas that of the babirusa averages 153 (150-157 days), a difference of 33 percent, about the same, then, as that between dolphins and false killer whales (34%). And yet, they produce hybrids.
So it seems this claim about differences in gestation period lengths preventing hybridization is just an old wive’s tale, repeated by scientists and non-scientists alike.
Genetic “distance.”
A third is that they are too “different genetically” to produce hybrids. But every hybrid cross involves parents that are genetically different and the exact amount of genetic difference that precludes a hybrid cross is unknown, as is the nature of such differences. (I say this as a Ph.D. in genetics who has spent years researching hybrids.)
“Difference.” A fourth is that they are too different in terms of their anatomy or in terms of evolutionary relationship to produce a hybrid. But the parents in a hybrid cross typically differ in anatomy, and it is not known just how different two animals can be in terms of their anatomy and still produce a hybrid.
As to evolutionary relationship, in that case too, it is unknown how distantly related two hybridizing animals can be. (But perhaps the present case, that of cat-rabbit hybrids, gives us a clue?)
Fertility. In the case of this specific cross some people point to the fact that Manx cats not only produce offspring, but are a recognized breed. Since hybrids are sterile, they say, the Manx cannot be a hybrid.
Quod erat demonstrandum! However, this argument draws conclusions from false premises. Many hybrid crosses (documented elsewhere on this website) produce fertile, or at least partially fertile, offspring. And many fertile domestic breeds are known to be the products of hybridization. So there really is no reason to conclude on such a basis that Manx cats cannot be cat-rabbit hybrids.
The “Manx gene.” Indeed, Manxes are not as fertile as ordinary cats. It is well-known that they produce a high percentage of inviable offspring, which is characteristic of hybrids.
This high rate of inviability is attributed to the "Manx gene," I have not as yet found—and I challenge anyone else to find—any formal study characterizing this gene, or even mapping it to a particular chromosome.
It has, of course, been noted that mating a tailless Manx with another tailless Manx results in a higher rate of inviable offspring than does mating a tailless Manx with a tailed one (Deforest and Basrur 1979).
The last-cited authors state that in Manx cats such serious disorders as "spina bifida, urinary and faecal incontinence and locomotor disturbances of the pelvic limbs" are all associated with the tailless condition.
But another explanation of this fact might be that tailless Manxes represent F₁ cat-rabbit hybrids and long-tailed Manxes represent backcrosses to pure cat. In many hybrid crosses mating F₁ hybrids with backcross hybrids increases the number of viable offspring (in comparison with F₁-F₁ matings).
Conclusion. So it’s true, one can suppose that Manx cats are the product of mutation and that they do not have any rabbit ancestry. But if one does make such an assumption, one must also suppose that that mutation (or series of mutations) happened to make the posterior half of the Manx look just like the posterior half of a rabbit, the little tail, the long, hopping legs, even the blunt, non-retractile claws.
One must also assume that mutation is the reason that Manxes like to eat such things as carrots, lettuce and grass. One must also assume that all the disorders associated with Manx cats, mentioned in the preceding paragraph, are just coincidental side effects of the mutation process—mutations which, incidentally, have never been specifically identified or characterized at the genetic level.
And one must assume that some professional breeder would be able to select, with time, from the descendants of an ordinary cat, hind features that appear identical to a rabbit through some unknown genetic change.
But that’s a lot to swallow. Are there any other known instances of breeders, even after many generations, converting the back half of an animal in such a way that it becomes identical to that of some other, wholly distinct animal?
Isn’t it far simpler, far more straightforward, to assume that Manxes have these rabbit-like traits, that they are less fertile than ordinary cats, that they frequently produce inviable offspring, and that they are affected by the kind of dysfunctional traits seen in hybrids produced by distant crosses, because they are in fact cat-rabbit hybrids?
As Samuel Johnson once said, “The solution as I have given it, is plain. Suppose, I know a man is so lame that he is absolutely incapable to move himself, and I find him in a different room from that in which I left him; shall I puzzle myself with idle conjectures, that, perhaps, his nerves have by some unknown change all at once become effective? No, Sir; it is clear how he got into a different room: he was carried.
The following is a list of reported cat crosses. Some of these crosses are much better documented than others (as indicated by the reliability arrow). Indeed, some might seem completely impossible. But all have been reported at least once. The links below are to separate articles. Additional crosses, not listed here, are covered on the cat hybrids page.
http://www.macroevolution.net/cat-rabbit-hybrids.html
Is hairless skin a trait seen only in modern domestic pigs and not anciently? A reader wrote in with the following question: While some domestic pigs are bred to be relatively hairless, all the wild pigs seem to be fully-furred. In fact, when domestic pigs go feral, they seem to immediately revert to a hairy form. If so, how could we have inherited the hairless trait from pigs?
I responded: When a pig escapes from a farm and starts living in the woods it does not suddenly become a hairy animal. Its descendants can, if they interbreed with hairy wild animals, but not otherwise. True, the Eurasian wild boar is hairy (though its hair is nowhere near as dense as, say, that of a cow or sheep).
But we do not know the history of the domestic pig. It’s usually treated as conspecific with the Eurasian wild boar, but the two differ in chromosome counts (for the domestic 2n=38, but the wild boar 2n=36). So it may be that they are not the same animal and that relatively hairless pigs similar to the domestic pig existed anciently.
It may well be that the two have been treated as the same species merely because it has long been known that they can produce fertile offspring together. But these offspring may simply represent hybrids (this is one of many examples, by the way, of animals with differing chromosome counts producing fertile offspring together).
The domestic pig has also hybridized with a variety of other types of pigs, but that does not imply that they are the same animal. For example, in addition to the wild boar, the domestic pig has hybridized with the Babirusa, Babyrousa babyrussa (pictures); Bush Pig, Potamochoerus larvatus (pictures);
Bearded Pig, Sus barbatus (pictures); Visayan Warty Pig, Sus cebifrons (pictures); Sulawesi Wild Boar, Sus celebensis (pictures); and probably Sus oliveri and Sus philippensis. So why assume that the domestic pig and wild boar are the "same" animal?
Relatively naked animals similar to the domestic pig might have existed anciently. We don’t really know what pigs looked like thousands of years ago, but a prehistoric painting in Altamira Cave in Spain shows a pig (pictures) that looks fairly naked to me (except for what looks like a beard and hair at the top of the head, neck, and shoulders).
http://www.macroevolution.net/hybrid-hypothesis-section-1.html
From the day that Danish pig farmer Ib Borup Pederson switched away from GM soy, his animals became healthier and more productive. Birth deformities reduced, sows became more fertile, medicine costs fell, and profits went up. The changes were linked to the reduction in the levels of the herbicide glyphosate in their feed.
I want to tell you what I have seen on my farm and about the on-farm and lab investigations carried out in collaboration with Professor Monika Krüger and other scientists.
My farm - 'Pilegaarden' - which translates as 'Willow Farm' - is an average Danish farm in the small village of Hvidsten. Our pigs are raised accordingly to United Kingdom regulations for pig housing, and exported to the UK for consumption. Inside the pig farm is a straw-based system for the sows as well as a standard farrowing house.
I had read about the effects that GM feed has on rats in lab experiments (see [1] GM Soya Fed Rats: Stunted, Dead, or Sterile, SiS 33), so I decided to change the feed from GM to non-GM soy in April 2011 without telling the herdsman on the farm.
Instant benefits from non-GMO soy - Two days afterwards, he said to me: "You have changed the food." He always notices whenever there is any problem with the feed and tells me. This time was different. Something very good was happening with the food as the pigs were not getting diarrhoea any more.
The farm was using two thirds less medicine, saving £7.88 per sow. Not just my farm but three other farms in Denmark that switched from GMO to non GMO feed have also seen the same.
Medication after the changeover in the weaners barn also went down dramatically by 66%. One type of antibiotic has not been used since. The sows have higher milk production; we can tell because the sows are suckling one, two or three more piglets and have more live born pigs, on average 1.8 piglets more per sow. They wean 1,8 pigs more per litter, and have more live born pigs.
We have seen an aggressive form of diarrhoea disappear altogether from the farm. It affected young piglets in the first week of life, killing up to 30% of the animals. It has completely gone now for over three years.
Sows no longer suffer from bloating or ulcers and they have longer productive lives, only dropping in fertility after eight litters compared to 6 on GM soy. So, a change to non-GM soy makes the herd easier to manage, improves the health of the herd, reduces medicine usage, increases production and is very profitable.
Glyphosate toxicity - Deformities in the pigs used to be very rare and I used to be proud to send Siamese twins to schools for classes because it was a 'one in a million' event. But then they became frequent.
So I read a lot on the subject and my suspicion fell on glyphosate. I read how glyphosate had been shown in scientific studies (see [2] Lab Study Establishes Glyphosate Link to Birth Defects, SiS 48, [3]) to cause deformities and noted it was the same type of deformities that I was seeing in my pigs.
I also observed deformities matching those found in anencephaly babies in Washington counties in US [4] that Don Huber talked about as well as the birth defects in Argentina [5, 6] (Argentinas Roundup Human Tragedy , SiS 48), as described by Dr Medardo Avila-Vasquez where high levels of glyphosate are used.
I had looked at studies showing that a 2-day exposure to 3.07 mg/l glyphosate herbicide caused only 10% mortality but caused malformations in 55% of test animals.
A toxicological study in 2003 led by Dr Dallegrave [8] found bone abnormalities, absence of bones or parts of bones, shortened and bent bones, asymmetry, fusions, and clefts in rats. So, after this I began to list all the deformities I saw in my pigs.
A catalogue of deformities in piglets - I decided to be on the safe side, by listing the clear deformities that cannot be missed, like a back that is totally kinked over (see Figure 1, above right). I have pictures of all the deformed piglets, which are born alive in most cases.
One had a 180° bend in one of its vertebra. There were also deformities in the soft tissue, and one without an anus. One had kidney problems; another had its stomach outside the body. One had a cranial deformity, with no eyes and its brain outside the head; this is very typical. One had no cranium at all.
Some are even messier. There was a piglet with only one eye, and one completely headless. There was a little nose, but it had no bones to grow on so it probably would have died just after birth. We also started counting deformities of the tail, which are never fatal but are actually spinal deformities.
I sent the deformed piglets to Germany to be analysed by Krüger at Leipzig University. She opened them up and took the organs including the lungs, liver, kidneys, muscles, nervous system, intestines and heart; and she found glyphosate in all of the organs (see Box). You can see some of them in the scientific paper I published with Krüger and other scientists.
Glyphosate detected in malformed piglets - A total of 38 deformed Danish one-day old piglets were euthanized and the tissues analysed for glyphosate using ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay).
All organs or tissues had glyphosate in different concentrations. The highest concentrations were seen in the lungs ((0.4-80mg/ml) and heart (0.15-80 mg/ml). The lowest were in muscles (4.4-6.4 mg/g).
Rate of malformation increased to one out of 260 born piglets if sow feeds contain 0.87-1.13 ppm glyphosate in the first 40 days of pregnancy. In case of 0.25 ppm glyphosate one out of 1,432 piglets was malformed.
These piglets showed different abnormalities as ear atrophy, spinal and cranial deformations, cranium hole in head and leg atrophy; in one piglet only a single large eye developed. Piglets without trunk, with elephant tongue, and female piglet with testes were also present.
One malformed piglet showed a swollen belly and fore gut and hind gut were not connected. The researchers note: "Further investigations are urgently needed to prove or exclude glyphosate in malformations in piglets and other animals."
Teratogenic dose a fraction of the regulatory allowed dose - In addition to these experiments, I had over 30,000 piglets born over two years and therefore have statistical data that are not easily available in the lab and this is where farmers have the ideal opportunity to do their own testing.
I tested the food, the foetuses, the urine and the grains that came into the farm. To do the tests, I would take representative samples from the batches of food, mix them, and take 100 grams in a plastic bag of each to be tested, or 100 ml of liquids.
When taking muck and urine for testing, you need patience. Blood tests can be done by a vet. Send it for analyses to a lab that has the facilities to test glyphosate down to about 0.1ppb = 0.1 milligram per tonne.
If tests are only detecting at above 0.1ppm = 0.1 grams per ton, it cannot show you what is in urine and muck. It costs about £30-50 for one test. Tests in oils might not be possible; you need to ask beforehand.
The results of the tests showed that with 0.06 mg/kg of glyphosate residue in the feed - much lower than the allowed 20 mg/kg - I was getting cranial and spinal deformities after two months of feeding (see Figure 2, above right). At 0.1 mg/kg I was also getting deformities, but not many so that one pig could alter the numbers.
But, at 0.2 mg/kg the deformities start to go up. At the maximum dose used (but still under 12% of the maximum permitted dose) of 2.26 mg/kg the numbers start to get very high.
Fewer piglets per litter - I also got help from Thomas Böhn from Norway who told me to look at longer intervals. We got numbers after six months to see an accumulative effect. The story is exactly the same. There is a very clear difference between low and high levels of glyphosate.
We also looked at the numbers of pigs born in each litter, which was significantly less after eating food with higher levels of glyphosate (see figure 3). We found a significant average difference of 0.95 fewer pigs born per sow when glyphosate was eaten in feed, between 'low' and 'high' intakes.
This was measured as accumulated intake of glyphosate over a 35 day period - the last five weeks of pregnancy. The 'low' intake was defined as under 3 mg/kg body weight, and the high intake was 3-9 mg/kg body weight.
So with glyphosate present in the feed, we have fewer births, as well as the odd ones that are deformed. In short, a five-fold increase in glyphosate levels from 0.2 to 1 part per million (ppm) resulted in a five-fold increase in cranial and spinal deformities at birth, five times times more abortions, and 0.95 less piglets born per litter.
Glyphosate has known toxicities at extremely low concentrations. We can also relate the actual levels of glyphosate in feed to the level in the urine. So for 1,132 ppb (or 1.13 ppm), there is 44 ppb (~ 4%) in the urine and 246.33 ppb (~22%) in dung.
When I tested my own urine, I found that I had 2.58 ppb - and that is not from eating GM contaminated feed but from eating normal food from the Danish shops.
This is already at the level of higher rates of abortions and deformities and probably also fertility problems. Is this why in the Western world we have a very big problem with fertility (see [9] Glyphosate/Roundup and Human Male Infertility, SiS 62)?
And at 1,000 ppb, glyphosate is patented by Monsanto as an antibiotic, actually killing the beneficial microorganisms. At 0.1 ppb (less than 1/25 the level measured in my urine) Roundup caused tumours in 80% of rats compared to 20% in the controls [10], which only developed them at 700 days.
To have that high level of glyphosate in my urine, I must have consumed at the level of about 0.2ppm or 2,000 times more than the test rats. So what does that mean for the rates of cancer (see [11] Glyphosate and Cancer, SiS 62)?
I have a short film about how it is to be a farmer, I always feel very bad about my pigs getting ill so I leave the film for people to see. These same things must be happening in Chinese farms also, as they are using the same feed as I used to.
Even non-GM soya contains glyphosate and we as farmers need to demand that it is not sprayed down with glyphosate, because it can affect people as well as pigs.
To conclude - Any farmer who switches away from GMOs and Roundup will experience improved health in their herd and crops. I know of the scientific studies on malformations due to the chemical Roundup.
I know that one in 80 people in certain towns in Argentina have the same defects after being exposed to the chemical. And I know of 14 Danish people born with deformities of the same type.
Now what I have seen in my pigs makes me wonder what we are doing - not just to them but to ourselves. And it scares me. A farmer's task is to provide nutritious and healthy food for consumers, GMOs and Roundup provide neither. We can look back to DDT and how we thought that was healthy. That should remind us that we cannot ignore the warning signs for glyphosate.
https://theecologist.org/2014/sep/18/changing-non-gmo-soy-transformed-health-my-pigs
Genetically modifying food has been an ethical question for a while now, and I’m sure it’s going to become even more of an issue after the video and pictures in this article have emerged.
As you can see, Korean and Chinese scientists are using genetic editing to create ‘double muscled’ pigs that provide more meat that’s also leaner as well.
The scientists are editing the pig’s genes rather than transplanting genetic information from another species, which they’re hoping is enough of a distinction that consumers and regulators will both be convinced that it’s a safe process.
I’m not so sure because I mean look at those guys – there’s no way that’s ‘normal’, right? Take a look at this report on the subject and make your mind up yourself: Yeah it just doesn’t look right does it?
And I’m pretty sure the animals themselves can’t be too happy about walking around double their natural size just waiting to be slaughtered? No way that’s a comfortable feeling. Screw it, I’m going vegan.
https://www.sickchirpse.com/scientists-creating-genetically-modified-pigs-double-meat/
(Phys.org) —These days, getting a Ph.D. is probably the last thing you want to do if you are out to revolutionize the world. If, however, what you propose is an idea, rather than a technology, it can still be a valuable asset to have. Dr. Eugene McCarthy is a Ph.D. geneticist who has made a career out of studying hybridization in animals.
He now curates a biological information website called Macroevolution.net where he has amassed an impressive body of evidence suggesting that human origins can be best explained by hybridization between pigs and chimpanzees. Extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence and McCarthy does not disappoint.
Rather than relying on genetic sequence comparisons, he instead offers extensive anatomical comparisons, each of which may be individually assailable, but startling when taken together. Why weren't these conclusions arrived at much sooner?
McCarthy suggests it is because of an over-dependence on genetic data among biologists. He argues that humans are probably the result of multiple generations of backcrossing to chimpanzees, which in nucleotide sequence data comparisons would effectively mask any contribution from pig.
Generally speaking, interspecies hybrids—like mules, ligers (lion-tiger hybrids), or zedonks (zebra-donkey hybrids)—are less fertile than the parents that produced them.
However, as McCarthy has documented in his years of research into hybrids, many crosses produce hybrids that can produce offspring themselves. The mule, he notes, is an exceptionally sterile hybrid and not representative of hybrids as a whole.
When it comes time to play the old nuclear musical chairs and produce gametes, some types of hybrids do a much better job. Liger females, for example, can produce offspring in backcrosses with both lions and tigers.
McCarthy also points out that fertility can be increased through successive backcrossing with one of the parents, a common technique used by breeders.
In the case of chimp - pig hybridization, the "direction of the cross" would likely have been a male boar or pig (Sus scrofa) with a female chimp (Pan troglodytes), and the offspring would have been nurtured by a chimp mother among chimpanzees (shades of Tarzan!).
The physical evidence for this is convincing, as you can discover for yourself with a trip over to macroevolution.net. When I asked McCarthy if he could give a date estimate for the hybridization event, he said that there are a couple broad possibilities:
(1) It might be that hybridization between pigs and apes produced the earliest hominids millions of years ago and that subsequent mating within this hybrid swarm eventually led to the various hominid types and to modern humans;
(2) separate crosses between pigs and apes could have produced separate hominids (and there's even a creepy possibility that hybridization might even still be occurring in regions where Sus and Pan still seem to come into contact, like Southern Sudan).
This latter possibility may not sound so far-fetched after you read the riveting details suggesting that the origin of the gorilla may be best explained by hybridization with the equally massive forest hog.
This hog is found within the same habitat as the gorilla, and shares many uncommon physical features and habits. Furthermore, well-known hybridization effects can explain many of the fertility issues and other peculiarities of gorilla physiology.
It is not yet clear if or when genetic data might support, or refute, our hybrid origins. The list of anatomical specializations we may have gained from porcine philandering is too long to detail here. Suffice it to say, similarities in the face, skin and organ microstructure alone are hard to explain away.
A short list of differential features, for example, would include, multipyramidal kidney structure, presence of dermal melanocytes, melanoma, absence of a primate baculum (penis bone), surface lipid and carbohydrate composition of cell membranes, vocal cord structure, laryngeal sacs, diverticuli of the fetal stomach, intestinal "valves of Kerkring," heart chamber symmetry, skin and cranial vasculature and method of cooling, and tooth structure.
Other features occasionally seen in humans, like bicornuate uteruses and supernumerary nipples, would also be difficult to incorporate into a purely primate tree.
McCarthy has done extensive research into the broader issues, and shortcomings, of our currently incomplete theory of evolution. As the increasing apparent, magnificent, speed with which morphological change can occur continues to present itself for us to comprehend, the standard theory of random mutation followed by slow environmental selection, seems to stall.
In my own opinion, female choice undoubtedly provides much of the functional "speed-up" we observe, but other mechanisms of mutation, or pathways for acquired characteristics to be fed back to the gonads (through retroviral transfer?), now need to be considered anew.
The role of hybridization in driving morphological change, as McCarthy has observed time and time again, particularly in his studies of avian species (Oxfo … versity Press, 2006), may be the most powerful mechanism of all.
https://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html
There was considerable fallout, both positive and negative, from our first story covering the radical pig-chimp hybrid theory put forth by Dr. Eugene McCarthy, a geneticist who's proposing that humans first arose from an ancient hybrid cross between pigs and chimpanzees.
Despite the large number of comments, here at Phys.org, on macroevolution.net, and on several other discussion forums, little in the way of a scientific consensus has emerged. By and large, those coming out against the theory had surprisingly little science to offer in their sometimes personal attacks against McCarthy.
As any skilled listener might observe, the most important thing in communication is not always hearing what is said, but rather, hearing what isn't said.
One thing we have not heard here is objection from those writer-scientists who have any kind of public reputation in the evolutionary sciences. I don't think that is because they didn't hear about the story.
Talk show host Jimmy Kimmel found the article, or at least parts of it, to be rather revealing, and he used segments from it on his show. Commenters on the O'Reilly Factor also called in asking for his opinion on the story.
The reason for the silence from above, so to speak, is that they have nothing to gain in being right, but much to lose when any statement they might offer is picked apart by someone with a little more conceptual fluidity, and who has substantial research vested in the theory.
As many critics noted, the advancement of scientific knowledge does not require disproving every radical theory that comes along. Lots of incorrect theories exist that cannot, for all practical purposes, be formally disproven.
It seems, however, that decent arguments against the hybrid origins theory are surprisingly hard to find, and moreover, the established elders of the field, well, they know it.
We decided it would be worthwhile to take a closer look at the objections that were most commonly offered against the hybrid hypothesis. Chief among them was that the chromosome differences here are just too large to support a viable hybrid.
One of the previous examples we gave, the zedonk (zebra parent, 2n=44, donkey parent, 2n=62), can and does result in female hybrid offspring that have been reported to produce offspring in backcrosses.
The same is true for the geep (sheep, 2n=54, and goat 2n=60). While the reduction in fertility associated with large differences of this sort is often severe, the existence of fertile hybrids, particularly in backcrosses, invalidates this objection.
Another argument was that the morphological distance, or genetic differences besides chromosome number, are just too great. Most of us are familiar with the platypus.
A paper published in Nature a few years ago demonstrated that the platypus genome contains both bird and mammal chromosomes, and therefore that the vastly different bird and mammal sex chromosome systems have been successfully bridged by this creature. This example is not offered as any kind of proof.
But it does suggest that sometime, long ago, a cross occurred that would have been even more distant than that between a chimpanzee and a pig – one between a otter-like mammal and a duck-like bird.
And if such was the case, the hybrids from the cross must have been able to produce offspring (otherwise they would have died out, and the platypus would not exist today).
The objection that mating between such different animals is just too strange has been addressed at length on McCarthy's website. Ample counterexamples have been given there and elsewhere, including the evidence for matings, without issue, between such strange pairings as a buck rabbit with female cat (or even with a domestic hen), or a dog with a monkey, or with a swan goose.
In general, as McCarthy points out, it has long been known that many organisms, as adults, prefer to mate with whatever animal they are exposed to at the critical early stage in their lives when sexual imprinting occurs.
He also notes that it is not as if his hypothesis that humans are pig-chimp hybrids has not been tested. Under the alternative hypothesis (humans are not pig-chimp hybrids), the assumption is that humans and chimpanzees are equally distant from pigs.
You would therefore expect chimp traits not seen in humans to be present in pigs at about the same rate as are human traits not found in chimps. However, when he searched the literature for traits that distinguish humans and chimps, and compiled a lengthy list of such traits, he found that it was always humans who were similar to pigs with respect to these traits.
This finding is inconsistent with the possibility that humans are not pig-chimp hybrids, that is, it rejects that hypothesis. Also raised was the argument that pigs and humans might have converged anatomically as a result of longstanding animal husbandry, not limited to but perhaps including genes carried over by retroviruses.
If that is, in fact, a general mechanism that operates behind the scenes, then we might justifiably ask—why don't a lot of the traits that distinguish us from primates connect us with dogs, with whom we have obviously lived, at close quarters, since prehistoric times? Why is it only pigs?
One objection which seems to have really stretched the genetic exclusion argument was an appeal to junk DNA as a mechanism that can prevent two species from reproducing. The reference was to a paper in PLoS Biology which revealed interesting phenomena occurring in Drosophila (fruit flies) that can prevent embryos from developing.
The study points to faster mutation rates found for noncoding DNA, and outlines a mechanism where mutation in a segment on the X chromosome of the father prevents proper separation of the whole chromosome.
Clearly, a unique situation in this particular species, however interesting, does not invalidate the documented existence of successful hybrids produced in thousands of other species crosses.
In moving forward, we hope to see more discussion on this issue from both sides of the argument. Nothing is preventing anyone from taking a closer look at the genetic picture. In fact, doing so has never been easier.
Sites like eEnsembl let you "browse a genome" with unprecedented ease. Sequence data, or genome organization can be curated to support both observation and idea, as it can also be done to oppose the same.
For the matter at hand, we might expect each side to continue to accuse the other of cherry-picking their arguments. Eventually though, sufficient data will fall from the collisions between example-fed discussion and informed search to deliver an elevated consensus.
One particular approach recommended McCarthy is in silico chromosome painting of the human genome with random pig and chimp sequences in an effort to find hotspots of similarity to pig.
Another possibility that McCarthy does not recommend, but which several scientists have suggested to him, is producing an actual hybrid. He objects to this approach, not on scientific, but humanitarian grounds.
After all, he says, such an experiment might result in an intelligent but non-human creature, much more piglike than any human being, who would have no happy place in our world. He in fact includes such a hybrid, an F1 female, as one of the major characters in The Department, his kindle boo … ire of academic life.
In it he observes, "I hope never to meet her in the flesh." You can see McCarthy address some of the issues raised above in greater depth in a podcast that has just been released.
https://phys.org/news/2013-07-human-hybrids-closer-theory-evidence.html
There was considerable fallout, both positive and negative, from our first story covering the radical pig-chimp hybrid theory put forth by Dr. Eugene McCarthy, a geneticist who's proposing that humans first arose from an ancient hybrid cross between pigs and chimpanzees.
Despite the large number of comments, here at Phys.org, on macroevolution.net, and on several other discussion forums, little in the way of a scientific consensus has emerged. By and large, those coming out against the theory had surprisingly little science to offer in their sometimes personal attacks against McCarthy.
As any skilled listener might observe, the most important thing in communication is not always hearing what is said, but rather, hearing what isn't said. One thing we have not heard here is objection from those writer-scientists who have any kind of public reputation in the evolutionary sciences. I don't think that is because they didn't hear about the story.
Talk show host Jimmy Kimmel found the article, or at least parts of it, to be rather revealing, and he used segments from it on his show. Commenters on the O'Reilly Factor also called in asking for his opinion on the story.
The reason for the silence from above, so to speak, is that they have nothing to gain in being right, but much to lose when any statement they might offer is picked apart by someone with a little more conceptual fluidity, and who has substantial research vested in the theory.
As many critics noted, the advancement of scientific knowledge does not require disproving every radical theory that comes along. Lots of incorrect theories exist that cannot, for all practical purposes, be formally disproven.
It seems, however, that decent arguments against the hybrid origins theory are surprisingly hard to find, and moreover, the established elders of the field, well, they know it.
We decided it would be worthwhile to take a closer look at the objections that were most commonly offered against the hybrid hypothesis. Chief among them was that the chromosome differences here are just too large to support a viable hybrid.
One of the previous examples we gave, the zedonk (zebra parent, 2n=44, donkey parent, 2n=62), can and does result in female hybrid offspring that have been reported to produce offspring in backcrosses.
The same is true for the geep (sheep, 2n=54, and goat 2n=60). While the reduction in fertility associated with large differences of this sort is often severe, the existence of fertile hybrids, particularly in backcrosses, invalidates this objection.
Another argument was that the morphological distance, or genetic differences besides chromosome number, are just too great. Most of us are familiar with the platypus.
A paper published in Nature a few years ago demonstrated that the platypus genome contains both bird and mammal chromosomes, and therefore that the vastly different bird and mammal sex chromosome systems have been successfully bridged by this creature.
This example is not offered as any kind of proof. But it does suggest that sometime, long ago, a cross occurred that would have been even more distant than that between a chimpanzee and a pig – one between a otter-like mammal and a duck-like bird.
And if such was the case, the hybrids from the cross must have been able to produce offspring (otherwise they would have died out, and the platypus would not exist today).
The objection that mating between such different animals is just too strange has been addressed at length on McCarthy's website. Ample counterexamples have been given there and elsewhere, including the evidence for matings, without issue, between such strange pairings as a buck rabbit with female cat (or even with a domestic hen), or a dog with a monkey, or with a swan goose.
In general, as McCarthy points out, it has long been known that many organisms, as adults, prefer to mate with whatever animal they are exposed to at the critical early stage in their lives when sexual imprinting occurs.
He also notes that it is not as if his hypothesis that humans are pig-chimp hybrids has not been tested. Under the alternative hypothesis (humans are not pig-chimp hybrids), the assumption is that humans and chimpanzees are equally distant from pigs.
You would therefore expect chimp traits not seen in humans to be present in pigs at about the same rate as are human traits not found in chimps.
However, when he searched the literature for traits that distinguish humans and chimps, and compiled a lengthy list of such traits, he found that it was always humans who were similar to pigs with respect to these traits. This finding is inconsistent with the possibility that humans are not pig-chimp hybrids, that is, it rejects that hypothesis.
Also raised was the argument that pigs and humans might have converged anatomically as a result of longstanding animal husbandry, not limited to but perhaps including genes carried over by retroviruses.
If that is, in fact, a general mechanism that operates behind the scenes, then we might justifiably ask—why don't a lot of the traits that distinguish us from primates connect us with dogs, with whom we have obviously lived, at close quarters, since prehistoric times? Why is it only pigs?
One objection which seems to have really stretched the genetic exclusion argument was an appeal to junk DNA as a mechanism that can prevent two species from reproducing. The reference was to a paper in PLoS Biology which revealed interesting phenomena occurring in Drosophila (fruit flies) that can prevent embryos from developing.
The study points to faster mutation rates found for noncoding DNA, and outlines a mechanism where mutation in a segment on the X chromosome of the father prevents proper separation of the whole chromosome.
Clearly, a unique situation in this particular species, however interesting, does not invalidate the documented existence of successful hybrids produced in thousands of other species crosses.
In moving forward, we hope to see more discussion on this issue from both sides of the argument. Nothing is preventing anyone from taking a closer look at the genetic picture. In fact, doing so has never been easier.
Sites like eEnsembl let you "browse a genome" with unprecedented ease. Sequence data, or genome organization can be curated to support both observation and idea, as it can also be done to oppose the same. For the matter at hand, we might expect each side to continue to accuse the other of cherry-picking their arguments. Eventually though, sufficient data will fall from the collisions between example-fed discussion and informed search to deliver an elevated consensus.
One particular approach recommended McCarthy is in silico chromosome painting of the human genome with random pig and chimp sequences in an effort to find hotspots of similarity to pig. Another possibility that McCarthy does not recommend, but which several scientists have suggested to him, is producing an actual hybrid. He objects to this approach, not on scientific, but humanitarian grounds.
After all, he says, such an experiment might result in an intelligent but non-human creature, much more piglike than any human being, who would have no happy place in our world. He in fact includes such a hybrid, an F1 female, as one of the major characters in The Department, his kindle boo … ire of academic life. In it he observes, "I hope never to meet her in the flesh." You can see McCarthy address some of the issues raised above in greater depth in a podcast that has just been released.
Wow. So, physorg is formally proferring the hypothesis with this evidence that it no longer in any way resembles a science news site. This evidence is quite compelling. There is an alternative theory: a scientist who has been alone with himself too long has gone round the bend after having newly discovered convergent evolution. Again: just get some germ plasm and have at it. Show me the zygote.
One thing ignored by the mainstream is the nature of humans as domesticated animals. We are referred to as 'evolved' implying natural selection when in fact our development after the advent of technology was anything but natural. When we became able to hunt the predators which had kept our numbers in check, humans became the predominant enemy of humans. Hunting animals is easy. Hunting humans who are in turn hunting you is hard.
The tribal dynamic thus became the shaper of the modern human form. Tribes whose members were better at planning, communicating, cooperating, and executing ever more complex operations against their neighbors, would be expected to prevail. Our brains became unnaturally huge and unsustainable as a result. We became throwers and runners in order to outflank and ambush the enemy. Our muscles, claws, fangs, and fur receded as we began replacing them with more functional technology. And the hymen became critical in determining the efficacy of warrior bloodlines.
Tribalism is unpopular with the mainstream as it leads to a lot of uncomfortable conclusions about prejudice, overpopulation, and conflict. It implies that a lot of behaviors that society struggles to correct, are innate. Science will still claim that hunting and tool use shaped us when it is obvious that it was weapons and conflict among equals in the context of chronic overpopulation, which made us human.
http://rechten.el...RID2.pdf
So what does this have to do with pigs? Pigs were selected for their ability to live in unnatural environs, to follow irrational orders, to herd, to mate on command, to allow themselves to be put into perilous and uncomfortable situations, to resist their instincts, and to depend on others for food and shelter. It is no wonder that we resemble them. McCarthy has dealt with the objection of mismatched chromosome numbers. Summarising the back cross situation:
XpYp x XcXc (Pig x Chimp) -> XcXp (F1) #One pig in all of this.
XcYc x XcXp (Chimp x F1) -> XcXc (BC1) #Back Cross 1
XcYc x XcXc (Chimp x BC1) -> XcXc (BC2)
XcYc x XcXc (Chimp x BC2) -> XcXc (BC3)
XcYc x XcXc (Chimp x BC3) -> XcXc (BC4)
...
XcYc x XcXc Chimp x BCn -> XcYc (BCn) #
Yippee!! its a boy. Hope he has just good enough sperm to do the job. Not yet a human, but genetic variety that could evolve there. Note particularly that the pig's Y chromosome never gets into the hybrid because F1 is most often female.
By BC1 even his Xp chromosome has gone. Then for several matings stabilisation is reducing many other pig contributions on other chromosomes. For doubters, off you go and read up backcross on wikipedia. Then you may look up how they breed polled cattle.
You would therefore expect chimp traits not seen in humans to be present in pigs at about the same rate as are human traits not found in chimps. This sounds wrong, as the appearance of traits over an evolutionary significant period of time is not dependent on the species but on the environment that species is exposed to.
Two different species exposed to a highly selective environment will likely show convergent evolution over time (traits which are advantageous in this envirionment have a higher probability to stick with either group) while two groups of the same species in different environments will diverge. So the 'chimp/pig hybrid' may just be the case of our ancestors and pigs living in the same environment longer than another group from our ancestors' tree. I'm still calling BS on the original hypothesis.
First, I hope people are not confusing pig and chimp with the species we know of today. Any reference to these should be put into the correct time frame. It is unfortunately common for researchers to use modern terms to describe a specie that has little to do with those they refer to, which then gets picked up by the ignorant crowd to make broad comparisons and assumptions that get them all upset.
Second, I hope careful attention is being paid to the sustainability of such cross fertilization. Even if you can make a mammal out of two other mammals doesn't mean a new line has been created. There are way too many possibilities down the line that render the research almost uninteresting.
So the 'chimp/pig hybrid' may just be the case of our ancestors and pigs living in the same environment longer than another group from our ancestors' tree. I'm still calling BS on the original hypothesis. Apparently, hybridization is theorized to be the mechanism by which new species arise. This is different from the "survival of the fittest" mechanism traditionally associated with evolution. So both mechanisms operate together to produce variation and speciation.
I was very skeptical of this until I looked at the information provided on his website. The platypus having both avian and mammalian genes is a very good example of how our preconceptions need changing. @jdbertron: the "now is not then" argument might hold weight but for the apparent complete plasticity of animal genomes proposed in this website and heavily slanted article. The very idea of a platypus being a stable hybrid bird/duck bespeaks the childish understanding of evolution this all represents.
A platypus resembles an alligator in terms of gait/structure more than avian or placental, not to mention the venomous spur of the male which has no analog whatsoever in a hypothetical otter/duck cross. Plus logic and research. A platypus resembles an alligator in terms of gait/structure more than avian or placental, not to mention the venomous spur of the male which has no analog whatsoever in a hypothetical otter/duck cross. Plus logic and research.
"A paper published in Nature a few years ago demonstrated that the platypus genome contains both bird and mammal chromosomes, and therefore that the vastly different bird and mammal sex chromosome systems have been successfully bridged by this creature." Didn't read the article?
Show me the zygote. It doesn't have to carry to term, and in vitro fertalization is well understood technology. Ethical arguments are an obvious dodge in this case, as per the theory almost any two species could perform this feat. Zygote or it didn't happen. Urchin starfish, cow sheep, mouse cat. Pick any two besides known close familial hybrids (something as disparate in body plan as pig and chimp). Provide practical demonstration or its all hot air.
@Claudius: care to cite the mythical article? Issue, arxiv? Pre print? Abstract?
What did the article actually say? Have you ever seen a platypus skull? Look at the nostril placement, foramen, jaw and ear structure, bones, joints, any of it? Tissue structure, behavior, lack of whiskers, electrical sensors?
One thing we have not heard here is objection from those writer-scientists who have any kind of public reputation in the evolutionary sciences. Wow, really? That's because serious evolutionary scientists respect the established system of peer review. Website comment sections are not appropriate for serious scientific critique. If this guy isn't happy with the results of a trial in the court of public opinion, then he should submit a paper for peer review like every other researcher in his field.
You cannot 'prove' a hypothesis by speculation, and thusfar that is all the author has ever presented. ie the author has compiled a list of traits for which there are similarities between humans and pigs. He speculates that the reason for these similarities is his hypothesis, which by the way is called the alternative hypothesis in standard practice. He then fails to provide a proper null hypothesis which makes his arguments meaningless.
Here is how he should proceed. Step 1. humans and pigs share a similarity in trait X (say bodies without much hair). Step 2. null hypothesis(H0): this is a coincidence. Alternative hypothesis(H1): this is due to hybridization etc..I reject H0 only if humans and pigs share the same gene or genes controlling trait X with differences between them no greater than that one would expect for 6 million years of divergent evolution. I don't know biology to fill in the statistics for that, but you get the point. Either come up with a real test or shut up.
By the way, here's my guess: the "conserved" genes between platypus and avian relate to egg laying, something that would no longer be conserved in placental mammals, but otherwise couldnt afford huge swings in mutation. Low quality comments? LOL -- welcome to the internet! Every time I think we may not be pigs, I just go to a site like youtube and read the commentary on any random page.
It is perhaps a good thing in this case; ad hominem attacks means the information makes people uncomfortable, and if it were truly ridiculous, say like a story at The Onion, they'd pass it along without comment just for the lark. But they don't. Wasn't that the same reception Darwin faced? Still faces in many parts, almost all of them in the United States. (it might be interesting to plot the yays and nays on a worldmap)
I *scanned* the criticisms and yes, I see precious little science being wielded against McCarthy that can't already be answered simply by reading the whole of his presentation, and his own argument says that it is not likely to be resolved from the genetics (by our present understanding of genetics) although remember that Darwin came to his conclusions not knowing about DNA at all!
This could lead to a complete repudiation of evolution. You no longer need safe "mutations" so small they don't supply any adaptive advantage building up, "because they supply an adaptive advantage". The world can be populated with a set collection of animal species at the beginning and such crossings can produce all the many claimed species that have ever been acknowledged to have existed.
Of course, this exempts man as the only animal with a soul unless a means can be found of going from a soulless creature to one that God decided to endow with a soul. God can do whatever He wants so there is no proof so far that such could not occur, but it would need significant backing up.
Incidentally, that is the only thing that stood between religions not accepting "evolution", not, as "science" shills say, necessary stupidity on the part of religions. But no "scientist" ever did try even to address that facet. This can be a first step in overthrowing the lie of "evolution".
As I wrote to Eugene McCarthy, his thesis has spoiled a great diversion of mine, wtfevolution.tumblr.com -- it was amusing to see the creatures presented there and laugh to think "we just don't understand Evolution" or ecological validity or any of those nice clean elegant dogmas about the origins of species, but *now* every post I look at and I say, "meh.
Vestigial features left over from the hybrid parents" and the fun is gone. Of course it is a misfit, most of us creatures are misfits. If there is any 'direction' to evolution, it is making do with what it gets, opportunistically, not honed into being like a wooden sculpture under the knife, but a sculture that begins with the twisted found piece of driftwood.
If this question is to be answered by science, we have to leave the controversial pig-ape be until we're old enough to know the truth about ourselves. We should concentrate on *known* hybrids and experiment (but safe) hybrids and seek conclusive markers there first.
Here's the thing: a downvote doesn't invalidate the logic or reason in an argument, any more than one guy putting up a website invalidates genomic cladistics or anatomical classifications which existed before them.
Genomics has only really diverged from anatomical cladistics in cases of species that appear very similar but otherwise have few members of their genus extant - such as the pangolin, armadillo, sloth, anteater, and aardvark. In those cases, mostly of convergent evolution, genetics was seen as more telling.
The history of the general success of anatomical cladistics mostly predicting genetic cladistics argues that this proposed theory needs to somehow supplant that success, not handwave it away.
You don't understand what evolution entails so your comments are quite ignorant. This doesn't invalidate evolution, it strengthens it. Evolution does not say changes in species must happen one or two genes at a time. If this repudiated evolution like you claim, there are many other discoveries on more solid footing that would repudiate evolution given your faulty logic.
This right here sums up your whole argument. God can do whatever He wants. This is not science in any way shape or form. Why don't you save this crap for sunday school?
@Claudius: care to cite the mythical article? Issue, arxiv? Pre print? Abstract? What did the article actually say? Have you ever seen a platypus skull? Look at the nostril placement, foramen, jaw and ear structure, bones, joints, any of it? Tissue structure, behavior, lack of whiskers, electrical sensors?
Here you go: "Genome analysis of the platypus reveals unique signatures of evolution" http://www.nature...936.html. You cannot 'prove' a hypothesis by speculation... Either come up with a real test or shut up.
Seems to me Darwin's hypothesis gained considerable traction before we were finally able to see a genetic mutation breed an adaptation that we could then reverse by changing the environment. Seems to me that first conclusive confirmation only occurred last year, in 2012, yet it didn't stop anyone from actively adopting the unproven (but circumstantially highly supported) theory as pretty much 'fact'.
McCarthy here. This comment is to teledyn. I appreciate your support and open-mindedness, but I want to slightly correct one thing. You said "his own argument says that it is not likely to be resolved from the genetics." I'd weaken that a little to say "It might be very hard to resolve this with genetics."
Certainly, the ordinary BLAST approach won't work, since you don't know what you're looking for. But I'm hopeful that more powerful techniques, in particular, in silico chromosome painting of the human genome with random pig and chimpanzee sequences will show up pig hot spots. However, I admit, if the backcrossing has gone far enough, it might be difficult to see anything definite even with that technique.
Here you go: "Genome analysis of the platypus reveals unique signatures of evolution" http://www.nature...936.htm. Nothing in there resembling hybridization in the slightest. It mostly talks about gene conservation and derivation of traits, which of them are unique to the monotreme ( non derived traits) which argue against hybridization if anything.
Here's a quote from the lead author of the Nature platypus study, Dr Franz Grützner: ""The platypus actually links the bird sex chromosome system with the mammalian sex chromosome systems." Check the quote here: http://www.abc.ne...5871.htm.
I can assure you that a human female cannot get pregnant by a dog or a horse. I applaud John Hewitt for providing this platform for Dr McCarthy to respond to his critics. Of course his peers, entrenched in established (yet fallible) Neo-Darwinism will reject out-of-hand anything which may threaten their reputation as "Evolutionary experts" - and of course their grants and status.
I applaud also Dr McCarthy, the guru of genetics, for putting his own reputation on the line in making such claims. I would probably have joined the skeptics if anyone other than a renowned geneticist was forwarding this new hypothesis.
This article is of course just a representative snippet from his well-researched argument, and once it is understood that humans may be of hybrid origin, Sus and Pan would appear the two most likely candidates.
Nothing in there resembling hybridization in the slightest. It mostly talks about gene conservation and derivation of traits, which of them are unique to the monotreme ( non derived traits) which argue against hybridization if anything.
Well, try this one: "Top billing for platypus at end of evolution tree" http://www.nature...38a.html. "The sex chromosomes are absolutely, completely different from all other mammals. We had not expected that," says Jennifer Graves of the Australian National University in Canberra, who studies sex differentiation and is an author on the paper. Instead, the platypus Xs better match the avian Z sex chromosome.
I notice that a couple of people are still trying to explain in terms of convergence the many (100+) traits that distinguish humans from chimpanzees, and which are also found in pigs.
As I understand them, they say that this is because we have shared the same environment with pigs, or have had the same lifestyle, or have been in close association with them for a very long time. Well then, why don't we regularly share traits that distinguish us from chimpanzees with dogs? We've lived in the same environment with them for millennia.
They are omnivores, too. We've lived if anything in closer proximity with them and for longer. So it seems there would have been even more pressure for us to converge with them, or to soak up genes by horizontal transfer through retroviruses. And yet, the organism that we consistently share non-chimpanzee traits with is pig.
I think the genomes of both the platypus and the echidna need to be examined further. That could shed light on the evolution of mammals from their reptile ancestors.
I think the platypus study merely verified in terms of sex chromosomes, what a lot of us suspected about the platypus all along. How many times have we heard that the platypus is a weird mixture of bird and mammal characteristics?
Look at that duckbill. Look at that hair. But it seems no one wanted to come out and explicitly say that it's probably a hybrid of a mammal and a bird. That would be crazy. That would mean getting made fun of.
But in my opinion the emperor here--at least if we're talking about a very narrow-minded emperor who says the possibility should never even be considered--just isn't wearing any clothes.
Here's a quote from the lead author of the Nature platypus study, Dr Franz Gr Ľtzner: ""The platypus actually links the bird sex chromosome system with the mammalian sex chromosome systems." Check the quote here: http://www.abc.ne...5871.htm.
What I read there isn't too far from my initial prediction: they may have preserved a sex determinant related to the ability to produce eggs. The nearest relatives they share with birds are reptiles, and while the reptiles might not use it as a sex determinant, it may be sex linked in the monotreme and not sex determinant as well, outlining a primary sex determinant in egg layers but no longer in placentals.
I think the platypus study merely verified in terms of sex chromosomes, what a lot of us suspected about the platypus all along. How many times have we heard that the platypus is a weird mixture of bird and mammal characteristics? Look at that duckbill.
Look at that hair. But it seems no one wanted to come out and explicitly say that it's probably a hybrid of a mammal and a bird. That would be crazy. That would mean getting made fun of. But in my opinion the emperor here--at least if we're talking about a very narrow-minded emperor who says the possibility should never even be considered--just isn't wearing any clothes.
Have you ever actually seen a platypus, or looked at avian versus otter anatomy? I think testing this is trickier than some are supposing, and that's why it's at this point, in this specific incarnation. If it were easily testable, or easily falsifiable, it would be a paper, and the matter would be resolved quickly.
We had Dr. McCarthy on our podcast, and we get into that. I see people being annoyed that this isn't science, the shortcomings don't bother me, seems like a chance to help brainstorm a complicated issue and help work towards solving it. If you only want your science fully worked through before it is presented to you, fair enough; I actually like the challenge, I think science thrives on it.
Just listening to the Podcast now, Interrupting cow. (Although it seems to be 'hanging' after 32 mins) I fully endorse your comments. This could be the most significant revelation of our generation, but just as "man evolved from apes" was a hypothesis initially unacceptable to the mindset of Darwin's generation, so the mindset of our own generation is entrenched in hybrid sterility and, let's call it, the biblical notion of "kind for kind" reproduction.
That is not to say there are no reservations in just accepting this as a hypothesis. Somebody with a greater capability than perhaps you or I (no offence meant) needs to pick up the baton and run with it. The theory for the existence of Higgs Boson was first forwarded in 1964. With massive funding, and the Large Hadron Collider, it was finally discovered in 2012.
Our knowledge of DNA is still in a comparative stage of infancy. Should DNA fingerprints be the ultimate proof to reinforce circumstantial evidence then someone bring it on.
None taken. We plan to have someone with more of a technical background come on the show and walk through the finer details. (if you mean hanging as in frozen, it seems to be working fine for me, you may need to download or reload to listen to the rest... it's worth it to hear Dr. McCarthy get into the mating behaviour).
Genes are invoked as proof in platypus, and discounted in chimp-pig hypothetical hybridization. Which is it? Whichever you think at the time sounds sciency enough?
We also plan to have Dr. McCarthy back on the show to go further into the discussion. To talk about the platypus, dogs, and more of his counter arguments.
McCarthy here. Gmr, if you will take the time to read what I have to say (http://www.macroe...crJLwl), you'll find that I do not say genetics should be discounted. I simply observe that due the presumed repeated backcrossing, the smoking gun may not be easy to find, especially since you don't know exactly what it is you're looking for (that is, you don't have a specific sequence to BLAST with).
After all, under the hypothesis, the human genome would mostly chimpanzee, and any pig genes would likely be obscured by repeated rounds of gene conversion. But, if you'll look at my comment above, I do suggest an approach (in silico chromosome painting) that might well be fruitful.
It might turn up genetic data consistent with the pig-ape hypothesis, in the same way that genetic data has been found that's consist with the hypothesis that platypuses are mammal-bird hybrids. ;-)
Will persist inter ... cow. It is a very interesting podcast dialogue so far and I wish to not only hear the end of it, but I am looking forward to the sequel. Further to my last message as I ran out of space...The absence of DNA fingerprints would still not necessarily disprove the hypothesis.
Gmr - have you ever heard/seen/read of/been involved (hopefully as a juror!) in a murder court case where there was not only a lack of a body (i.e. a zygote) but lack of fingerprints? i.e. genetic proof?
A wealth of circumstantial evidence can be enough to secure a conviction. I have some concurrence with your thoughts that this is science, and science demands more than 12 people and a judge weighing up the evidence.
In the meantime, for me, as a member of the jury if you like as that is essentially what this comment section allows us to be, it is not an immediate response of "case dismissed". You as a fellow juror, demand more proof. Cool. That may however be a few years away.
I don't understand how Hewitt's argumentative, non-factual article can be published on a science news site. Argumentative: "those coming out against the theory had surprisingly little science to offer in their sometimes personal attacks against McCarthy.".
Non-factual: all our phylogenetic, including genetic, evidence of the standard phylogenetic tree and Homo ancestry in particular, has already been offered as reason to reject the hypothesis and remains more than enough.
I also don't understand how a crackpot idea is posted, to the detriment of the site and of science in general. Seriously, I go here because it is a convenient feed. If it stops being convenient by mixing crackpottery with the science, I have to go elsewhere for my science news.
There shouldn't be any sides arguing to find a consensus in an internet forum, this is a scientific matter and should be settled by experts. But one thing is certain: Even if there were no arguments against this hypothesis, the default position would still be skepticism. It's too soon an there is too little to show to call this a theory and try and change the scientific paradigm.
McCarthy here. Torbjorn_Larsson_OM: Try to think hypothetically. What would happen to your "standard phylogenetic tree and Homo ancestry in particular" if this hypothesis were true? Would you still call them "evidence?"
And it seems to me John Hewitt is right, for my own part, I do think that "those coming out against the theory had surprisingly little science to offer in their sometimes personal attacks against McCarthy."
In fact, in calling me crackpot, you do much to verify his claim. Please stop waving your hands and come up with some real, factual objections. And please don't pretend there really is some "standard phylogenetic tree."
I don't know your background, but surely you must realize that there are few topics that biologists bicker about more than systematics. As far as I can see, there is only the tree currently believed in by some. Next year it will be something different.
Well then, why don't we regularly share traits that distinguish us from chimpanzees with dogs? We've lived in the same environment with them for millennia. Some animals are more suitable for domestication than others. Some are more pliable than others or are limited as to the forms they can assume.
Jared diamond in 'guns germs and steel' discusses the futile efforts to domesticate zebras and other animals. Cats are not nearly as amenable as dogs are to variation and compliance. Perhaps pigs are a coincidence, a chance convergence of the domestication of both humans and swine.
Who is to say that long long ago there wasnt an earnest effort at eugenics within a certain tribe to produce exceptional warriors and superior thinkers, which exceeded the normal formative effects of tribalism? But really, whos to say that this was even necessary?
Dont get me wrong. I have read your site and like your ideas very much. Who is to say that long long ago there wasnt an earnest effort at eugenics within a certain tribe to produce exceptional warriors and superior thinkers, which exceeded the normal formative effects of tribalism? But really, whos to say that this was even necessary? Perhaps the Huxley's would qualify?
McCarthy here. montechiari: You say, "It's too soon an there is too little to show to call this a theory and try and change the scientific paradigm." Do you think that every scientist has the same notion of things as you? If not, then what's THE scientific paradigm?
But if so, I suspect you're probably mistaken. If you ask me, open-minded people are constantly thinking about things and changing their paradigms, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. At least that's my paradigm.
This is a non theory. It is base conjecture. Living room "science" over brandy in the drawing room in giant leather chairs. Simple tests exist to exclude this idea, yet all are somehow inaccurate, or raise ethical concerns.
This is crank science. The kind that scuttles under a new leaf to escape the light of genuine definitive tests. Many of you are familiar with the same in physics. This is what it looks like in the biological sciences.
Cherry picked data, poorly understood articles cited on the evidence of suggestive text, and at the center of it all a personality that brooks no dissent. A cult of personality. A persecuted neo-Galileo or Darwin, both of whom would cringe at the claimants lack of humility and caution.
This is a non theory. It is base conjecture. A conjecture is an assertion whose veracity is unknown. A theory is a coherent corpus of ideas that aim to explain or describe a phenomena, regardless of whether these ideas happen to be true or not.
McCarthy has made a meticulous comparative analysis of the anatomy of great apes and pigs, along with a scrupulous study of hybridization in various life forms. He then formulates the hypothesis that the many analogies between humans and pigs which can not be seen in other great apes might have resulted from a very ancient hybridization between primates and artiodactyls, which was then backcrossed with primates. The whole thing is a coherent corpus, therefore it fits the definition of a theory, whether you think it is plausible or not.
Grondilu, it is conjecture. It doesn't even rise to the level of hypothesis because it provides no exclusion criteria, nor does it propose a definitive test to establish plausibility. It is oh so very far from theory in the scientific vernacular.
I think we'll just have to wait ten or twenty years, until computers are powerful enough to just deduce the most likely reproductive history resulting in the extant known genomes. Because until then I fear we'll just be limited to conjectures and endless debates, based more on emotion than reason.
Well, if comb jellies preceded sponges and the multi cellular life had two starts, tuna are close relatives of seahorses, butterflies are born from cells of a deconstructed larva, isn't anything possible?
Biological perpetual motion. It still has the question to answer of if biological selection occurs at all. If yes, why is it not sufficient to explain the descent of man; if no, where does a partner in this hybridization originate? Another hybrid? This presupposes a myriad of single trait populations at the beginning of evolution, unsupported by the fossil record or genetics. Animals with single cells yet the gene for legs. An organism with only an eye and no alimentary canal.
If this is the best that can be come up with, I'll start my theoretical science career right now. Grondilu, it is conjecture. It doesn't even rise to the level of hypothesis because it provides no exclusion criteria, nor does it propose a definitive test to establish plausibility.
Again, a conjecture is a single assertion. McCarthy's work is much more than a single assertion. It's a set of observations and hypothesis. It is a corpus, not a single assessment. Therefore it's a theory.
The point you're trying to make is that it is not a *scientific* theory, from an epistemologic point of view. Because yeah normally a scientific theory has to be refutable. This is a simplistic view, though. I'm not expert but I believe epistemology is a bit more complex than that. Especially in evolutionary biology.
Sorry, grondilu. No matter how much lipstick you put on a chimp-pig hybrid, it is pure conjecture. It is not a hypothesis, and is in no scientific sense a theory.
It is a theory in the vernacular sense if you mean theories like 9/11 was an inside job, or tin foil hats keep the aliens from listening to your thoughts.
It is a theory in the vernacular sense if you mean theories like 9/11 was an inside job. A theory is a corpus of ideas proposed as a way to explain or describe something. Conspiracy theories ARE theories. They are not scientific theories because they don't conform to scientific method and they involve ad-hoc hypothesis incompatible with Occam's razor. Yet they are theories indeed.
Again, you're confusing what defines a theory with what makes it scientific. And even about what makes a theory scientific, you have a very narrow, oversimplified idea of what it is.
Grondilu, this does not deserve the label "theory" because I wish to avoid any confusion of the term as this is a science site, ostensibly, despite this article.
It does, however, share many traits with conspiracy "theories" as you outlined. Theories in the scientific sense have some predictive power. This conjecture makes no predictions, as those might be testable. It instead attempts assertions and only looks at potentially supporting evidence, otherwise known as "cherry picking."
Conspiracy theories ARE theories. They are not scientific theories because they don't conform to scientific method and they involve ad-hoc hypothesis incompatible with Occam's razor. Yet they are theories indeed.
Some conspiracy theories, such as those developed by detectives in investigations, seem to come close to your standard. Grondilu, this does not deserve the label "theory" because I wish to avoid any confusion of the term as this is a science site, ostensibly, despite this article.
It does, however, share many traits with conspiracy "theories" as you outlined. Theories in the scientific sense have some predictive power. This conjecture makes no predictions, as those might be testable. It instead attempts assertions and only looks at potentially supporting evidence, otherwise known as "cherry picking."
Science is an attempt to obtain reliable knowledge about the world we live in. The theory that hybrids produce new species is pretty good, and until a better one comes up, well, you know the rest.
Claudius, a much better theory with real predictive power already exists. This conjecture has to completely supplant that theory in predictive power before attempting to fill in holes.
Claudius, a much better theory with real predictive power already exists. This conjecture has to completely supplant that theory in predictive power before attempting to fill in holes.
I have been aware of a controversy in evolution theory for some decades now. Whether Darwin's survival of the fittest could explain the sudden evolutionary changes that have been observed. With Darwin's theory, gradual change is predicted, yet sudden changes have been commonplace. This hybridization theory makes sense, and fills some gaps in the traditional theory.
Claudius, so does the concept that catastrophic environmental events clear out larger and more specialized creatures, leaving the surviving small generalists to compete anew for a host of new niches. Take a look at which animals have thrived under human settlement and you'll see this in action. Similar to the finches colonizing the Galapagos, adaptive radiation generates a "sudden" myriad of new forms.
This is the origin of GhostofOtto's pet idiotic theory of Tribalism - "The Nazis declared that the Nordics (i.e., the Germanic peoples) were the true Aryans because they claimed that they were more "pure" (less racially mixed with non-native Indo-European peoples) than other people of what were then called the Aryan peoples (now generally called the Indo-European peoples), such as the Slavic peoples, the Romance peoples, the Iranian peoples, and the Indo-Aryans. Claiming that the Nordic peoples were superior to all other races, the Nazis believed they were entitled to world domination. This concept is called Nordicism."
McCarthy here: Scientists consider hypotheses (or theories, or claims, or whatever word you would like to use) in the light of evidence. Whichever hypothesis--be it ancient or be it new--is most consistent with available evidence is your working hypothesis, the thing you assume until you come across something that fits the evidence better.
Personally, I think the pig-chimp-hybrid-origin-of-humans hypothesis is more consistent with available evidence than any other hypothesis I've seen. Read the evidence and arguments that I offer and you might agree. ;-)
I have and I do not agree. One can end up in a thought trap of ones own making when an idea generates personal appeal. The idea that you are the only one smart enough to see and propose what to you seems obvious generates feelings of self worth, so that attacks on the logic and conclusions of the idea feel personal. Rather than dispassionate analysis, it becomes a battle of ego for a surrogate child. This is the trap of conspiracy theories, cults, and crank science.
One mistake I see commonly made is that those who challenge established theory are often dismissed as unscientific. Yet without challenges to established theory, there would be no scientific progress. That does not mean that every challenge to established theory is correct, but neither should one be dogmatic. Socrates pointed this out ages ago.
Claudius, I am no stranger to controversial ideas. I am far from a conservative or ideologue, but I am not the subject. Believe it or not, an idea not being accepted does not correlate to its plausibility or utility, and woe betide the engineer who uses this criteria as a rule to design and build anything.
This instead plays the same crank song of insular loyalists who insist on being special and unique. This insulates them from rejection by reinforcing their unique place as the elite who truly understand.
Claudius, I am no stranger to controversial ideas. I am far from a conservative or ideologue, but I am not the subject. Believe it or not, an idea not beimg accepted does not correlate to its plausibility or utility, and woe betide the engineer who uses this criteria as a rule to design and build anything.
This instead plays the same crank song of insular loyalists who insist on being special and unique. This insulates them from rejection by reinforcing their unique place as the elite who truly understand.
I completely agree with the above. And I don't think even McCarthy would say his theory is "accepted." It is however, intriguing, and a scientific mind has to entertain all possibilities.
Gmr Every time you sit down to a meal you eat food that has been bred for this or that desirable quality. Tomatoes that stay fresh or crop all at once, corn with big juicy kernels, low allergy milk, rust resistant wheat, phytopthera resistant grape vines.
Geneticists, like McCarthy, understand how, when a foodstuff is deficient in a desirable trait, find an organism carrying that trait, and by selective breeding transfer that trait to the deficient organism. They do it by a very well understood procedure.
1. Make a hybrid with usually a female of the deficient strain, crossed to the donor organism. It has a name - F1 hybrid. Ok, so some of the time F1 turns out to be a monster. That is ok. The monster carries a message, just that one trait of interest.
2. Backcross the (usually female) F1 hybrid to the deficient strain, formally called the parent strain. The offspring, usually female, is called the backcross 1, BC1. 3. Backcross BC1 to the parent strain. The offspring is BC2.
McCarthy here. Gmr, I don't see any real argument that you're making here. It's just "I don't agree" or "crank" or "a battle of ego." I mean, what's your point? That I'm some sort of madman? The main thrust of your comments strikes me as ad hominem. Personally, I don't see alternative hypotheses as a problem. In fact, I'm with Abelard: "By doubting we come to questioning, and by questioning we perceive the truth."
(Cont) Every backcross generation reduces the amount of genetic material from the donor. The stud book keeper has to check that BCn still carries the trait of interest. Very soon, after five, ten or twenty backcrosses the BCn is almost identical to the original parent, except that it carries the trait of interest.
Hopefully, by this time there is a male BCn. When genetic testing confirms the new organism is homologous for all the traits of interest, and not hetrologous for any undesirable traits, he declares that organism is stabilised. Note that by this procedure there is very little trace of the donor organism in the stabilised organism. Next, an example that should be easy to understand.
This is conjecture. The classical trait being that any potential criticism is deflected by either: Others have to disprove the theory (why this isn't a hypothesis). The test would be impractical/unethical/can't be done yet because of the lack of technology. Look at the credentials.
It is not incumbent upon me to disprove your theory. It is incumbent upon you to provide a testable hypothesis, not excuses why a test can't be devised. Unless you can provide a verifiable prediction or path to prediction in this conjecture, it's all talk.
The mass of people on here downvoting in force only reinforces the idea that this is a cult of personality, an idea that is too weak to defend itself, so it must have defenders. That is not a very good idea, if it can't stand on its own, if it can't be tested, if it makes no predictions.
Until a testable prediction is provided, it is not my fault, incumbent upon me, or my station to take it easy on an infant idea. One idea strikes me as a potential refutation, however.
Ocean life. Windborne pollinators. Both, if hybridization was as plastic as this conjecture suggests, should end up with generations of monstrous hybrids every milting or pollen shedding season, as non-internal-fertilizers have only so much control over zygote distribution.
Ocean life, if hybridization was as easy and error-free as suggested, would either be a hopeless gray mass of mixed characteristic invertebrate life, or have to develop some way of having germ cells only pair with other germ cells of at least a vaguely similar nature.
Similarly, landbound wind-pollinating plant life should be a gradient of things, all running into one-another, rather than distinct plant forms and growth patterns - a fluid mixture where "species" isn't the same from one season to the next.
(Cont) Consider a dairy farmer who has a herd of milking cows. Just one problem is they all have weapons on their heads that can injure either him or the other girls. He brings in a polled (hornless) bull. None of his kin have ever been known to grow horns. Nevertheless, he is quite ornery.
Essentially, the procedure is to bring the naturally polled bull in just once. Thereafter, just breed from the good milking animals that are naturally polled. Soon enough you discover that some pairings breed polled 100% of the time. That is when the breed is 'stabilised' for polled.
Oh yes, he did remember to check every backcross that the ornery trait was not carried over. There is little trace of the stranger bull in the genetics of the herd, except they are now much safer to be around - polled.
Gmr Can you not grasp that McCarthy is simply saying that this same process, long known to cattle breeders, to zoo managers, to dog breeders, camel breeders, spider breeders who want to make silk, and to all kinds of plant breeders, is active in the natural world?
On ocean life and windblown pollinators, you are speaking from the prejudice of ignorance. Hybrid sterility and inviability blocks the kind of scenario you suggest. On the other hand, hybrid sterility or inviability is a permeable block that allows very rarely, that a new hybrid can come into being, stabilise and prosper as a new form of life. So your argument is duffed at both ends.
FainAvis, your argument does not prevent a new generation every year/milting/pollen season of one-off monsters, if that is the case. We should still see an ocean and forest of hybrids, a horrifying soup and potpourri of mixed monsters, even if they can't interbreed again, every year.
Genetics either proves it or can't be trusted to prove it. Hybrid sterility prevents the gray goo scenario except in very careful circumstances, specifically to support this theory. So, you see how this conjecture has zero predictive power or testable element to it. It is as flexible as it has to be to survive, anything to prevent being pinned down to actual testable results,which could mean its doom.
McCarthy here: You say, "It's too soon an there is too little to show to call this a theory and try and change the scientific paradigm." Do you think that every scientist has the same notion of things as you? If not, then what's THE scientific paradigm?
But if so, I suspect you're probably mistaken. If you ask me, open-minded people are constantly thinking about things and changing their paradigms, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. At least that's my paradigm.- Koolokamba
Koolokamba has posteda few times on phys.org, the first time referring to McCarthy in the third person and this time in the first person. So either this poster is McCarthy and has been caught using a sockpuppet to praise his own theory or this individual is not McCarthy and is simply a bad liar. Either way, Koolokamba is not to be trusted.
Gmr The monster hybrids as you call them are low in number simply because a wide cross is less likely to produce a living offspring, reproductively fertile or not, than the in-species unions. So in-species offspring vastly outnumber outcross F1. That prevents your gray goo scenario.
The plasticity of animal genomes is well-documented. This particular hypothetical cross doesn't yet have a body of evidence to bring it into the consensus, but that's not a reason to dismiss it. The hypothesis should not be discarded simply because it makes us uncomfortable.
Gmr The monster hybrids as you call them are low in number simply because a wide cross is less likely to produce a living offspring, reproductively fertile or not, than the in-species unions. So in-species offspring vastly outnumber outcross F1. That prevents your gray goo scenario.
Not quite. How far is too far? It hand waves my objections, but not much more than that. What you're saying, really, is the current difficulty of producing hybrids, which is sufficient to differentiate coral species that produce and disperse zygotes at the same time, is somehow just inefficient enough to not prevent chimp-pig.
Convenient - it's flexible enough for this one instance, because it happens to be necessary to make the conjecture work, but the door slams most of the rest of the time, conveniently keeping corals separate despite their similarities. Convenient enough to make this a complete non-starter.
Comfort has nothing to do with it. I'm objecting because I would like to understand why plasticity here and not among corals, or grasses, or pine trees. By the logic presented, speciation should be generally forbidden by reproductive barriers alone, and gene differences of relatively large encumbrances are no wall to this.
So why no gray goo? Why no mass of intermediate pine species? Why do I have different grass species in my yard? This particular hypothetical cross doesn't yet have a body of evidence to bring it into the consensus, but that's not a reason to dismiss it.
Gmr The monster hybrids as you call them are low in number simply because a wide cross is less likely to produce a living offspring, reproductively fertile or not, than the in-species unions. So in-species offspring vastly outnumber outcross F1. That prevents your gray goo scenario.
It also occurs to me, if this is the counter-assertion to gray goo, that a single chimp-pig cross would be unlikely to result in viable offspring, if most events are not successful. It must have been some industrious chimps vehemently in pursuit of occasionally-in-oestrus sows, for quite a while.
A not-uncommon event as it were - something likely to occur at a frequency that would overcome the species barrier presented between corals to hybrids, which apparently makes those quite rare, making it even more unlikely in the case of pig and chimp to result from a single or even a host of events.
Perhaps we should start screwing pigs. Who knows? Perhaps someone will spawn a viable hybrid offspring that will have an intelligence as far above our own as we are above chimps.
In today's political climate it will be exploited and sensationalized by the media as a freak. It may have disturbing features, but people will feel sorry for it, and perhaps a little guilty for being part of mankind having created it.
Groups will spring up to support and protect it, as all the while it steadily plots how to use it's superior intellect to take over control of the world. It would certainly be cool if it thought of you as "dad". Anyway, if the news media catches you screwing the pig, you'll probably make the national news. Especially if you tell them why.
Anyway, if the news media catches you screwing the pig, you'll probably make the national news. Especially if you tell them why. Gmr I do not play lotto. That is because the odds are against me winning. But at each draw someone does win. Seriously, I do not know why you are so persistent yet with nothing to offer by way of alternative.
What makes it important to you that McCarthy is headed off at the pass? You feel that he is on the wrong track? I get that. What skin off your snout is it that he makes an idiot of himself? If you are so confident that you are right why not sit back and have a laugh when he bruises his ego?
We who support the hybridisation and stabilisation theory have made our position known. We offer to help you understand, but you reject our help. That is OK. I reject your position too. This venue cannot resolve the issues between us.
Only hard diligent science can do that. McCarthy knows that. He has offered a very detailed explication. You clearly have either not read it or disagree. So, I agree to disagree if you in your next post say, "I agree to disagree." Go in peace.
Yep, this is junk "science" for exactly all of the reasons Gmr has been discussing. And it's pathetic how McCarthy has his crew of sockpuppets here voting, especially given the scope. Wow, 10 votes! On a comments section that is usually just an echo chamber for the same ~25 people.
Those of us that actually read the comments here regularly can see plain as day that there is in fact some "cult" BS going on with the voting just going by volume, and also understand how truly pathetic it is that you'd attempt to leverage such a pitiful amount of votes to lend credence to your crank crap. I never even bother voting here because it's inconsequential and because it's really telling.
I'd like to clarify that I am in no way rejecting this idea or the anecdotal work done thus far on the trait comparison out of hand, and I wouldn't have even commented on this(I didn't comment on the first one) if not for McCarthy and his cult themselves convincing me of their crank status. Hell, this entire new piece is in a very telling vein.
If it walks like a crank, if it talks like a crank, it's obviously a pig-chimp hybrid. Requiem So you think it is all BS. Yep I get that. Have a nice day. No, but I will say that it seems obvious that you cannot read and comprehend. Because I just stated the exact opposite, and you clearly were unable to comprehend Gmr's points previously.
If somebody does the actual work and proves this, rather than performing a "study" that I can imagine a first-grade schoolteacher leading her class in which would result in a similar number of outlying similarities, I won't be surprised one bit. But only cranks engage in this sort of self-aggrandizing of their non-disprovable grant fodder.
Across many fields of modern scientific research there are certain ideas which are dismissed with the label "crank" or "quack" or "woo-woo". This is what passes for intelligent debate these days. A depressing situation.
I'd suggest if an idea is truly off-track, there is no-need to argue against it, as it will eventually fizzle out of its own accord for the simple reason that it bears no fruit.
Perhaps those who feel the need to fight so vocally and energetically against new ideas do so because they recognise at least some possibility that the idea could be right - and cannot bear the thought of having to re-arrange their existing world-view.
Oh yes, you're so enlightened. Good for you buddy. I'm sure you think that's great. Not only do you get to think that you see things in a broader sense than others, but you also get to think that others are worse than you in some way, and even pity them from the looks of it.
I remember thinking like you when I was like 20 and still had something to prove, then I became less ignorant about the workings of the world around me.
Yet another person who has absolutely no understanding of the extremely simple premise which is the cornerstone of science. If you had actually read any of the things Gmr wrote, you'd understand what the problem here is.
I really don't want to re-iterate but I think that I can condense the basic concept down to the fact that MANY things COULD be possible, but that premise is entire useless for science.
And let's not ignore the fact that the entire point of this "article" was for this fool to fire a shot across the bow to his detractors. What did he expect? Also, I do hope that you realize how insanely cliche(and completely pointless) it is for an ignorant person to go off on the "Like, how do you know, maaan? Open your miiiiind." bullshit.
"What are you afraid of, CHANGE?" Get real dude. The entire world isn't rain man. It's pretty obvious where you fall in the spectrum, though. Somewhere between a lib arts student and an occupy bum.(Not that I disagree with that particular gripe, but those idiots out in the streets were laughable)
Sorry, some of us actually care about accomplishments and advancements, not sitting back and stroking it over how amazing our world-view is. And I'm just here to call this spade a spade, having been motivated to do so by the above fiasco, which is also amazingly cliche, but in a different, more cranky way.
Another ad-hominem. Highly creative. What is very clear, looking across the various other fields is that the only way to successfully ignore some of the more powerful new ideas is to avoid looking at the evidence, and avoid listening to the arguments.
As for the current topic - let it rise or fall on its own merits. I can present the fact that when I actuate the switch on my wall it creates light as "evidence" for the switch creating the light.
This would be called being a crank in lieu of actual work, predictions, an experiment with which it could be disproven, and possibly a list of ideas which it invalidates.
spinach gingsen
Oh and hey while I've got you here, will you please provide me with your enlightened "theory" on why this crank chose this avenue for discourse rather than peer review? You seem to have missed the entire context here.
1)"Scientist" makes disprovable claim via non peer-reviewed avenue to try to stir up interest for grant money.
2)People tear it to shreds because it's not science, by definition.
3)"Scientist" comes back with a confrontational piece and wants to argue the point.
4)"Scientist" gets what he asked for.
But no, us squares are just attacking in a vacuum and being obtuse, because if this was true it would shake us to the core. Ok pal. Edit - Also, what "merits?" It has none, by definition, in the world of science. It has the same merits as my observation that the light switch creates light.
I am about the scientific process, and that is why I stepped into this echo chamber. This conjecture is not science in its current state, and I think it important to engage in discussion to either bring it to the level of an hypothesis, or gain admission that it is not yet ready for this kind of debate and dissection.
No mechanism has been proposed to allow some hybrids and not others. No proposals for differential criteria. Ergo, it is important to distinguish this conjecture from an hypothesis. There is ample mobilization here for this on physics topics, but I am uncertain if any exists for biological topics.
Yep, this is junk "science" for exactly all of the reasons Gmr has been discussing. And it's pathetic how McCarthy has his crew of sockpuppets here voting, especially given the scope. Wow, 10 votes!
Same here. (And most of the voters created since the article came out - go figure...along with the usual bunch of Otto's sockpuppets, of course.)
Seriously: None of us here are active in that particular field of research - an internet comment section is not 'peer review'. So why should he give 2 cents worth what is said here? That he does is rather revealing (only cranks care what the public thinks instead of getting their science right.
Correctness of science is not decided by popular vote.Only ACCEPTANCE is decided by popular vote of SCIENTISTS IN THE FIELD. But if you value acceptance over correctness then you are missing the most basic drive to be a scientist.)
Gmr Not for me to say when it is ready, nor you I think. People will already have an opinion one way or another. Some will attempt to prove it. Some to disprove it. Some may make a formal hypothesis that can be tested against the null. You and I arguing will not resolve anything.
McCarthy here. Gmr and Requiem: I know you oppose what I'm doing, and you've made it abundantly clear that you think I'm a crank, egoist, non-scientist, etc., but I suppose I really have to thank you. After all, so far as I can tell Physorg uses the number of comments on an article in deciding how prominently to display that article in its various menus.
Articles with lots of comments get prominent positioning and therefore more readers. So, ironically, you two have done more to get the word out about this alternative hypothesis of mine than any other commenters on this page. I've got a good feeling about that. ;-) So thanks, especially you, Gmr, because you seem to have stayed up all night selflessly commenting while I slept. That must have been quite tiring.
There were some good points made on the last comments about the nature of the scientific inquiry. And when I made my comment before I may have failed to make myself clear. But I'll try again: Making a website and trying to get publicity is not the way to get your point across. The formalities on science are there for a reason. And suspended belief until someone offers a peer reviewed paper is healthy. By the way, McCarthy just admitted he is craving for attention.
Dr. McCarthy: An hypothesis is an idea you can test. I learned this much from "Dinosaur Train." Without a definitive testable prediction by you, the author, this does not rise to the level required in a children's show. Buddy would be disappointed. I do not disagree with your idea. I do have no patience for dodging the responsibility of providing a testable prediction. It keeps me up at night, this hoary realm of definition and seeking knowledge.
By the by, there is no need to thank me. I have every confidence the new loyalists would have kept this echo chamber filled with admiring comments and incestuous attaboys, not to pun on backcrossing.
Can someone remind me how you could disprove that chimps and humans have a common ancestor? And that this common ancestor is the most recent common ancestor of humans with any other lifeform?
If a biological experiment can be done, it will be done somewhere, sometime. Ethics change and don't even exist everywhere. When hybrids are possible, someone will create them.
There are even more disturbing experiments coming. Nerve regeneration is inevitable. When it's perfected it will only be a matter of time before an experiment removes half of someones brain and transplants it. It could go in an empty head or added to someones else's existing half brain (there are plenty of half wits for this).
Either way it raises some questions that no one has thought of yet. One reason I'm sure we weren't designed by god IS the fact that our brain has 2 separate hemispheres. Why would the designer of the container of the soul make it in 2 pieces that can be separated?
Can someone remind me how you could disprove that chimps and humans have a common ancestor? And that this common ancestor is the most recent common ancestor of humans with any other lifeform?
Genetic analysis for one. You could look for /de novo/ elements in the genome that have no apparently modifiable or modified codons from which they derive in the chimpanzee. They should stick out like a sore thumb.
McCarthy here. Gmr and monteciari: Your comments begin to strike me as hypocritical. You act as if it is something terrible for me to promote my own ideas, as if the typical scientist worked in modest solitude and cared not whether his or her ideas ever saw the light of day. If that was ever the case, which I doubt, you know it's not true today.
Today, scientists lie awake plotting how they can get attention for their research. They tweet about their labs and count up the times their papers are cited. They regularly have their university's media department write up press releases about their findings and then publish them in automated feeds like Eurekalert.
I've seen national academy members practically wet their pants over mentions in local newspaper. So am I happy my ideas are getting attention? Yes, I'd be hypocritical to deny it. So I don't see why you're singling me out—Is it simply the particular ideas I'm promoting?
As a scientist, you are in a unique position to understand the working of ideas. An idea is proposed - it doesnt get beyond conjecture until a definitive criterium is identified that would invalidate the idea. If it passes this it becomes a working hypothesis.
As a non academic, I do not appreciate either the apparent shirking of this responsibility by one who should know better, or the appearance of abuse of authority in promoting an unsupported idea as if it had merit absent any supporting differential criteria.
If I have unsupported ideas, I do not have the advantage of standing on academic achievement in promoting them.
McCarthy here. Gmr: Thanks for granting that I am a scientist, and it's even more generous for you to admit that you are not. And you even suggest that I have authority. There, I beg to differ. I'm a guy who has a rather small reputation as a scientist and who has spent most of the last 30 years deep in the stacks at the back of the science library-.
So much for authority. But so what? I agree with R.S. Crane: "There is no authority but evidence." And that's what I've been gathering for 30 years—evidence. What you don't seem to realize is that science is an ongoing process.
You come up with a hypothesis. You investigate it. If the evidence is inconsistent, you throw it out and get another. If not, you look at it some more, by whatever means seem best. That's what I've been doing for three decades. And recently I decided to get my findings out before I kicked the bucket. But that's not saying I'm not going to investigate it further (see "in silico chromosome painting" above).
McCarthy here. Gmr and Requiem: I know you oppose what I'm doing, and you've made it abundantly clear that you think I'm a crank, egoist, non-scientist, etc., but I suppose I really have to thank you.
After all, so far as I can tell Physorg uses the number of comments on an article in deciding how prominently to display that article in its various menus. Articles with lots of comments get prominent positioning and therefore more readers.
So, ironically, you two have done more to get the word out about this alternative hypothesis of mine than any other commenters on this page. I've got a good feeling about that. ;-) So thanks, especially you, Gmr, because you seem to have stayed up all night selflessly commenting while I slept. That must have been quite tiring.
McCarthy, if it's really you, I think you need to focus on searching a genetic way to support your hypothesis. Or make experiments on inter-ordinal hybridization. You don't have to go through a full gestation. Just an embryo would be enough.
Obviously people will not be contend with just comparative anatomy studies. Not only they won't believe your hypothesis is true (that would be fair enough), but they'll also believe your method is not scientific (despite the fact that it used to be the standard method of naturalists before genetics came out).
I've just read the wikipedia article on scientific method, where it is said that it is "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." You've got the first parts right with your rigorous observations of primates and pigs anatomies, but you have to work on the test part.
This hybrid stuff is old hat already. I do not doubt the amount of time and effort put into this. Nor do I doubt your other assertions regarding standing and so on. However, research does not conclude with finding apparently supporting evidence. Refuting evidence must also be considered, or the idea will never stand on its own, always requiring the crutch of personal champions.
Consider plate tectonics. The theory in its nascent stages simply considered continental shape and apparently contiguous fossil strata in sedimentary rock. The implications of it eventually explained and predicted a great many more things.
Step back and ask whether it answers existing theory, not just the holes. grondilu, that sort of test would never make it past an ethics committee. Pigs are among the most common domestic animals in the world.
And chimps are quite easy to find, quite docile in laboratories and all... So making artificial insemination should not be too hard. Or maybe in vitro fertilization. I don't know how many failures would be conclusive, but it sure would be better than zero attempt. Can't someone please try this?? For the love of science?
McCarthy here. Gmr and grondilu: Sheesh! I said in the article, and repeatedly in these comments, and also on the website, that one of the most discriminating tests, in my opinion, would be via in silico chromosome painting (see above). So why do you continue to bring this up? I think I've mentioned this three times on this page already.
I do not oppose to your idea, neither to your drive for acceptance. I just think you should get a published paper on it first. Shouldn't be hard after 30 years of research. I wonder why haven't we heard from this in a major science journal yet. And, since I am talking directly to you, I looked for information about your formation on the website and could't find any, do you have a curriculum somewhere? I'd like to see it. See ya.
McCarthy here. grondilu: As to attempts to produce this hybrid, I'm against it on ethical grounds. If you want to know why, read my kindle novel, The Department (http://www.amazon...1JJED0), which includes an F1 hybrid as a main character. (Hey, I was just getting that URL and saw it's now #87 in the category Satire on Amazon.
Not to shabby, huh?) Anyway, there may also be some practical problems with this approach. In particular, some strange crosses can require a lot of inseminations before you get a single hybrid. For example, in one study that I remember they inseminated hens with capercaillie semen 1028 times and only got three hybrids that reached maturity.
It's subjective, but I'd say a pig and an ape are more distinct than a chicken and a capercaillie, so the number of inseminations might be pretty high. Then again, who knows? You're right. No one has tried it. Maybe it would be easy. But if what I'm suggesting is right, the F1 hybrid wouldn't be human.
McCarthy here. Gmr and grondilu: Sheesh! I said in the article, and repeatedly in these comments, and also on the website, that one of the most discriminating tests, in my opinion, would be via in silico chromosome painting (see above). So why do you continue to bring this up? I think I've mentioned this three times on this page already.
First because I don't know what silico chromosome painting is. Second: because you said during the podcast that backcrossing might very well have made this method inefficient.
Then again, who knows? You're right. No one has tried it. Maybe it would be easy. But if what I'm suggesting is right, the F1 hybrid wouldn't be human.
I understand very well that a F1 hybrid wouldn't be human. The thing is that hybridization between two species of a different order has never ever been seen as far as I know, at least in the animal kingdom, and that is the major reason why people can't accept your hypothesis as being plausible.
So if you could show even just an embryo of such an hybrid, it would erase the major obstacle to the acceptance of your theory.
McCarthy here. grondilu: "In silico chromosome painting" is a powerful new technique that creates a picture of a chromosome (or set of chromosomes) that's color-coded to show where nucleotide sequence similarity to a set of query sequences exists. So in this case, you would have pictures of human chromosomes on your computer screen and you would feed in millions of randomly selected pig and chimpanzee sequences.
Wherever a pig sequence found its best match in the human genome, the picture of the chromosome at that position would turn, say, red. Wherever a chimp sequence found its best match, the chromosome would turn, say, blue.
If you found even one red block where all the sequences were more similar to pig than chimpanzee, it would be strong evidence in support of the hypothesis, if you just saw a lot of bluish purple, it would tend to reject the hypothesis. But as you say, and as I said in the podcast, if there has been a whole lot of backcrossing this approach might reveal nothing.
About the number of attempts that would be necessary: it might possible to make an estimation. If we assume that a fertilization happened at least once, and if we use knowledge of mating habits and population density estimations during the last few million years, we can make a rough estimate on the number of times mating occurred between chimps and pigs. Then we should be able to use statistics in order to infer the number of in vitro attempts necessary to have good chances of getting at least one fertilized egg.
It could be a lot indeed. I mean, even if one mating happened every year during six million years, if it resulted in a F1 cross only once, that would be that the interfertility rate would be 1 out of 6e6, and we would need millions of attempts to get a fertilized eggs. That would be very impractical with current technology.
You have made a good point regarding 'Grey Goo'. Here are two observations you might like to comment on. Now you see it. About fifteen years ago, I collected around 20 acorns and planted them. They all germinated, but a dozen of them failed to take and died in their first year. The remaining eight I planted into my spinney where they have continued to grow.
They are all 'Oaks' in that they have an oak shaped leaf, they all sport pronounced medullary rays and they all make acorns. But that is where any similarity ends. Some are small (the smallest is still only 15ft tall), while one towers above the rest (no, they do not shade one another), the branch angles range from 70 degrees to ca 20 degrees, and bud break differs by four weeks between the earliest and the latest. One is beset with oak galls while one is immune and another is attacked by mouldy leaves, yet does not loose its leaves until way into the autumn. They are Oaks, but they certainly are oakey grey goo.
Now you don't. The fossil record has so far divulged four Homo members taking and loosing their place on this planet in the last half million years, and of course us. Five extremely rare events.
If we presume the hybridisation theory to be true, then this extreme rarity suggests either an infrequently occurring hybridisation zone, improbable circumstances leading to mating, very low fertility due to the extreme nature of the cross, very low fertility of the F1 hybrid, and doubtless other limiting factors not yet considered.
Very rare indeed at only five successful outcomes in half a million years - hardly grey goo - just opportunity, persistence and lots and lots of time...
First because I don't know what silico chromosome painting is. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (Redirected from Chromosome painting) http://en.wikiped...painting
McCarthy here: grondilu: I think you should say "why SOME people can't accept your hypothesis as being plausible" (because there are a lot now who do). But you are raising here an objection ("that hybridization between two species of a different order has never ever been seen") that has already been covered in the article and comments above.
Search this page for references to platypus and read all that's said there and I think you may be satisfied. Also look at the reports about various strange (some of them VERY strange) hybrids compiled on my website (http://www.macroe...ds.html).]http://www.macroe...s.html).[/url]
For example, (on this page: http://www.macroe...ds.html) I document that there is a specimen of a putative horse-cow hybrid in a the French national veterinary museum. That specimen is presumably an F1, and so would be a cakewalk to test genetically. That would be not an embryo from an interordinal cross, but an actual mature organism. ;-)
Claudius: Thanks, but fluorescence in situ hybridization is not what I'm talking about. That's an actual chemical technique that you do in the laboratory. People have been doing that for something like thirty years. What I'm referring to is a new computer equivalent of that process.
"The thing is that hybridization between two species of a different order has never ever been seen as far as I know, at least in the animal kingdom, and that is the major reason why people can't accept your hypothesis as being plausible."
Look in the mirror, and what do you see? In reality, the major reason why people can't accept the McCarthy hypothesis as being plausible, is preconception and the inability to explore challenging new theories. Instead of just dismissing the theory, challenge it. If the theory is true, then...
Don't get me wrong, your posts are very entertaining. But have you actually ever been around pigs? Yeah. They smell dont they? Do you really think they follow irrational orders, or that they herd well, mate on command, or any of those other things you attribute to them?
They are domesticated. As such they have been selected for varying amounts of all these traits, just like us. They dont fear humans. They can be taught to do tricks. Just like us.
You can herd cats from behind with a long pole and a fish at the end of it. No animal likes living in a pen but pigs will do it willingly yes? These pigs seem pretty compliant
http://www.youtub...0U6VhJn8
My family has raised hogs my entire life, and I literally laughed out loud when I read your descriptions.
Hey thanks. So tell me what else domesticated pigs can do that distinguishes them from their wild counterparts. Do they respond when called by name? Do they exhibit shame when admonished, like a dog?
Just got back on-line to see if any follow-up to my comments last night! Boy was I surprised there is still this much interest. I do not know if I was included in the ad hominem attacks against anyone leaving favourable comments in support of Dr McCarthy, but I find it offensive to be considered as anyone's glove puppet.
In fact the perpetrator of that remark, although claiming to have done his background research into this article, leaves his own integrity open to question. Surely the hypothesis is male pig x female chimp? That would seem quite easy to understand.
References to male chimp/female pig seems analogous with MFAP. Hmmm. I would rather be associated with Dr McCarthy, thanks! But I am drawn to the hypothesis quite simply on the basis it explains human's poor fertility, and if you read the detail, why humans suffer painful childbirth compared to the rapidity of childbirth amongst the other primates. And then I read on and was intrigued ...
Instead of just dismissing the theory, challenge it. Erm..that's not how science works. Science works like this: You make a theory, You provide a way to test that theory (notice: YOU). Otherwise your arguments boil down to the equivalent of: "God did it - prove me wrong". And even you might see that that doesn't work in science.
Otto's sockpuppets, of course.) Sorry Im not this mcarthy fellow. It it walks like a crank...And I suspect that as usual you are too lazy to have actually visited his website before offering an opinion. Tsk tsk.
This is the origin of GhostofOtto's pet idiotic theory of Tribalism. And the source of your crank conspiracy theory is...? No, tribalism is a widely accepted but little explored aspect of human behavior and development.
"...the distinct possibility that chimpanzee-hominid common ancestor already had this lethal male raiding pattern in its behavioral repertoire (e.g., Wrangham, 1999).
These and similar considerations have driven Slurink (1993, 1994) and van der Dennen (1995) to develop a more or less integral scenario of the evolution of hominid/human warfare which emphasizes phylogenetic continuity between humans and nonhuman primates". It explains everything from war to you trekkies.
No, science works in any number of ways. But most often today it is a TEAM effort, involving the collaboration of separate groups, often at different locations, who continuously interact. PPL had separate theory, experimental, and engineering divisions with distinct responsibilities.
Mccarthy lacks the facilities, the resources, or perhaps even the expertise to test his theories. An internet comment section is not 'peer review'. So why should he give 2 cents worth what is said here. I am assuming he is here for the practice, and to fish for ideas. Didnt omatumr once get an article in physorg?
I cant help but notice that the theory has an "out" if "in silico" chromosome painting doesn't strongly support your conjecture. Ergo, this does not provide a test. A real test provides elimination criteria - this, however, does not.
Please provide a positive prediction that would serve to eliminate this theory if tried and result is /is not X ( you provide X). Before a product gets to the tested stage, particularly if it is a bit wacky, market research is carried out to guage public reaction - and indeed learn if improvements may be made.
It appears to me that this proposition seems so "out there" that even Dr McCarthy feels the need to first test the waters, as it were. Even the greatest (so far) champion of Evolution had to be coerced and swayed to publish, appreciating the potential outcry from those with a fixed mindset.
A geneticist spending 30 years of painstaking research, evident in his manuscripts, would certainly have tested for the DNA fingerprint. He explains there may not necessarily be one to find. How frustrating science can be!
Higgs predicted the existence of the boson in 1964, and as technology advanced, it was finally discovered in 2012. Within Higgs lifetime. If Dr McCarthy could predict with some degree of confidence that "as technology advances, it will be found, however minute it may be ...."
Erm... If that is the way you do science, then that is extremely myopic science. The creator of an idea is the very last person you want to trust with challenging it.
The way I have seen good science undertaken is that an idea is put forward, then thousands of people challenge it in every conceivable way from a thousand differing perspectives. The result is a strong well researched foundation. But then, my field is Chemistry, perhaps things are done differently in your field.
I don't dismiss the theory, but I just can't be convinced by merely possibilities. To me the way to challenge this theory would be to try to obtain an hybrid beyond families or genus.
Take the platypus as an example. Some scientists show that they have both mammalian-like and bird-like chromosomes, if I understand correctly. So an hypothesis to explain that would be: platypus are mammals-bird hybrids, to put it bluntly.
Although I'm willing to admit it is not *impossible*, I'd like a bit more to be convinced. After all, it may just be because platypus have almost not evolved for a very long time, and are living fossils of a time when birds and mammals were very much alike. To convince me that a platypus has an hybrid origin, show me a living F1 specimen of an hybrid between a bird and a mammal.
It doesn't even have to look like a platypus, as long as it proves me that a bird and a mammal can interbreed. "To convince me that a platypus has an hybrid origin, show me a living F1 specimen of an hybrid between a bird and a mammal.
It doesn't even have to look like a platypus, as long as it proves me that a bird and a mammal can interbreed." I will leave those more learned than myself to respond seriously to this, but I immediately thought of a bat being a cross between a bird and a rat!
"To convince me that a platypus has an hybrid origin, show me a living F1 specimen of an hybrid between a bird and a mammal. It doesn't even have to look like a platypus, as long as it proves me that a bird and a mammal can interbreed."
I will leave those more learned than myself to respond seriously to this, but I immediately thought of a bat being a cross between a bird and a rat! I meant: make such an hybrid specimen, so that it's easy to verify the hybrid nature via genetics.
Clearly the good Dr. McCarthy - and his followers - spent far too much time watching Sesame Street as children (and or as adults) and are still in denial regarding their unnatural affections for Miss Piggy. This theory seems to have at least equal scientific basis and even greater probability than his pig/chimp hybrid theory.
@Dug -- LOL, Ah yes, the lovely Miss Piggy. But Dug, please read the detail - Ms Piggy stayed at home with all the other mothers piggy, while young Master Piggy was sent packing from the sound, and found his way into the loving embrace of the sisters Pan, who lovingly raised their love child and who in turn was 'loved' by daddy Pan. The Devil Dug, is in the detail...
McCarthy here. Gmr: I think you have an inaccurate idea about science. I don't want to say I'm "THE SCIENTIST," but you've admitted that you are not one. So I'll try to give you some idea of how it works from what I've seen myself:
The usual situation is that you have scientists--here I'm thinking about professors of genetics at the University of Georgia--coming up with certain hypotheses early in their careers and they research those hypotheses often for years, or even until death.
They usually are able to come up with at least some data to support their position. They try to convince people of their view, often unsuccessfully, but they stick with it, partially because it's their reputation and partly because they're curious.
But as far as tests and data, very few are able to muster as much evidence as I'm offering. So I can only say that I invite you to read my arguments and think about them. Because really, no matter how much you test and investigate, questions always remain.
Back on the subject of publicity, doctor, we should take Felisa Wolfe-Simon as an example of what careless media attention can do. A lot was put into making the arsenic life a big discovery, it appeared on television and what not, but when it was proved wrong there was not one quick note about it. And we are talking about a published paper, with a practical testable claim.
As it was said here on phys.org on the first article about your idea: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have to admit that, even though you have put a lot of thought in it, there is still no such evidence.
Maybe someday you figure out a way to falsify it, but until that day you should not make a fuss about it. You are doing more harm than good that way. On the last thread I actually saw a guy saying that he just had to wait until evidence supporting this claim showed up, like it was a certainty. Last time I saw such confidence was from a creationist, and that's just not right.
McCarthy here. It's Friday evening and this thread will soon draw to a close, but I wanted to address one thing, that is: Is it testable? Yes, of course, it's testable. For example, when I first came up with this idea, I looked up all the different characteristics that distinguish humans from chimpanzees.
I looked at that list, which was quite long, and picked out a few traits that I knew suggested pig. But most of the traits I had no idea whether pigs had them or not. But I checked. At that point my hypothesis was that the pig was the other parent in the cross that produced humans.
And it could easily have turned out that pigs would not have had all the various traits that distinguish humans from chimpanzees (and other non-human primates). So the hypothesis could have been rejected. But it wasn't. As it turned out, pigs had those traits to an amazingly consistent degree. So it passed the test. But you can always test a hypothesis a little more. There's no end of research.
That is not a test. There is no quantitative analysis, no formal definition of a "trait" and no comparable statistical analysis comparing trait counts if an accepted definition existed among individuals, near species, and disparate species. The plural of anecdote is not data.
McCarthy here. Many criminals have been tried, convicted and hung without the prosecution resorting to "quantitative or statistical analysis."
There are other ways of gaining knowledge. Fingerprints, circumstantial evidence, lack of an alibi, eye witnesses, and many other forms of evidence involve little in the way of analysis, and yet they are taken as guidance in matters of life and death.
I have an undergraduate degree in mathematics, but I've figured out many, many things without quantitative or statistical analysis. It's very often, in fact, I would say usually, unnecessary.
There is no court in science, no appeal, no jury. It does not depend on making a case to a courtroom. There is only whether or not it has any predictive value.
That is determined by proposing a test which could invalidate the hypothesis. I note you never extended your analysis to any creatures other than chimp and pig. That argues for stacking the deck, if we are using court standards. You want it to be so, so you find it so.
As any skilled listener might observe, the most important thing in communication is not always hearing what is said, but rather, hearing what isn't said. One thing we have not heard here is objection from those writer-scientists who have any kind of public reputation in the evolutionary sciences.
The vast majority of people here do not have the right educational background to critique Mr. McCarthy's chimp-pig theory, but that doesn't mean we're unable to sense he's full of shit. I have a feeling a molecular geneticist would blow this theory apart, but I guess phys.org is trying to turn its comments section into some sort of peer review for this guy sense he can't get chimp-pig published elsewhere. I'll leave with Pharyngula's thoughts on Mr. McCarthy and his hybridization theories. http://freethough...olution/
"Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't.", "You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." Mark Twain
It's not just about the chromosome count. There are vast morphological differences between pigs and chimpanzees. Everywhere in their DNA a pig's genome says "Do X" where a chimp's genome says "Do Y" the resulting instructions in a proposed F1 hybrid are gonna be a complete scramble. Hybridization doesn't result in something that's halfway between the parents when the instructions conflict.
HoovesXHands doesn't result in hoofy-hands, it results in something completely fucked up most of the time, i.e. not viable. The differences between genetic instructions are so large between pigs and chimps, that the odds of getting a viable F1 hybrid are so low that if you tried to produce one every day, you might get one before the heat-death of the universe.
Chromosome differences don't really matter. Donkeys and Zebras have different numbers of chromosomes, but they can produce occasionally viable F1 hybrids because the chromosomes they share in common are virtually identical.
Yes, I'm sure that the closest thing that your crank crap can get to peer review shredding it here, in the comments section which is now much more substantial than your intentionally provocative article, will bode well for you.
Willfully ignorant and/or delusional too! Your skill set continues to amaze. Stay classy buddy. By the way, the most stupid redneck hick who can't even speak understandable english from the deep South will tell you that it's a well-known fact that pigs are the most anatomically similar animal to a human. So basically that's your groundbreaking observation. You're a joke...
I am skeptical about McCarthy's work but I find the contempt about his work totally unfair. To me, the idea that hybridization is currently overlooked by evolutionary theory is very appealing. Also, it's quite clear that there are lots of features in the human anatomy that really stands out in the human anatomy when compared to other great apes.
As far as I know, those features are currently more or less of a mystery and McCarthy just proposed one explanation which is coherent with numerous observations. The only problem is that it relies on quite an extraordinary hypothesis: the possibility of a partially fertile hybridization between a primate and an artiodactyle.
McCarthy has worked hard on showing that once you admit this possibility, it is quite an efficient way of explaining the oddities of a few human characteristics. But it really begs for some proof. He should show that such a wide cross is possible, not just that it would explain things.
Homines fere credunt id quod volunt.(Most men believe to be true what they want to be true.)
Julius Caesar. You're mistaking contempt for his work for contempt for the way he is going about this. Although his work is rather pathetic. Based on a well-known premise, and something a child could perform.
You only see us bashing the crank commenters on most articles here, and that's fact. So what's different here? I'd like to add something. When I wrote that he should prove that such a wide cross is possible, I mean that he should do a bit more than collecting centuries-old reports of alleged such cross.
That would not be much more than cryptozoology. I think he should produce a F1 specimen in laboratory. I would not accept the ethical excuse, because he does not have to end the gestation. A dead foetus would do.
The way you are going about this Requiem, is putting a bad face on skepticism; use restraint, lose the ad hominems, and stick to putting forth valid arguments, unemotionally. And then commenting about what is and isn't valid science or inquiry might hold more umph.
If I was very rich, I would immediately buy a farm where I'd raise pigs and chimps together, and see what happens. For a start, that'd give me a few funny videos to put on YouTube. :-) (so far I've found a dog humping a pig, a pig humping a dog, and a monkey humping a goat. No pig humping a chimp. I keep hope :-) )
McCarthy here. grondilu: I almost entirely agree with you (i.e., "McCarthy just proposed one explanation which is coherent with numerous observations. The only problem is that it relies on quite an extraordinary hypothesis").
That's just it--it's a hypothesis, as I say on the website, over and over again. But whether it's extraordinary makes no difference to me. For me, it's just a matter of whether the available evidence is consistent with the hypothesis. ;-)
McCarthy here. grondilu: If you're thinking about buying a farm, I think you are already more convinced than I am. But before you really do it, please read my kindle novel. You might think again. ;-)
It is an extraordinary hypothesis. You really should try to prove it. If you could create a F1 specimen between a primate and an artiodactyle, thus proving that chimp-pig hybridization is at least conceptually perfectly possible, your theory would be much more solid. And you'd get a Nobel price or something.
Because right now, such an hybridization is considered impossible. It has never been irrefutably seen, neither in history or in biological archives. You need to prove it is not fantasy.
McCarthy here. grondilu: I think your longed for experiment already took place. Check this out: https://www.googl...4dEXPvU0 - I don't think those images are from Photoshop.
McCarthy here. grondilu: I almost entirely agree with you (i.e., "McCarthy just proposed one explanation which is coherent with numerous observations. The only problem is that it relies on quite an extraordinary hypothesis").
That's just it--it's a hypothesis, as I say on the website, over and over again. But whether it's extraordinary makes no difference to me. For me, it's just a matter of whether the available evidence is consistent with the hypothesis. ;-)
Yes, and there's no problem with simply leaving it at that. Intriguing idea. Maybe a real scientist will become interested and do some real work. You certainly wouldn't be hearing from me on the topic.
That is not what you're doing. With every post on here you show more and more of your true colors(is crank a color?). How can I prove that you're a card-carrying Nazi, Ghost? National Socialism = Nazism,yes? So here I quote you from 2012:
"In concert with national socialism it depopulated the continent and ENDED the religious influence on euro politics which had CREATED the chronic conditions of overpopulation and war.
It continued throughout Asia, annihilating BOTH nationalist and communist hordes by the millions and replacing the cultures which produced them with a brutal martial law. Overpop ceased. PEACE REIGNS except where war has been necessary to clean up the fringes. What you see is Progress of the kind which ENDURES."
The way you are going about this Requiem, is putting a bad face on skepticism; use restraint, lose the ad hominems, and stick to putting forth valid arguments, unemotionally. And then commenting about what is and isn't valid science or inquiry might hold more umph.
You just don't get it. There is no valid argument against a non-disprovable idea aside from pointing out that the idea itself is not disprovable. It's like trying to make a coherent argument against God. You can't because that idea is invulnerable to such; No matter what you say, the idea can live on.
I do believe that you're describing the many pages of Gmr's comments before I decided to start up, because what he was doing obviously wasn't having any effect either. You're being a cliche crank with this whole "ad hominem" line. Seen it more times than I could even attempt to estimate.
"HoovesXHands doesn't result in hoofy-hands, it results in something completely fucked up most of the time, i.e. not viable." What Hooves x Hands F1 hybrids have you seen for you to be able to make such a statement? Or is this just a personal opinion of a situation you would like to be hte case?
McCarthy here.grondilu: Well? What do you think? Is that the kind of hybrid you were looking for?
Oh my god. It's not a hybrid. It's not even unprecedented and there is a name for it. You can't even spend 5 minutes researching something on the internet before you cite it as more "supporting evidence" for your crank theory, no wonder you do the work of a child and believe it's worthy of attention.
I will reiterate. It is not a hypothesis until it includes its own exclusion criteria. A hypothesis is an idea you can test. This, in its current state, is untestable. Ergo, it is not a hypothesis. It is conjecture.
McCarthy here. grondilu: So what do you think? I won't be able to wait much longer for a response. I'm going out to drink in about 12 minutes. You didn't faint did you?
What Hooves x Hands F1 hybrids have you seen for you to be able to make such a statement? Or is this just a personal opinion of a situation you would like to be hte case? You made a point there. None, no hooves x hands F1 hybrids ever.
Come, my friends,
'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down:
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tennyson
Ulysees
I'm not sure how I am being a crank, since I'm not saying anything about the theory, I spent the whole podcast questioning it as even a theory; I'm point out to you that repeatedly saying 'crank' is no argument, if your valid arguments are making no headway, then move on.
It does you no service to start making logical fallacies, and in a way puts a bad face on any valid arguments you started out with. If you really think saying 'you're a joke!' makes you a rational one in this conversation, you might want to re-examine what your major issue with the whole article has been.
Oh my god. It's not a hybrid. It's not even unprecedented and there is a name for it. You can't even spend 5 minutes researching something on the internet before you cite it as more "supporting evidence" for your crank theory, no wonder you do the work of a child and believe it's worthy of attention.
It was sarcasm. Earlier it was humor. Probably from frustration with people who are criticizing his work without actually reading it.
interrupting cow: Thanks for your support, but please don't get mad at the Tar Baby. You'll just get stuck. "Tar Baby don't say nuthin'!" ;-)
McCarthy here. grondilu: Well? What do you think? Is that the kind of hybrid you were looking for? Be serious please. This is most likely some weird congenital anomaly or something. And anyway, whenever a F1 is produced, it will require a bit more than a photograph to convince people that it is indeed a F1 cross. It will require a genetic analysis, and a peer-reviewed publication.
Thanks for your support, but please don't get mad at the Tar Baby. You'll just get stuck. "Tar Baby don't say nuthin'!" ;-)
I'm not sure how I am being a crank, since I'm not saying anything about the theory, I spent the whole podcast questioning it as even a theory; I'm point out to you that repeatedly saying 'crank' is no argument, if your valid arguments are making no headway, then move on.
It does you no service to start making logical fallacies, and in a way puts a bad face on any valid arguments you started out with. If you really think saying 'you're a joke!' makes you a rational one in this conversation, you might want to re-examine what your major issue with the whole article has been.
Unless you're attempting to resonate with the same hapless random reader that the crank is, in which case it is usually quite effective. How many networks of websites that saw 50M uniques per month have you grown from the ground up?
McCarthy here. grondilu: I thought you might like a laugh. Though, again, I have lots of people sending me photos of that "pig-ape" saying they think it's stupendous. Anyway, I'm going to leave you guys with it.
I have to go out and imbibe. After all, it is Friday night. I might look in again late. Bye now. One more thing, grondilu, since you have serious questions about this, you really ought to email me sometime. That way we can talk about in a more depth. But right now it's bottoms up!
It is not a hypothesis. It cannot, in its current form, be taken seriously. Implications are too widespread without further elucidation. No exclusion criteria exist. Subjective judgement of appearance trumps genetics and comparative anatomy.
No means is defined for declaring a "trait" as a discrete, definable entity. Articles are cited without clear understanding of their implications. There is no prediction model included that accounts for current species diversity and genetics as well as or better than evolutionary theory and common descent. Objections could continue, but I have to prepare dinner.
I'm at a loss for what you are trying to say... did you do that? Should I be trying to do that? I'm only at the moment trying to get you to see that yelling 'you're a joke' is futile. With the podcast I'm trying, among many things, have a conversation about what is and isn't science. I think that's what you are trying to do as well.
One more thing, grondilu, since you have serious questions about this, you really ought to email me sometime. Well I knew you were a fan but I had no idea that you were cataloguing ottos posts. I am so flattered.
I describe how things were, what happened, and how things are now. In addition I give you a plausible explanation for all of it. Is this such a bad thing?
I know people like you and trashy and antialiens prefer pleasant fairy tales and warm fuzzy things but that is apparently not the world we live in.
The world we live in contains evil religions which force women to reproduce until it kills them. And so there must be People in it who have to resort to planning wars so that the results of them wont destroy civilization. Is this my fault? I dont think so but who knows?
By the way youre way off topic. I suppose the idea that we are all part pig makes you squirm as well. This is related to the way people feel when they hear that we are descended from apes. This doesnt mean that its not true though does it? Er, doesnt it?
The only comfortable things in this world are the things we make up. This is the tragedy of the human condition. No matter, our machine successors will not suffer this affliction. Which is why they are INEVITABLE.
"HoovesXHands doesn't result in hoofy-hands, it results in something completely fucked up most of the time, i.e. not viable." What Hooves x Hands F1 hybrids have you seen for you to be able to make such a statement? Or is this just a personal opinion of a situation you would like to be hte case?
These patterns of hybridization are so well known, they were written about in 1949. See: Moore, J.A: 1949. Patterns of evolution in the genus Rana. En: Genetics, Paleontology and Evolution. Gepsen, G., Mayr, E. & Simpson, G. (eds). Princeton University Press, pag.: 315-355.
It's not like scientists have no idea what happens when you cross dissimilar species. Hybridization has been studied for a very long time, and is in fact one of the cornerstones of modern agriculture and the Green Revolution.
In other words, McCarthy's idea flies in the face of nearly everything modern science knows about how hybridization works.
These patterns of hybridization are so well known, they were written about in 1949. Ahaahaa a philo is schooling a geneticist. How cute. It's not like scientists have no idea what happens when you cross dissimilar species. Hybridization has been studied for a very long time.
Thats what they said about the dinosaurs. They had feathers did you know it? And stegosauri were pangolins. Ask the good doctor. I understand that you would prefer that science move at the same pace as classical philosophy. But then that changes every generation doesnt it? You should be used to massive paradigm shifts.
We also raised horses and cattle....I spent less time around sheep but enough to learn their nature. They live up to their reputation for being absolutely controllable. Sounds like fun. You still need dogs to herd cattle and sheep though, yes? And dogs are a lot more manageable than cats. And zebras are entirely undomesticable.
"The killer ape theory posits that aggression, a vital factor in hunting prey for food, was a fundamental characteristic which distinguished prehuman ancestors from other primates."
-I wonder if this was before or after goodall and the discoveries of hunting and warfare among primates. There is little difference between hunting and fighting. And after a battle why leave all that good protein for the buzzards?
I think that as soon as we became able to hunt the predators which had kept our numbers in check, the human condition became a distinctly nasty and unnatural affair.
Dogs are not necessary to herd cattle or sheep. They do make it easier though, especially with larger herds. Quads are more fun. Mandan, you're quite right about pigs, they are eerily smart, and they attack even faster than Otto.
My mother used to tell me a story -lived on a tiny family farm - about having to keep collecting piglets in the morning, since they seemed to find a way out of their pen sometime during the night, despite it having an electrified wire right about their height which should keep them in.
One morning she gets out there at four or so, and they're all still penned. The lot of them start to jostle, and line up in the pen on the far side from one of the wires - and in unison start squealing full out as they charge the wire. She said it was like they knew it was going to hurt and started screaming in advance. But they all shot through, out into the yard...
Don't flatter yourself, Ghost. I quote you because I can remember verbal exchanges from years ago. I have a keen memory since I don't take pharmaceuticals to blur it- you should try it some time. On the other hand...And why would I squirm at the thought of possible pig predecessors? Here's a quote of my own: "While this idea is repulsive and almost depressing..."- Xylos21
"Why is it so repulsive? Pigs are extremely intelligent animals as are chimps. Pigs respond to affection and verbal commands when raised as pets. Their behavior in pens, an unnatural environment, is no indication of their nature. Modern humans exhibit similar behavior when forced into crowded and competitive. I now have another reason not to eat them- it may be construed as cannibalistic."-Telekinetic
You also reverse-engineer genocidal history as a narrative to your psychotic fantasies. It's the worst type of revisionism. Mandan, no worries. Like you say on this thread under these conditions. I did enjoy your posts about your experiences with pigs - it's great to hear firsthand accounts. There are a lot of preconceived notions about animal behavior that tend to fall apart on first encounters.
We figured out at the local zoo the secret to flamingo breeding - pack 'em in like sardines. They figure if they're really close together, they've got one of the better, central nesting spots. Used to be asked by kids when I volunteered if a given animal bites. My response was always "Does it have a mouth?"
Come, my friends,
'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down:
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tennyson
Ulysees
you remind me of oliver k manuel, you get in a bind and start throwing out random quotes as if they make up for you not answering or addressing the previous posts. maybe you too should talk. just be careful, he likes children, his own, sexually, to be specific.
Jsdarkdestruction If you read McCarthy's website you will see that before every chapter he puts in these little verses. Some have expressed doubts that the McCarthy posting here may not be the real one. This kind of poetry is his seal.
A new day, a new beginning. The basis of this - i shall use the word conjecture if it sits more comfortably with some - are: 1. Animals from different "species" are able to mate and have viable offspring. 2. The physiological/anatomical differences between humans and other primates are indicative of human being a backcross between primates and another "species".
3. The physiological/anatomical similarities between pigs and humans are indicative of pig being that other parent. 4. The DNA evidence for such may not still be present, or at least has not yet been found.
I for one am looking forward to the next Interrupting cow podcast in which hopefully these issues will be discussed sensibly without the personal attacks on Dr McCarthy and those like myself who are intrigued by the possibility. Serious objectors to this conjecture may first wish to read this http://www.earth....ct01.pdf
Erm... If that is the way you do science, then that is extremely myopic science. The creator of an idea is the very last person you want to trust with challenging it.
But that's the way it works. You challenge your own ideas. Then you present methods, materials and results of that challenge for peer review (and the peers look at it and jufdge whether what you did is good enough to substantiate the theory).
What you DON'T do is say: "Here's an idea. I pronounce it correct until someone else proves it wrong." That's not how serious science is done. That's how crank science (and religion) is done.
I know this last remark was picking up on a previous point in the thread and not directed at me, but as indicated in the link I sent in my previous comment above, similar accusations were made against Darwin and his Theory, and look where it got that crank.
I know it is not scientifically appropriate to quote Wikipaedia, so with apologies for that, "a "Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false."
A crank is "also a term used in mechanical engineering, a bent portion of an axle, or shaft, or an arm keyed at right angles to the end of a shaft, by which motion is imparted to or received from it". That crank Galileo, whose evidence was rejected by mainstream science in his day, was left muttering "But it still moves!" Really sorry I cannot enjoy any follow-up as now off to a BBQ (hope its not pork ribs).
The pig-ape hybrid origins of humankind is an hypothesis. The evidence is observational and therefore circumstantial. It has an internal consistency with considerable explanatory power. And it is testable, albeit in a way repugnant (to me). My understanding from reading Popper is that potential refutability is the sine qua non of a scientific hypothesis (whether it is right is another matter)
Why is it being replaced by the word conjecture. It seems to be semantic manipulation for the purpose of political point-scoring. Like most of the arguments against the hypothesis it is emotive, full of ego and entrenched,not to mention the ill-informed ad hominem attacks.
At one stage Popper labelled Darwinian evolution non-scientifc, calling it a Metaphysical Research Program (though I believe he changed his opinion before he died). Hybridisation and Stabilisation Theory has more scientific weight than Darwin's and should attract favourable attention from scientists who see those weaknesses Darwin was no crank.
Part of what Darwin did, in his book, if people choose to read it, is put together a supposition, then explore the consequences of it, if it were true, and discuss what would cause it to also not be true.
Falsification, or a way to discount or show the idea was false, is present through the entire book. Concerning to him was that he could not identify a specific mechanism or pattern to germ plasm. That self-doubt is a quality absent in crank science.
menssana216: It is not semantic manipulation to call this conjecture. It is establishment that this currently has no means of falsification, ergo it cannot be an hypothesis. This conjecture has no "weight" other than volume. A large volume of air is still air. Your assertions are similarly baseless and ad-hominem: "political";"ego,";"emotive";"entrenched."
This is from Inherit the Wind (Does anyone see any parallels?):
Brady: I'll tell you what he's trying to do. He's trying to destroy everybody's belief in the Bible and in God!
Drummond: That's not true and you know it. The Bible is a book. It's a good book. But it is not the only book.
Brady: It is the revealed Word of the Almighty God spake to the men who wrote the Bible.
Drummond: How do you know that God didn't spake to Charles Darwin?
Brady: I know because God tells me to oppose the evil teachings of that man!
Drummond: Oh, God speaks to you?
Brady: Yes!
Drummond: He tells you what is right and wrong?
Brady: Yes!
Drummond: And you act accordingly?!
Brady: Yes!!
Drummond: So, you, Matthew Harrison Brady, through oratory or legislature or whatever, you pass on God's orders to the rest of the world! Well, meet the Prophet from Nebraska! Is that the way of things?! Is that the way of things?! God tells Brady what is good! To be against Brady is to be against God!
You remind me of oliver k manuel, you get in a bind and start throwing out random quotes as if they make up for you not answering or addressing the previous posts. maybe you too should talk. just be careful, he likes children, his own, sexually, to be specific.
There are things to address about this. The authors dodging of falsification, the assertion that some tests won't falsify it, but will prove it if true, the lack of consistency, the mobilization of crowds instead of evidence and testable prediction.
This, however; equating or somehow associating the author with child molestation by baseless association, is truly vile, and completely beyond the pale.
To nail yourself upon a cross is not becoming either. Reveling in opposition in preface to intellectual martyrdom is another feature of crank scientists, just so it's made known. Equating one's own opposition to perceived parallels from the past does not address the current discussion of shortcomings and attempting to arrive at consensus on mechanisms and testable prediction.
Gmr: Come now, I don't exactly feel like a martyr today. I'm laughing. A bird's singing outside the window. In fact, I'm actually having fun with all of this. Moreover, if you'll take the time to think carefully about it, I think you'll realize the parallel wasn't about me (you must not have seen that movie).
But I do thank you for your observation that accusations of child molestation are a bit more than impolite. It shows you're still in the category of someone I might consider inviting over to dinner. ;-)
Just to be perfectly clear: Rejection of an idea by the mainstream does not equate with greatness.
Having an unusual idea does not make one Darwin or Galileo. What sets one apart is being willing to provide a test or circumstances under which the idea can be shown to be incorrect.
Going against the mainstream is not a crime. Being unwilling to accept evidence or the potential of being incorrect puts one out of Darwin and Galileo's camp. I hope you realize that Darwin faced enormous criticism from the scientists of the day. These critics raised objections remarkably similar to your own.
Anyone in biology at all is familiar with Darwin's story. My criticism is not near those objections. In Darwin's time, the idea of massive geological age was more accepted - the idea that mutation occurs was not unknown. What Darwin proposed was that the environment can substitute for an astute breeder, and that this might be sufficient to explain most if not all variation in life.
Objections surfaced mainly due to the implied subject of man. For all the lesser animals, it could be accepted. But the descent of man was contentious.
Darwin had a lot of substantial experimentation on his own with breeding pigeons, so the heritability of traits and the variation in offspring was firsthand knowledge. If there were not any variation in offspring, Darwin's hypothesis would have been invalidated.
One example: "You (Darwin) have deserted—after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth—the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins's locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon.
Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?" Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873)
In short, he was criticizing Darwin for not following the scientific method, being unable to disprove his "assumptions." How does that differ from your criticism of McCarthy?
In short, he was criticizing Darwin for not following the scientific method, being unable to disprove his "assumptions." How does that differ from your criticism of McCarthy?
Substantially. If any trait was inherited that was acquired, it would have been invalidated. If there was no variation in offspring, it would have been invalidated. If variation was not heritable, it would have been invalidated. Mechanisms existed for disproving the assertion, provided by Darwin's proposed hypothesis. A properly formed hypothesis should have a means to show it false. If A then B.
If we are product of pig-chimp backcrossing, then (insert conclusion here) that is verifiable, true or false. Right now, the "conclusive" proposed test is "true or not quite able to tell it actually is true."
Darwin's theory was actually supported by the difficulty, but not outright impossibility, of hybridization.
I would feel unsettled leaving this discussion for now without one final comment: Have you not appreciated the fact that Dr McCarthy has carried out a similar amount of research into avian hybridisation? The research is freely available on-line. Do you not respect his firsthand knowledge of the subject?
The point I was making earlier was in the use of the word crank. I believe its use says more about your mindset than Dr M's.
Quote: "Going against the mainstream is not a crime. Being unwilling to accept evidence or the potential of being incorrect puts one out of Darwin and Galileo's camp."
I cannot see anywhere in this discussion where that has been claimed. I believe the circumstantial evidence has been forwarded, + a statement to the effect that although no DNA evidence to support this has been found, and a proviso, if never found it does not necessarily disprove the hypothesis. Have fun!
"The leading philosophers, contemporary with Darwin, John Herschel, William Whewell, and John Stuart Mill, were equally adamant in their conviction that the Origin of Species was just one massive conjecture. Darwin had proved nothing!"
- David L. Hull Darwin & His Critics: The Reception of Darwin's Theory of Evolution by the Scientific Community. Starting to sound familiar?
UKMervSanders : Precisely. It is not a hypothesis if the proffered "test" is of this type. Imagine a pregnancy test, just as an example. How far would sales go if the results were "positive" and "probably positive, but we just can't quite say it now, just yet." It's not a pregnancy test, in that case: it's a "you're pregnant, let's see if we can tell" test.
Claudius: This does not provide a testable method of saying whether or not the conjecture is true. It argues my motive; but that still won't answer the question of whether there is a testable prediction that would falsify the conjecture. I've already pointed out the parts of Darwin's that were falsifiable, and could have resulted in rejection of his hypothesis.
Tests have been proposed here, in this thread, but they are either hand-waved ("It wouldn't really show that this was false/true") or are rejected on pseudo-ethical concerns. There is no ethical concern in trying to find grass or pine hybrids at rates predicted.
Another contemporary scientist re: Darwin - "How does it happen that a theory of the origin of species, which rests upon the same (wholly unfounded) basis, is accepted by multitudes of naturalists, as if it were a new gospel? I believe it is because our naturalists, as a class, are untrained in the use of the logical faculties by which they may be charitably supposed to possess in common with other men.
No progress in natural science is possible as long as men will take their rude guesses at truth for facts, and substitute the fancies of their imagination for the sober rules of reasoning." Samuel Haughton, Natural History Review 1860
Again, what you're showing is another person's assertion: In this case, Samuel Haughton. It could be shown, to falsify his assertion, that many of the naturalists of the day were trained in logic, as many were multidisciplinary. Darwin himself was classically trained for the clergy. His accusation is not against Darwin's theory, but against naturalists as a group using their minds at all.
He is not arguing the points of Darwin's hypothesis, later theory. He is decrying others accepting it, and ad hoc claiming they are not using their brains. That sounds more like some other ad hominems in this thread directed against detractors, as a counterpoint.
The point being, he is not arguing the specifics; I am. I am arguing that there should exist a test; the person in the quote is not. His claims are that it is wholly unfounded. I am trying to get a positive predictive assertion.
But my character is not at issue, and will not validate this threads conjecture. "The chief arguments used to establish the theory rests on conjecture. We are asked to believe all these "maybes" happening on an enormous scale, in order that we may believe the final Darwinian "maybe" as to the origin of species.
The general form of his argument is as follows: - all these things may have been, therefore my theory is possible, and since my theory is a possible one, all of those hypotheses which it requires are rendered probable. There is little direct evidence that any of these maybes actually have been. Many of these assumed possibilities are actually impossibilities."- Henry Charles Fleeming Jenkin, The North British Review, June 1867
If you are going to continue posting Darwin's detractors, I can only assume you are no longer actually reading for comprehension. A quick method of falsifying this hypothesis exists.
"It is not semantic manipulation to call this conjecture. It is establishment that this currently has no means of falsification, ergo it cannot be an hypothesis. This conjecture has no "weight" other than volume. A large volume of air is still air."
This argument could have been lifted from a list of criticisms of Darwin by his contemporary peers. I rest my case.
And thus my hypothesis is proven by one more data point. I have pointed out three points on which Darwin's base assertion could have been falsified.
Gmr: "Darwin had a lot of substantial experimentation on his own with breeding pigeons, so the heritability of traits and the variation in offspring was firsthand knowledge. If there were not any variation in offspring, Darwin's hypothesis would have been invalidated."
Your misrepresenting things here (or really I think unknowingly repeating a misrepresentation). Prior to the publication of the Origin in 1859, Darwin did very little in the way of actual breeding. He did keep various pigeons, but for only a three-year period (1855-1858)
Not enough time to do any actual breeding, at least not by the gradual methods he describes. Also, some of the breeds that he believed were of gradual origin, such as the pouter, are actually known to have been first produced by hybridization. I document all this in detail on this page: http://www.macroe...win.html
"Darwin himself admitted his theory was bereft of proof where it was most needed. In a letter to H. G. Bronn he confessed, "You put very well and very fairly that I can in no one instance explain the course of modification in any particular instance," and further, "When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory," and finally, "I am actually weary of telling people that I do not pretend to adduce direct evidence of one species changing into another." In other words, Darwin agreed he had no direct evidence for evolution."
- Darwin, Evolution and His Critics: How Was Darwin's Theory of Evolution First Received? Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon
So isn't the pregnancy test what he is proposing with in silico painting? If the chimp is pregnant, it could show up there, it could not, but that would not entirely definitively show it's not pregnant with a pig. Isn't that precisely the way pregnancy tests work?
There are false negatives, so you could still be pregnant, but it just doesn't show up... Though, I'm not sure what the further detailed test with a false negative would be in the chimp case, but I think you may have picked the wrong analogy to argue your point.
Gmr: I think the reason you're being so insistent about this notion of conclusive hypothesis testing is that you have a different mindset from my own. For my own part I don't think there is ever any final conclusion in testing your beliefs, or that their should be.
They are always worth examining further. Whereas you seem to be able to imagine a situation in which you would cease to doubt, I cannot. At least not about an issue as complex as this one. I do believe that we are pig-ape hybrids, but I could never believe it to the extent that I lacked all doubt. It's just my working hypothesis, that is, to me it seems more consistent with the facts than does any alternative hypothesis.
I'm sorry to say that I have to drop out of this conversation for awhile. My wife's out of town and I'm the babysitter. So I must now yield to my two seven-year-olds' demands to see Bugs Bunny at the local theater. Goodbye. ;-)
I am treating it as if it were a proposition for hypothesis because that is the realm it is presented in - it has to be to attempt to supplant evolutionary theory. This is a necessary step because it has to account for all of the successes of evolutionary theory, before it can start attempting to cover holes. If the assertion is now changing to a "belief" then it should not be present on a science site.
The pregnancy test is presented precisely because it either shows pregnant or not-pregnant. It would be useless if it showed "pregnant" or "pregnant just trust us you're pregnant even though this is supposed to be a yes or no test."
Bringing in false positives only argues that even if the test bore out this assertion (the assertion of hybrid origins), it would still be subject to doubt until there was some statistical analysis to show the likelihood of multiple tests showing the same result was astronomically low by chance. If it was a "false negative" - then more than one test should suffice to show if it was, indeed, a false negative.
Level of confidence should not be taken to be the same as a test that answers yes or no, nor should it invalidate attempting such a test; it only argues for doing it more than once. I guess there's only one way to prove this - if he tries to breed a chimp with a pig. It's hard to imagine though because even a horse/donkey mule is sterile.
Problem is pregnancy tests don't tell you pregnant or not pregnant. They tell you positive or inconclusive. Either way you go to a doctor to have blood tests done, ultrasounds and find out for sure; you don't take the pregnancy test over and over until you are confident, because it could be something in your system causing a false positive.
If you are proposing he needs something with the assurance of a pregnancy test, I would suggest there needs to be something more than that. Incidentally I agree, it needs to be falsified, I'm telling you a pregnancy test isn't the best analogy. "I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals." Winston Churchill
"The pig with its little blue eyes, its eyelashes and its skin has more human qualities than any chimpanzee — think how often naked human beings remind us of swine."
There are things to address about this. The authors dodging of falsification, the assertion that some tests won't falsify it, but will prove it if true, the lack of consistency, the mobilization of crowds instead of evidence and testable prediction.
This, however; equating or somehow associating the author with child molestation by baseless association, is truly vile, and completely beyond the pale.
You have misunderstood. I was just letting him know of olivers sinful past. that's why I said it as a warning to McCarthy and not a direct comparison. I apologize to you, dr.McCarthy
and any others who misunderstood me.
Suppose we were bioengineered and the techs used ...some....pig DNA or other genetic material to improve the product a bit. Then they covered themselves in the training manual they left behind that became our Bible. We actually ARE God's creation, just not first hand as He has acted thru countless other species, probably ALL humanoid........created in the image of GOD. The training and operations manual......pigs are not Kosher......our sense of right and wrong is 'written on our hearts'...
"Dr. McCarthy: I am treating it as if it were a proposition for hypothesis because that is the realm it is presented in - it has to be to attempt to supplant evolutionary theory. This is a necessary step because it has to account for all of the successes of evolutionary theory, before it can start attempting to cover holes."
It seems to me that the issue, for McCarthy, is that neo-Darwinian thinking, despite it's great successes for the most part, underestimates the role of hybridisation. Not to supplant Darwinian theory everywhere.
Science recognises that hybrids do exist and that often the fertility is passable. But sometimes the hybrid is sterile. Obviously, that particular cross cannot set off on its own as a new species because it does not have fertile individuals of both sexes. To wit the mule.
McCarthy wants science to apply serious consideration to the possibility that some crosses yield a hybrid that can stand alone as a new species.
McCarthy here. FainAvis: Though I do generally agree with most of your comments, your last one, about what you think I want, really isn't correct.
What I actually want to do is continue to play the intellectual game that has entertained me for years, that is, look at empirical data and then formulate an explanation of that data, then use that explanation as a guide to what data to look at next, then if necessary adjusting the explanation in light of that data, then using the adjusted explanation as a guide as to what data to look at next, etc.
My goal in this process has been to construct an explanation, or really an internally consistent system of explanations, that accounts for as wide a range of independent data sets as possible. This game is an infinite process, or at least a lifelong one, and it fascinates me because it seems to lead always toward a better understanding of the truth, even if you never quite get there. ;-)
McCarthy here. FainAvis: Personally, with my mathematical background, I think of it as an interative process that asymptotically approaches reality.
I have come to this discussion quite late, but I must say I find Dr. McCarthy's hypothesis very intriguing. However, as the saying goes,"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Hypotheses that cannot be proven through experimentation, artifacts, or actual sightings of a living ape/pig cross hybrid renders the hypothesis indeterminable as to merit.
Quite possibly the only way to lay to rest all doubts with regard to the cross breeding of two different species that resulted in the forerunner of humans is to experiment through 'in vitro fertilization' of sperm from one specie and an egg from another.
Trial and error and finally success may take many years and even a lifetime, but it might prove our origins eventually if it be the case. It is a mystery to me as to why an ape would consider a pig sexually attractive, unless at one time both pig and ape were less diverse from each other physically. That might mean that forerunners of ape and pig were closer genetically.
I think that too much emphasis is being given to Darwin's theory as being the only truth available. Dr. McCarthy offers an alternative to the origins of man, which does not seem to detract from Darwin, but only amends it as a slight variation on evolution re: our origins.
My faith in my religion and my belief in God the Creator is not shaken by this at all. In fact, it allows me to understand better another theory that lifeforms on Earth did not originate from comets and other space debris, but that the oceans were seeded by some Intelligence who then made it so that evolution and cross breeding could take place in the quest for near perfection. Life on Earth is part of "the grand experiment" and we are one of the success stories.
@Dr. McCarthy I believe that you and your colleagues should commence forthwith your experiments with 'in vitro fertilization' using samples of sperm and ovum from chimps and pigs for cross breeding. Please take into consideration that you are not using human sperm and ovum, thus you can never be accused of monstrous experimentation with a potentially part human zygote.
There is nothing immoral or worrisome about such tests, and if you do not proceed with such experiments, you will always wonder how it might have turned out and if you might have been able to produce a new life form from it.
This is not creation of life. This would be simply an amendment to life that exists already.
Please think it over carefully. I, for one, look forward to reading of your success in the future.
McCarthy here. marraco: I think it's because I wrote extensively about a hybrid of this type in my kindle novel (http://www.amazon...ccarthy) that she really is almost alive in my mind. I realize that the real hybrid, if produced, might not be at all like the fictional hybrid created by my imagination and intuition. Nevertheless, I wouldn't want to take that chance.
There will, of course, be those who will try, but I can't help thinking about that key passage from Frankenstein: "I had worked hard for nearly two years, for the sole purpose of infusing life into an inanimate body.
For this I had deprived myself of rest and health. I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart."
McCarthy here. obama_socks: Thanks, but that particular experiment I definitely leave to others.
"FainAvis: Though I do generally agree with most of your comments, your last one, about what you think I want, really isn't correct." Sorry. I guess I was trying to read minds again. And projected something of my thinking onto you.
Well, if we can't for practical and/or ethical reasons attempt to produce hybrids between orders, maybe we can try to perform in vitro hybridization between various forms of life inside orders, measure degrees of fertility as a function of the genetic distance, and use statistics in order to extrapolate the inter-order fertility in general, and between a primate and an artiodactyle in particular.
If this fertility corresponds more or less to one birth in a few million years, that would support the theory. It would be very frustrating if no experiment could be done to determine in what extend hybridization is possible between any two life forms.
McCarthy here. grondilu: Whatever my objections, from email I've received I think it already looks as if there will soon be more than one scientist trying to produce this cross. In general, however, many experiments have already "done to determine in what extent hybridization is possible between any two life forms."
I talk about this extensively on my website (e.g., http://www.macroe...s.html). Generally speaking, though, what I think, after looking at so many thousands of crosses, is that as the difference between the parents becomes greater, the number of inseminations required to get one viable adult hybrid goes up. But it's not at all clear what degree of difference must exist if the possibility of producing a hybrid is to be ruled out entirely.
But it's not at all clear what degree of difference must exist if the possibility of producing a hybrid is to be ruled out entirely. Precisely. That's the very question your hypothesis raises. We're dying of curiosity, now.
Also, all your examples in the "accounts" section of your page about mammalian hybrid are crosses inside a family. There is nothing about crosses between orders. The "articles" section relates alleged cases, that we can't take for granted.
I seem to be missing something. I see a proposal consistent with available data being rejected outright because it isn't supported by available data. That seem to be the basis of gmr's desperate denial. I don't see how hybrids can "supplant evolutionary theory". (can someone explain that to me in a rational way?) Gmr calls the theory conjecture and proceeds to argue with the most blatant conjecture possible.
McCarthy here. obama_socks: Thanks, but that particular experiment I definitely leave to others. What others? With all due respect I do not believe that your heart is in it (the science), and that which you would have us believe that you have so carefully and consistently accumulated data for the purpose of eventually providing the proof that your hypothesis is correct and not merely a long-shot possibility.
By not experimenting, you make a mockery of your ideas and the faith that others may have in those ideas. Your unwillingness to perform the experiments yourself tells me that you are very unsure and that you hesitate because of a possible lack of confidence.
Now I could be wrong about you, but I have never met a scientist yet that was unwilling to perform experiments to ascertain and confirm certain truths if those truths exist. You leave us hanging and twisting in the wind, but that is your decision to make, however disappointing.
McCarthy here. meBigGuy: Thank you. I must say, I, too, have been puzzled by Gmr's comments. It kind of strike me as "Okay, you have a huge pile of evidence consistent with your hypothesis, but because you can't produce even more evidence immediately, that evidence doesn't count and, in fact, your hypothesis is not even a hypothesis."
grondilu: In general, as the crosses become more distant, the evidence becomes more tenuous and at some point seems to merge with myth. But it's clear that the known crosses are can be a lot weirder than the average person on the street would expect.
You should read those articles, though. Even the old ones are often more than what I would call an allegation, that is they are often serious eyewitness reports by sober scholars. For horse x cow (interordinal) there is a genetically testable specimen.
Even the old ones are often more than what I would call an allegation, that is they are often serious eyewitness reports by sober scholars. I can't trust any old report on these matters. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of serious reports about various impossible creatures. That's why cryptozoology exists and I'm not willing to dig into this. I want live specimens, or well-conserved dead bodies. For horse x cow (interordinal) there is a genetically testable specimen.
I happen to live in France. So I may one day visit this museum and ask why such a genetic analysis has never been done (assuming it has indeed never been done).
McCarthy here. obama_socks: I don't see why, by the mere fact that I've made the information available that I've collected, that I should be obliged to engage in an experiment that I would find distasteful and repugnant (I might even say that I have an irrational dread of it). Besides, what do you expect me to do? Run in the back room and inseminate a chimpanzee?
I have neither a pig nor a chimpanzee, nor the facilities in which to keep them. But I don't think I've left you "hanging and twisting in the wind," as you suggest. After all, I've supplied you with a massive amount of carefully documented information on this website which is consistent with only one hypothesis. If you can think of no other explanation, then you are not hanging and twisting in the wind. Why do you have to see an actual hybrid to reach the only consistent conclusion? I don't need to myself.
McCarthy here. FainAvis: ...What I actually want to do is continue to play the intellectual game that has entertained me for years, that is, look at empirical data and then formulate an explanation of that data, then use that explanation as a guide to what data to look at next, then if necessary adjusting the explanation in light of that data, then using the adjusted explanation as a guide as to what data to look at next, etc.
My goal in this process has been to construct an explanation, or really an internally consistent system of explanations, that accounts for as wide a range of independent data sets as possible. This game is an infinite process, or at least a lifelong one, and it fascinates me because it seems to lead always toward a better understanding of the truth, even if you never quite get there. ;-)
I see. You are more of a statistician who would rather not get his hands dirty. The dirty work is for others to perform. Bravo!! Thanks for the explanation. Besides, what do you expect me to do? Run in the back room and inseminate a chimpanzee?
You don't have to. In your "articles" section you discuss about an alleged case of a cat-dog hybrid. Well, you could try to prove that such an hybridization can indeed be done. If you could show the world such a creature, it would amaze everyone and would certainly shake the dogmas that prevent your theory to be considered seriously.
McCarthy here. grondilu: I have to ask you, how many eyewitnesses will you discount in order to preserve your beliefs? Besides, why is it so important to you not to believe in such things? Wouldn't it at least be better to say that we don't know whether a pig can successfully mate with an ape, but that we do have a great deal of evidence that one day long ago one did?
Isn't that better than saying "I believe that can't happen so throw out the evidence." That evidence is what we do know, not our beliefs. Anyway, I'm glad you live in France. Send me some good pictures of that skull and let me know what you find out (and news of any other strange hybrids you run across there at Alfort).
Mccarthy here: grondilu: You don't seem to know what sort of person I am. I'm a guy who spends most of his time in libraries, not out in a farmyard or laboratory breeding strange hybrids. And even if I did produce a cat-dog hybrid myself, how would it be any more convincing, than that old report I quote on the website, which is multiply attested by respectable eyewitnesses. Am I somehow more believable than them?
Take the step to the realization that we really know very little about this subject since even biologists have always been so prejudiced against the idea of distant crosses that virtually no systematic experimentation has been done to evaluate the situation.
Right now all you have is someone like me who has collected thousands of reports. To experimentally evaluate the limits, as you suggest, you'd need large scale experimentation that no single person could carry out. But what you don't know should never prevent you from drawing reasonable conclusions from what you do know.
I have to ask you, how many eyewitnesses will you discount in order to preserve your beliefs? It's not my decision to make, anyway. For instance, in the case of the horse-cow hybrid, I can read on the Wikipedia page (the french one, I haven't found the english one), that the specimen has been dismissed as such an hybrid long time ago.
If at some point the scientific community were to recognize an hybrid between orders, I'd totally accept it as a fact, even if I would not have seen this specimen with my own eyes. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think any of these cases described in these articles offers a scientific consensus, do they? Not for an inter-ordinal hybrid, anyway.
I get your point: you gathered anatomical evidences suggesting that humans may derive from an ancient hybridization with pigs. But such an hybridization is considered impossible. You must break this belief in order to make your hypothesis plausible.
Mccarthy here: grondilu: You don't seem to know what sort of person I am. I'm a guy who spends most of his time in libraries, not out in a farmyard or laboratory breeding strange hybrids. And even if I did produce a cat-dog hybrid myself, how would it be any more convincing, than that old report I quote on the website, which is multiply attested by respectable eyewitnesses. Am I somehow more believable than them?
We have genetic analysis, nowadays. A F1 specimen would be easily identified as such with absolute certitude, wouldn't it? You don't seem to know what sort of person I am. I'm a guy who spends most of his time in libraries, not out in a farmyard or laboratory breeding strange hybrids.
Well, maybe you could consider getting out of your comfort zone, just a bit? I will very probably visit this museum indeed. Quite soon. This story is seriously troubling me.
Yes. Absolutely, an F1 would be extremely easy to verify, at least by the particular type of laboratory that's set up to do that sort of work. But I have noticed that some people strain to their utmost not to believe this, no matter how much evidence you give them. It's always, there's something wrong with the evidence, not with my beliefs.
I've thought a lot about what might be the basis of this incredibly strong bias, but I really can't fathom it. As to getting out of my comfort zone, how far do you think I am out of my comfort zone now, out here in the spotlight after so many years of comparative solitude?
I go to the grocery store now and I see people pointing at me and staring. But, let's put it this way, if someone were willing to supply me with the large amount of money required to set up a facility where distant crosses could be systematically investigated, I would jump at the chance. But no one is offering that money, so it doesn't look like I'll be doing it. :(
But, let's put it this way, if someone were willing to supply me with the large amount of money required to set up a facility where distant crosses could be systematically investigated, I would jump at the chance. But no one is offering that money, so it doesn't look like I'll be doing it.
This I can accept. Not having resources to perform an experiment is a good reason not to perform it indeed. Also, this reason leaves room for hope, as you may find the money one day. As I wrote already, I would begin immediately if I was rich.
Mccarthy here. grondilu: Thanks. I had forgotten that it was you who wanted that pig-chimp farm. If you are eager to do that, I think you are far more convinced than I had supposed. LOL!
Very interesting idea, equally intriguing as the disappearance of the Neandertals. Because positively identifying the actual and complete genetic, physiological, environmental, etc. structure of the original pair (not a pig or a chimp per se, but the genetic predecessors that made the initial coupling) would be a 'miracle' in and of itself, unless a serious effort in trial and error is put forth and a viable (I'd settle for the fetus surviving to six months, as the 'chimpanzee' gestation is the closest to the current human gestation period ) result achieved, this idea will remain an exercise in hypothesis.
McCarthy, if that is truly you responding on this forum, you need to be aware that you are being 'trolled' as is the parlance. Remember the words of Charles Bukowski and the problem with the world.
Just throwing this into the mix: Quote from the Book of Jasher: "After the fallen angels went into the daughters of men, the sons of men taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order to provoke the Lord" (4:18)
If one were to remove the religious element from such literary fossils, accepting that the science behind such an event had long been forgotten, thus attributing it to the supernatural, history could be on the verge of repeating itself.
And once the genie is again released. Hybrid crosses do occur. They are not always sterile or infertile. The parents do not have to have the same number of chromosomes. Inter-ordinal hybrid crosses have been documented in nature. Does anyone disagree with any of the above statements?
McCarthy here: As the lead author of the Nature study, Dr. Franz Grützner, specifically states: "The platypus actually links the bird sex chromosome system with the mammalian sex chromosome systems." (Quoted in: http://www.abc.ne...71.htm).
This genetic evidence is consistent with the idea that platypuses are anciently derived from a cross between a mammal and a bird. So is their strange morphology, which combines egg laying and a duck bill with hair and milk production. This cross is more distant than merely interordinal. It's between separate classes (Mammalia and Aves). It also must have produced a fertile hybrid, otherwise the platypus would not still exist.
McCarthy here: Sorry there was a broken link in my last comment (the final paren got into the URL). Here's the right link: http://www.abc.ne...5871.htm
McCarthy here: Also a platypus, which is classified as a mammal, has a cloaca and internal testes, both characteristic of birds, but not other mammals. A draft version of the platypus genome (Warren et al. 2008) identified at least two genes otherwise known only in birds.
If you mean "The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." It was Bertrand Russell. Misattributed to Charles Bukowski.
This genetic evidence is consistent with the idea that platypuses are anciently derived from a cross between a mammal and a bird. So is their strange morphology, which combines egg laying and a duck bill with hair and milk production. This cross is more distant than merely interordinal. It's between separate classes (Mammalia and Aves).
I'm pretty sure that no serious biologist thinks that platypus originate from a cross between a mammal and a bird. Or at least they would not dare saying this loud. The fact that this idea is consistent with the weird anatomy of this animal does not constitute any proof. It could be a living fossil of some old kind of reptilian-like mammal.
Australia has been isolated for a very long time and its fauna is known to be awkward. The only way people could believe in a bird-mammal hybrid origin of the platypus would be if it was shown that such a huge cross is possible. Because right now it's phantasmagorical.
I wonder whether Oliver, the so-called Humanzee, (http://scienceray...lf-ape/) could have been a hybrid between a chimp and some other creature. The speculation was that he was a cross between a human and a chimp. But perhaps a different cross breeding might have produced a chimp with human characteristics.
Second point: Here is one way that a chimp and a wild board might mate. A female chimp finds an orphan baby wild boar and raises it. The boar grows up to be part of the chimp troupe. As such he or she participates in mating. No need in this scenario for the rather unlikely successful rape of a chimp by a boar.
A wonderful book exists (http://www.amazon...friends) that documents current cases of inter-species friendships. Friendships often lead to sexual contact.
McCarthy here: grondilu: I think you should rephrase to "The only way YOU could believe in a bird-mammal hybrid origin of the platypus would be if it was shown that such a huge cross is possible." I know many people who already do believe it, and many who more think it is at least possible.
So it may be phatasmagorical to you, but it certainly isn't to everyone. Anyway, I think different people differ in the strength of their beliefs and with respect to the kinds of evidence they'll accept. I certainly never expected to please or convince everyone with this.
Definitely not. BTW, in connection with your comment last night where you said "This story is seriously troubling me," have you considered that you might be experiencing cognitive dissonance? https://en.wikipe...ssonance
"This story is seriously troubling me," have you considered that you might be experiencing cognitive dissonance? https://en.wikipe...ssonance.
Possibly. I don't know why it should matter. The thing is that I did read the naked ape from Desmond Morris in the past, and I wrote a substantial part of the french wikipedia article about Homo Sapiens, so I'm very well aware of a few oddities of human beings when compared to other great apes.
That's why I'm quite interested in your hypothesis. But I can not be totally convinced by just anatomical comparisons. I need proof that an inter-ordinal hybridization is possible, not just that it would explain things.
What is troubling me is the idea that an experiment to find out for sure might be possible, but nobody may be willing to do it for ethical or practical reasons. That would be extremely annoying. I'd hate to be left in doubt or ignorance just because of that.
McCarthy here: grondilu: I think that for any given topic belief/doubt is a continuum. Some people believe without question, others are not totally convinced, others can't make up their mind, others doubt a lot, still others don't believe at all.
You say you're not totally convinced. So on the spectrum it looks like you're close to believing. Anyway, if you're close enough link that Wikipedia page to my site so that your readers will have an alternative take on human origins. ;-)
And don't worry about whether someone is actually going to do the cross. From what people have been telling me, I'm sure someone's going to try it soon. It's just not going to be me.
Whether I believe it or not is not the issue. I'm familiar with other alternate theories of human evolution, such as the aquatic ape theory. Yours just happens to be one that could be supported by an experiment. So I would very much like this experiment to happen. What I believe does not matter, but I now I really really want to know how far must be two animals until interbreeding is impossible.
I will not add any link to your website in the Wikipedia article, unless you publish a paper on the subject in a well-known scientific revue or something.
One of the problems I have with your hypothesis of a cross-bred pig/chimp hybrid is the pig's skull. The rows of teeth in the back are a bit similar to human molars, but it is the elongated skull and hugely massive jawbone that juts out similar to a horse's jaw and nasal cavity that I find nearly impossible to deal with.
To me it's not the physiology of the pig's body itself that is a problem, but the pig's skull would need an enormous modification in a first generation chimp/pig hybrid while gestating in a chimp uterus.
If the hybrid was able to procreate with chimps, then that skull would have to be modified even further through succeeding generations until the jaw, nasal cavity, in effect-the whole skull was trimmed enough to appear more chimp-like.
Had the cross-breeding continued onward generationally to become a prototype progenitor of humans, much more physiological differences would need to be isolated and modified or completely changed.
The massive brow-ridge of Neanderthalensis is closer in appearance to modern apes than to pigs.
If this cross-breeding of 2 disparate species actually happened, I would think that it would be a male chimp that was able to mount a sow for it to conceive and carry to term.
It would be too mind boggling to imagine an adult boar mounting a female chimp as the boar would crush the smaller chimp - even a female silverback gorilla could not survive that.
However, a sow would be able to carry a first gen cross-bred to term in spite of the elongated skull and snout, quite comfortably, whereas a chimp/ape might have complications giving birth.
In any case, I cannot imagine a frequent coupling of sow and chimp even for the first generation hybrid...(maybe a one-time affair) and even less for such couplings of multiple sows and chimp pairs.
I have my own hypothesis about such a possibility of cross breeding across species, but it smacks of religion, so I will not talk about it here.
obama_socks Definitely male pig x female chimp. Not the reciprocal. How does a farmer improve a trait in his herd? Answer, bring in stud bull. Can you imagine putting up a sign, 'Fine cow at stud'? These are photos of an exhibition of sculptures by Patricia Piccinini in Venice, Italy.
http://www.ncbi.n...1326412/
Now I could be wrong about you, but I have never met a scientist yet. You mean you never met a scientist at ALL dont you? This is because not many of them live in trailer parks.
One of the problems I have with your hypothesis of a cross-bred pig/chimp hybrid is the pig's skull. The rows of teeth in the back are a bit similar to human molars, but it is the elongated skull and hugely massive jawbone that juts out similar to a horse's jaw and nasal cavity that I find nearly impossible to deal with
Perhaps this is because you got all of this info by studiously and statisticially analysing the single picture included with this article? Perhaps you need to examine more pictures. Here is a collection which should aid you in further statistical research. http://alanschell...54620355
The single biggest difference between pigs and chimps that would prevent any kind of crossing is the difference between their gestational periods. Pigs are born after 3 months, 3 weeks and 3 days of gestation, where chimps are born much like humans, after about 40 weeks of gestation. Any gestating hybrid between them would have massively conflicting instructions regarding the rate of development to the point where it could not survive.
Definitely male pig x female chimp. Not the reciprocal. How does a farmer improve a trait in his herd? Answer, bring in stud bull. Can you imagine putting up a sign, 'Fine cow at stud'?
Thanks for the input. But it is hard to perceive such a mating unless both animals were close to the same body size and weight where the male pig could easily inseminate the female chimp without biting it and chewing her to death...also providing that she held still long enough for the sperm to travel up her cervix.
He would have to be lightweight and quite gentle for the coupling to take effect and result in a hybrid. Female chimps most often have a single live birth for each pregnancy, so then it was either 'hit-or-miss" on one occasion, or it was multiple couplings which would have made a better chance for conception. Regarding the stud bull and the cow - they are both of the same species even if cross-bred and their physiology are compatible with each other.
Without biting it and chewing her to death - Uh thats usually not how it is done. Except for the praying mantis as I understand it. But I am not an expert nor am I a NASA afronautical engineer (contract)
One of the alternatives to the "natural" coupling between a male pig and female chimp, if that indeed was the case, is a presently unpopular hypothesis that millions of years ago, an extraterrestrial presence of scientists came to Earth and experimented with the animals that they found by using artificial insemination between different species.
Also, in certain books that have survived, including the Bible and the Book of Enoch (which I read last week), the story goes that the fallen angels (Watchers) impregnated human females, and their coupling produced monsters who ravaged every living thing in their path, even birds.
But what if those females weren't quite human, or what if they were the result of in vitro fertilization performed by those scientists I mentioned that added their own sperm to inseminate the females, along with pig genes added?
It's all conjecture, of course…and it is only unpopular right now due to the extraterrestrial factor. But there is the possibility that humans are not just the progeny of pig and chimp, but also a grand experiment by ET with their own DNA. Quite honestly, I like the idea.
Further examination of components of DNA would be required to ascertain and confirm such a possibility. There was a sudden explosion of life forms millions of years ago and no one knows why or how.
also a grand experiment by ET with their own DNA. You moron. Dont you think anybody else here has watched the x files?? and it is only unpopular right now due to the extraterrestrial factor.
What, do you think ET is clouding our insight? Impeding our ability to reason with some kind of stupid-ray or something? Maybe it is only you -?
There was a sudden explosion of life forms millions of years ago and no one knows why or how. Perhaps it was before fapping was invented and/or evolved.
The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the "Primordial Strata" was noted as early as the 1840s,[8] and in 1859 Charles Darwin discussed it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.
The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian;
What might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of animals. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures remaining in Cambrian rocks.
"The central questions to consider are whether precambrian life in any of its forms had the ability to fap, the appropriate organs to fap, or the appropriate appendages with which to fap."
http://en.wiktion...#English
McCarthy has looked at mating competence. Apparatus - competent. Strength of the chimp to carry him - competent. Chimp covers pig is not credible because if that were the case our XX (that is the female) would have both X from the pig. That would be outstandingly obvious to science. Hence I feel confident that both X in human females descend more nearly from chimp.
Thras A quick google search tells that the gestation time of hybrids tends toward the species of female, in this case the chimp. And also tends to between the two parental types. Viz. donkey x mare -> mule. Look it up.
obama_socks On your stud bull comment above. In general, it is the male of any species that is able to convey traits to a whole population. I will rephrase my question: Can you imagine anyone putting up a sign that reads, "Fine (female of the species) at stud." ?
No. Why? - Traits not maintained in the population by the species own bull __Carrying that trait__ will leak out of the herd, island population, or even the bigger group a whole species. That is the nature of the XY and XX species determining system.
As I already mentioned, it is all conjecture. It is based on ancient books that tell a story and is unpopular because of the Extraterrestrial or fallen angels factor. Most people are frightened of that which they are not familiar and cannot understand. It leaves them cold and makes them wonder if it would affect their comfort zone.
Theghostofotto1923 aka Theghostofotto1932 and sockpuppets has been following me around into this thread and others with idiotic accusations and ad hominem attacks. Not just on me but on several others who are innocent also.
I would suggest that you and everyone else who isn't Blotto's sockpuppet completely ignore it, as it is suffering from DISSOCIATIVE IDENTITY DISORDER among other maladies and has assigned himself the role of head censor and purveyor or ad hominems.
And with that I bid you gute nacht. I am in Munich on business for my company (aerospace) and have an early appointment to negotiate a deal.
Ghost I concede that pigs will eat anything. Heck the pig breeder commenting earlier said he really fears going in the pen alone, lest he had a turn and fell down. He said they would eat him alive. Yet others have said they have a gentle side too. Perhaps Miss Chimp was lucky. Maybe pig had had his meds and it was his good day.
Both horses and donkeys have similar gestational periods of around 12 months, donkeys have greater variability in gestational period and a horse's gestational period is on average slightly longer, but a horse's gestational period is not twice as long as a donkey's, as would be the case between a chimp and a pig.
Go ahead and find even a single hybrid whose parent species gestational periods don't overlap in their variability, where one parent's species average gestational period is twice as long as the other parent's.
McCarthy here: Thrasymachus: When you talk about gestation periods as somehow needing to be the same in hybrids you, parrot, as many people parrot, an ancient assertion that's been repeated by naturalists since at least the time of Pliny (d. 69 A.D.).
He made that assertion when people knew almost nothing about hybrids, and hybrids are still not a well investigated today. But we do know that gestation periods don't have to be the same to get a hybrid.
Two well established examples are the cama, the hybrid of a dromedary camel (gestation period = 13 months) and a llama (g.p.=11 mos), and the wolphin, the hybrid of a false killer whale (g.p.=15.5 mos) and a bottlenosed dolphin (g.p.=11.5 mos).
So the objection you are raising is really just an ancient, unsubstantiated belief, a fiction that you are continuing to repeat. And like all believable fictions it does have a plausible ring. As Mark Twain pointed out, "Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't."
No, the gestational periods of the parent species in both the case of the cama and the wolfin overlap, the 11 months, 13 months, 15.5 months and 11.5 months you cite are the gestational averages. The gestational period of camels, for instance, can vary by as much as two months, and the same thing is true of dolphins and the false killer whale.
In no instance is there an example of a hybrid whose parent's gestational periods differ by such a degree as proposed in a pig/chimp cross. A pig fetus is ready to be born before the alveoli have developed in the lungs of a chimp fetus, before their eyes have finished forming, before they have fingernails. Point to one other hybrid cross where there are such similar differences in fetal development. "Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't."
McCarthy here: Thrasymachus: Heterogenic hybrids are not very well studied in mammals. But more experimental data is available for such hybrids in fish. Read pp. 398-400 of this paper about hybrids between mackerel and mud minnow: http://books.goog...;f=false
Mccarthy here: Thrasymachus: The best example of a probable hybrid with extremely disparate parents, so disparate in fact that one of its parent does not even have a gestation period as such, is the platypus.
On the basis of both genetic and morphological evidence, It now really does look as if that animal is a cross between a mammal and a bird. And please let's not argue it out again. It's already been discussed in the comments above. Just search the page for the word platypus. "In nature's infinite book of secrecy a little I can read." Shakespeare
Absolutely Priceless. Thank you Dr. McCarthy for clarifying the relationship between science news and academia. Your social commentary comes through loud and clear, and I haven't even finished your book, "The Department", yet. But I will. Priceless.
I have truly learned something valuable from this story. To all you commenters, especially the ones who may be experiencing cognitive dissonance, $2.99 might just buy you a clue. Worth it, I say. It could potentially change the way you read science news forever.
McCarthy here. Seattle Reader: After your providing me with the most positive assessment of my work that I have received in several years (perhaps, in my life?), all I can think of to say is THANKS! And, no doubt, after such an incredible endorsement, it would be wise for me to add the URL for The Department: http://www.amazon...091JJED0 (since, I must admit, I am not entirely indifferent to the acquisition of cash).
Anyway, thanks, and thanks again. And should you ever have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me through the website (http://www.macroe...um35T1U)
Mccarthy here: Thrasymachus: The best example of a probable hybrid with extremely disparate parents, so disparate in fact that one of its parent does not even have a gestation period as such, is the platypus. On the basis of both genetic and morphological evidence, It now really does look as if that animal is a cross between a mammal and a bird. And please let's not argue it out again. It's already been discussed in the comments above. Just search the page for the word platypus.
In other words, you don't have such an example and the best you can do is point to the platypus and say, "maybe that's a hybrid?" even though the evidence for that is thin at best. There is no kind of consensus that a platypus is any kind of hybrid, and simpler explanations for bird-like DNA in the platypus genome. It's becoming pretty clear that you aren't interested in any kind of science regarding the origin of species or the possibilities of hybridization. This is about selling your books.
McCarthy here. Thrasymachus: I never, ever expected to convince everyone that humans are pig-ape hybrids. If you don't accept the same sort of evidence that many other people do accept, including me, then I think you are merely a more stringent person who demands much more evidence in order to change your thinking.
Or possibly you are even like a creationist, that is, perhaps you have a fixed idea that you continue to embrace in face of all evidence to the contrary. Whatever, I don't know you, and it's not my job to sit here and spoon feed you a new reality.
I'm willing to talk to anyone who's polite, but you're not being polite. So I'm not going to respond to anything else you have to say. So far as I can see nearly all of your comments thus far are mere unsubstantiated opinion. If you want documented facts, go to my website.
Then I think you are merely a more stringent person who demands much more evidence in order to change your thinking. Or possibly you are even like a creationist
Yeah thats exactly it. Someone who thinks that insight into the metaphysical gives them some form of universal knowledge. Neither of which exist, just like god. Science is LOTS more complicated than you think it is, thrashy.
Then I think you are merely a more stringent person who demands much more evidence in order to change your thinking. Or possibly you are even like a creationist.
Yeah thats exactly it. Someone who thinks that insight into the metaphysical gives them some form of universal knowledge. Neither of which exist, just like god. Science is LOTS more complicated than you think it is, thrashy.
It seems to me that the species essentialism and arboreal taxonomies are metaphysical in the sense that an aristotelian/scholastic arboreal hierarchy of concepts is imposed on the chaotic plurality/diversity of being, the truth might be more reticular or rhizoidal ....
McCarthy here: And don't worry about whether someone is actually going to do the cross. From what people have been telling me, I'm sure someone's going to try it soon. It's just not going to be me.
Dear Dr McCarthy, have you seen the movie Splice? it was an interesting, empathic look at life of a humanoid hybrid, and against the usual Scifi formula, where the scientist dabbling with the Natural Order creates chaos and destruction, it presented against hybridization/ GM experiments not the inherent dangers but the fact the the resultant living soul might find happiness elusive or impossible. On the other hand "i'd rather be unhappy Socrates than a satisfied Pig"
It presented against hybridization/ GM experiments not the inherent dangers but the fact the the resultant living soul might find happiness elusive or impossible.
It presented FOR sensationalism and the fact that it sells movies. It didnt present anything BUT that. It was a low-grade scifi MOVIE.
I'm sure you are familiar with the condition known as syndactyly.or "webbed toes". Ducks, amphibians, kangaroo, platypus have it, and it also shows up in many humans. Fingers may also be affected.
My question is: Could the fused toes on each foot on a human have anything to do with avian genetics of geese, seagulls and ducks? Or could it be an attempt by genes to fuse the toes into that more resembling even-toed ungulates like pigs, camels, et al? I agree with you that there are certain resemblances between pig and human, but the webbed toes condition is puzzling.
Advertizing sales must be down at phys.org. Complete conjecture and here is why: While this may be possible, that doesn't make it an intelligent scientific explanation worth seeing the light of day until a BODY of supportive evidence is gathered - This is also why there is no peer-review going on- there is nothing to review other than hypothetical musings.
Let me put it another way: While it is fun and controversial to say Seal Team Six came in through my window last night and turned off my bedroom light for me (it's possible), it is more likely that I simply turned it off myself in a rather standard manner (probable). Until I come up with supportive evidence, President Obama isn't going to look into why SEAL Team Six was in my house last night!
P.S. I have an article I wrote about Pre-Apocylaptic Martian gene therapy used to control banana backcrossing in Precambrian Asia I'd like published.
LOL...321BIOS is quite apparently another sock puppet of Theghostofotto1923. Why? Because to GhostofOtto aka FrankHerbert/BAKOON/ and all his other sockpuppets, it is great fun to ruin good threads and either surreptitiously or blatantly harass certain individuals by poking fun at their comments. This gives Ghost a sense of power. Isn't that right, Blotto?
LOL...321BIOS is quite apparently another sock puppet of Theghostofotto1923. Why? Because to GhostofOtto aka FrankHerbert/BAKOON/ and all his other sockpuppets, it is great fun to ruin good threads and either surreptitiously or blatantly harass certain individuals by poking fun at their comments. This gives Ghost a sense of power. Isn't that right, Blotto?
Sorry freak I actually think this idea makes sense, and have said so further up. poking fun at their comments. ANYBODY who posts here should expect that their posts will be scrutinized and commented on. You consistently post absolute rubbish, and myself and others here understandably take exception to this.
For a long list of only some of the bullshit you have posted under only one of your many suckpuppets, please see my profile page.
Say does your interest in webbed toes have some personal significance? Perhap an unfortunate result of inbreeding within the pussytard bloodline?
I haven't got any sockpuppets other than the two that I made up recently to prevent Blotto/Theghostofotto1923 from continuing its consistent harassment and ridiculous assertions toward me. I do not use those names anymore as they have served their purpose in affording me the peace of commenting with others towards good discussions without disruption as in this thread and in other threads.
Blotto also has harassed and vilified innocent people such as Estevan57, CaptainStumpy (newcomer), Pirouette, Pussycat_Eyes, Russkycremepuff, and a host of many others, including antialias_physorg and Noumenon on occasion...as a desperate attempt at gaining attention and admiration for its ability to Google search on each topic just prior to commenting.
All anyone has to do is to follow Theghostofotto1923 into the threads to determine that his rantings and ad hominems are the result of his mental illnesses and desire for power and control over those he disagrees with.
Theghostofotto1923 has been diagnosed by a psychiatric nurse who used to comment under the name Pussycat_Eyes and who has had to change her user name to escape the unwanted and vitriolic attentions from Theghostofotto, and who had the complete professional acceptance of her assertions by her superiors at the Psychiatric department in which she is employed.
Theghostofotto1923 is a classic example of one who suffers from DISSOCIATIVE IDENTITY DISORDER - having many identities residing within his mind whose personalities differ from each other, but each retaining the same speech patterns and forms of attack, as well as poking fun at comments by twisting the texts of what was said and then presenting the twisted version to the commenter.
These are some of Theghostofotto's "modus operandi" plus his attempt to CENSOR comments - that runs counter to Physorg's 'Terms of Service' or the rules of the website.
Blotto breaks all the rules and gets away with it because Physorg doesn't care. I haven't got any sockpuppets other than the two that I made up recently.
I do not use those names anymore as they have served their purpose in affording me the peace of commenting with others towards good discussions without disruption as in this thread and in other threads.
My but arent we sounding eloquent today. Certainly not like yesterday. Ad hominems did you say? Theghostofotto1923 has been diagnosed by a psychiatric nurse who used to comment under the name Pussycat_Eyes.
-But she is a LIAR. Which is understandable because she is you. Blotto breaks all the rules and gets away with it. You are a flooder, a liar, and obscene. You continue to drop em and I will continue to copy/paste em as I feel it is my civic duty.
The comments to Dr. McCarthy on this site have been unbelievably rude considering his scientific standing - he is being very brave to put out his ideas into the mainstream instead of just going the old fashioned route of begging for recognition from 'peers' with all that implies - remember the 'peers' have their own careers/positions to protect - they do not always welcome new wild ideas - and here we are getting a first hand discussion of a wild and new concept !
While it may be wrong ( we shall in due course hopefully find the ultimate truth ) - all of history has followed the same path - generally those who stick their neck out are only proved right long after they have died. I think we owe him a big thank-you for allowing the public to share in this discussion.
The comments to Dr. McCarthy on this site have been unbelievably rude considering his scientific standing - he is being very brave to put out his ideas into the mainstream instead of just going the old fashioned route of begging for recognition from 'peers' with all that implies - remember the 'peers' have their own careers/positions to protect.
They do not always welcome new wild ideas - and here we are getting a first hand discussion of a wild and new concept ! While it may be wrong ( we shall in due course hopefully find the ultimate truth ) - all of history has followed the same path - generally those who stick their neck out are only proved right long after they have died. I think we owe him a big thank-you for allowing the public to share in this discussion.
The comments to Dr. McCarthy on this site have been unbelievably rude considering his scientific standing - he is being very brave to put out his ideas into the mainstream instead of just going the old fashioned route of begging for recognition from 'peers' with all that implies - remember the 'peers' have their own careers/positions to protect.
They do not always welcome new wild ideas - and here we are getting a first hand discussion of a wild and new concept ! While it may be wrong ( we shall in due course hopefully find the ultimate truth ) - all of history has followed the same path - generally those who stick their neck out are only proved right long after they have died. I think we owe him a big thank-you for allowing the public to share in this discussion.
I didn't have to look very hard before I found this YouTube video of a german shepherd mating with a sow. I sent it over in email to my ex-wife, and she answered with "Eeewwwwwww".
So we can establish that there can be sexual contact between dog and pig. Now if someone can show a male pig having sex with a female chimp - that would be living proof of pig/chimp hybrid potential...despite all the similarities between human and pig.
I simply think it is beneath phys.org to publish such garbage as if Dr. McCarthy were some kind of courageous zeitgeist in the likes of Galileo or Darwin. It's a slap in the face to them and utter bullshit. I have no problem with Dr. McCarthy trying to get attention for his ideas, I DO have a problem with phys.org publishing this melodrama for the aforementioned reasons.
Are there any proven instances of hooved animals producing fertile offspring by mating with non-hooved animals? Are there any proven examples of primates producing fertile offspring with non-primates? What's the most distant proven hybridization (the biggest cross-species crossing) that produced fertile offspring? (The platypus has not been proven to be a hybrid. You have not yet shown us an article specifically claiming that it is a hybrid.)
I notice that this John Hewitt article says that cat-rabbit, rabbit-hen, dog-monkey, and dog-swan hybrids have occurred, but there's no substantiation for any of them. They all come from your collection of claimed hybrids , but each one is like the supposed possum-cat hybrid: "This cross is so distant that it would need formal verification by controlled experiment to be accepted as having actually occurred." Like the dog-monkey, you don't even claim that it exists.
Holy background check! Dr. McCarthy is a lifelong bird hybrid expert and has never published a single shred of research relating to the genetics of mammals! Rule #1, dummies: always check your sources!
But wait, there's more!! He's an aspiring novelist- his main character is a pig-chimpanzee hybrid!!! hahahahahahahah!!!! Maybe this article was a press release meant for Marvel Comics. Oh, man, if this doesn't totally discredit him, there's no hope for any of you! PS: Koolokamba is not Dr. McCarthy you idiots.
And shame on you all for bagging on the "establishment" for not publishing Dr. McCarthy and putting "Pig Hybrid Theory" in all of the 2014 biology texts next year. Do any of you work in Washington DC??? Congress perhaps? Just jokes really- I'm having a good time reading all of this jibberish based on other jibberish, which is the title of my new novel :)
Horozontal gene transfer among different species and even different domains is actually documented and easily explains all of this without the need for unwed swine mothers in a time without condoms or Plan B or reliable daycare facilities.
And then there are lysogenic vectors- this 'crazy' idea was peer-reviewed and published by that dammed backward-thinking scientific establishment: Redrejo-Rodríguez, M, Muñoz-Espín, D, Holguera, I, Mencía, M, Salas, M, (2012). "Functional eukaryotic nuclear localization signals are widespread in terminal proteins of bacteriophages". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109 (45): 18482–7. doi:10.1073/pnas.1216635109. PMID 23091024.
Complete conjecture and here is why: While this may be possible, that doesn't make it an intelligent scientific explanation worth seeing the light of day until a BODY of supportive evidence is gathered - This is also why there is no peer-review going on- there is nothing to review other than hypothetical musings.
Ya, sure. Conjecture, from an expert in his field, with supporting rationale and logical argument. Hm, in addition to the question of a viable offspring from a pairing not even in the same families, there is a question of physical capacity for such a pairing to have occurred between these two species.
Believed a boar inseminated an ape...? Hardware issues: The penis of an ape, while it can be quite long in some species, rarely exceeds the diameter of a pencil. The penis of a boar is not only larger in diameter but comes equipped with a corkscrew end which can only be accommodated by the female of the same species.
There is a recorded instance of a man who had anal sex with a pig which resulted in a puncture wound in his intestines. A female ape having sex with a male pig would likely result in fatal internal injuries for the chimp.
So, if male pig + female ape = human, then this would likely have had to have occurred through artificial insemination and we have some strong new evidence in support of the notion that extraterrestrials have played a significant role in human evolution.
@galilealiv I clicked on the same link &found my own profile cropping up. You confirmed what I had suspected quite quickly; that Otto had only posted half a link.In other words http://phys.org/profile/ is only the 'category' part of the address.The missing bit that should have followed that is 'user/(insert a specific username here)'.
I can guarantee you that every single 1 of uswill find themselves directed back to their own profiles if we click on that link from inside of our accounts.I would say that the responsible algorithm is filling in the missing username info by reading it from there.
I bet that evenOtto will find his own profile(instead of the intended 1)coming up -if he tests that link.Besides, the pg that came up for me was a page that is not for general viewing(private details)I suspect it's the same for all of us DH66 :)
@galilealiv I clicked on the same link &found my own profile cropping up. You confirmed what I had suspected quite quickly; that Otto had only posted half a link. Yah sorry about that. This is the link to ottos very excellent profile page and museum of physorg trolls and bugs and biofilm
http://phys.org/p...tto1923/
Why does it seem like everyone writing on this subject is ignoring the fact that chimpanzees back during this hybridization time (when is that anyway? Have they given a time frame?) were not the chimpanzees we know today, and neither were the pigs.
In fact, very little is know about what chimp ancestors were like after they split from the human line since very little fossilizes in forest environments. Furthermore, has any research been done comparing pigs to hominid specimens that we have found like ardi and lucy?
The idea is definitely very intriguing and I would like to see it explored more in depth as long as it doesn't become a freakshow. It has opened my mind up to the possibility of a lot of hominid ancestors stemming from hybrids that occurred between the human-chimp lines after the split.
Why does it seem like everyone writing on this subject is ignoring the fact that chimpanzees back during this hybridization time (when is that anyway? Have they given a time frame?) were not the chimpanzees we know today, and neither were the pigs.
It's been mentioned several times in this thread alone. It's one of the largest reasons given for discounting this theory, as all the anatomical comparisons done by McCarthy are between modern types.
The idea is definitely very intriguing and I would like to see it explored more in depth as long as it doesn't become a freakshow. It has opened my mind up to the possibility of a lot of hominid ancestors stemming from hybrids that occurred between the human-chimp lines after the split.
There is little doubt that hybridization played a role in human evolution. There is convincing evidence of neanderthal/sapiens hybrids, for example. But the last common ancestor between swine and primates died off before the dinosaurs did.
McCarthy here: (And yes, Koolokamba, IS Dr. Eugene McCarthy.) I just thought I'd comment in response to Thrasymachus's last comment ("the last common ancestor between swine and primates died off before the dinosaurs did"): Your claim, Thrasymachus, depends on the assumption that evolution can be adequately represented by a tree.
When you have a tree showing the posited relationships of a set of organisms, you can always approximate the the time back to a common ancestor. That's the method biologists use. However, if hybridization during the course of evolution is widespread, as I am suggesting, then the actual topology of descent would be more like a complex net, not like a tree.
So any conclusions about the "time to a common ancestor" -- which are based on the tree assumption -- fall to the ground. Clearly, then, it can't really be known when the last common ancestor of pigs and primates existed.
Not really, no, because in order for hybridization to occur, divergence must have already occurred. All that widespread hybridization can do is muddy up the genetic record enough to make it appear that divergence may have happened later than it really did.
Basically, if your theory about widespread hybridization is correct, then it would suggest that the divergence point between pigs and primates is even older than real biologists currently think it is. With widespread gene-sharing enabled by easy hybridization, it takes longer for somewhat diverged species to become further diverged.
McCarthy here: Thrasymachus, you seem to think that you can take for granted such things as divergence and the existence, in any given case, of a single, most recent common ancestor. But such concepts are assumptions of the particular theory in terms of which you think.
But if hybridization is a typical process in evolution, you would expect, at any given stage of the evolutionary process, for a variety of preexisting forms to be hybridizing to produce a variety of offspring forms. So divergence, at least divergence in the sense that you mean it, would not even exist.
On the basis of the fossil record, we know that at every stage of evolution a variety of life forms have existed. So, at least in principle, hybridization has always been possible. We know of no stage, documented by fossils, where "divergence" would have been first required, as you suggest, for hybridization to occur.
So now you're gonna deny the universality of common descent? This is beginning to smell more and more like crypto-Creationism. You don't seem to understand that I'm considering alternative hypotheses, looking to see which is more consistent with available data. I'm not denying (or affirming) a creed. I'm not even sure what you mean by the "universality" of common descent.
Are you expressing some sort of faith that we're all descended from some single organism that lived a couple of billion years ago? I don't know anything about that. How could I?
From my perspective that belief is just a necessary implication of the particular theoretical construct to which you adhere. If you believe in treelike descent, then I suppose you'd have to believe that there is one, single, ULTIMATE ANCESTOR. But I don't believe in treelike descent. To me that looks like a figment.
Perhaps I should explain a little further. The mere fact that you can arrange various types organisms into a tree based on their various characteristics does not imply that their evolutionary history was treelike, that is, that can be accurately described in terms strict dichotomous branching.
For example, take the various things in my basement. I could arrange them, too, into a tree on the basis of their various characteristics. And I'm sure my washer and drier would be on adjacent branches of that tree.
They share a lot of traits. They're both white, both metal, both electronic, both cube-shaped, etc. But I would never imagine that they share a recent common ancestor.
That's why I say all this notion of yours about "divergent descent" is just a figment. The real mode of descent, what's really happening with evolution, might very well be something entirely different from what you imagine.
The base issue here for anyone steeped in accepted Evolution, is that Dr McCarthy is upsetting their applecart - I think this is a good thing, BUT I can see that for anyone who hates NON-Evolution, this is dangerous because they feel that Creationists are coming at them from a different angle (and that means RELIGION is behind it - ugh !! )
I personally love the applecart-upsetting but we should all be just looking for truth, which unfortunately you can't do if you are hung up on what your Pastor is telling you on Sundays !
On the other hand if newer discoveries show us that yes - there was a creation at some point, why would we fight that truth, at some point SOMETHING got created didn't it, unless you think that before the bang was nothing - so who created the first electron/neutron/positron? Keep up the good work Dr McCarthy, I love your ideas !
It's always great to have people like you chiming in, because it's to the extent that others chime in, not to the extent that I tout it, that this theory will get serious attention. After all, without people like you, I'd just be one guy blowing his own horn.
But don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to upset anyone's apple cart. I used to ride in the exactly same cart as Thrasymachus. That's why I look at his comments sympathetically. Years ago, I might have been saying the same thing. It was, as you say, "looking for the truth" and this pig-chimp hypothesis that dumped my cart off a cliff.
https://phys.org/news/2013-07-human-hybrids-closer-theory-evidence.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.