EU and Human Origins

[ztifbob]

Sounds more likely to me than the aquatic ape idea.

The full presentation:
http://www.macroevolution.net/human-ori ... pp7wcu9KSM

Backcross is key to understanding why this top geneticist thinks his hypothesis is potentially viable.
Eugene Mccarthy-
"And this is exactly the kind of hybrid that it looks like we are -- that is, it appears that humans are the result of multiple generations of backcrossing to the chimpanzee...
"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 interordinal). 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..."

Simplified & examined:

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-human-hybr ... e.html#jCp

I found this comment interesting-
"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."

[tholden]

Sounds more likely to me than the aquatic ape idea.

It shouldn't. But the problem may be that you're thinking in terms of viewing Elaine Morgan's ideas as a means of evolving from apes to humans, which really would be unworkable. I view AA as a simple description of the original set of adaptations of modern humans, and the ONLY problem I see with that is the problem I've mentioned i.e. that there's never been a body of water on Earth which would be safe for humans to live in.

No ape->man or chimp+pig->man evolution theory is workable. Aside from genetics and logical problems, consider what we know about Cro Magnon man. One thing scholars all agree on is that whatever caused Cro Magnon people to appear on this planet when they did was not gradual. Danny Vendramini ("Them and Us") notes:

“The speed of the Upper Palaeolithic revolution in the Levant was also breathtaking. Anthropologists Ofer Bar-Yosef and Bernard Vandermeersch:

“Between 40,000 and 45,000 years ago the material culture of western Eurasia changed more than it had during the previous million years. This efflorescence of technological and artistic creativity signifies the emergence of the first culture that observers today would recognise as distinctly human, marked as it was by unceasing invention and variety. During that brief period of 5,000 or so years, the stone tool kit, unchanged in its essential form for ages, suddenly began to differentiate wildly from century to century and from region to region. Why it happened and why it happened when it did constitute two of the greatest outstanding problems in paleoanthropology.”

Likewise Dwardu Cardona ("Flare Star"):

"Where and how the Cro-Magnons first arose remains unknown. Their appearance, however, coincided with the most bitter phase of the ice age. There is, however, no doubt that they were more advanced, more sophisticated, than the Neanderthals with whom they shared the land. Living in larger and more organized groups than had earlier humans, Cro Magnon peoples spread out until they populated most of the world. Their tools, made of bone, stone, and even wood, were carved into harpoons, awls, and fish hooks. They were presumably able hunters although, as with the Neanderthals, they would also have foraged to gather edible plants, roots, and wild vegetables. The only problem here is that, as far as can be told, the Cro Magnons seem to have arrived on the scene without leaving a single trace of their evolutionary ancestors. Ian Tattersall observed:

'When the first Cro Magnons arrived in Europe some 40,000 years ago, they evidently brought with them more or less the entire panoply of behaviors that distinguishes modern humans from every other species that has ever existed.'

"
Let's go over that last one again:

'When the first Cro Magnons arrived in Europe some 40,000 years ago, they evidently brought with them more or less the entire panoply of behaviors that distinguishes modern humans from every other species that has ever existed.'

There is also a question of artwork, i.e. going from hominids with no artistic capabilities whatsoever to the Cro Magnon Sistine Chapel at Lascaux:



with no evidence to be found in the world of any sort of a run-up to that. That is, there is no evidence of hominid artwork on the planet.

That obviously is not compatible with the idea of humans evolving from apes and/or hominids.

What that IS compatible with is the idea that monkeys, apes, and hominids had BEEN here for some time, and then humans CAME here.

The question of where Cro Magnon man came from as well as the relationship between Cro Magnon people and the familiar antediluvian people of Genesis is dealt with in "Cosmos in Collision:

http://www.cosmosincollision.com

[Spektralscavenger]

"there's never been a body of water on Earth which would be safe for humans to live in"

?
Why? Predators? Some legends speak of times of friendly animals. Those were the days!

What are the odds of alien humans sharing exactly the same biology as earthlings? What are the odds of alien guys miraculously adapted to a new ecosystem? Unless we are speaking of a couple of planets which have been exchanging organisms regularly. Why not Mars then? Anyway, until we found some exotic life form (different genetic code, another amino acids, etc) the most natural theory is all earthlings are from Earth.

[ztifbob]

tholden:
"No ape->man or chimp+pig->man evolution theory is workable. Aside from genetics and logical problems, consider what we know about Cro Magnon man. One thing scholars all agree on is that whatever caused Cro Magnon people to appear on this planet when they did was not gradual."

Ah, what genetics support does your preferred explantation have? Far as i can see vastly less. The chimp /pig hybrid pages i link to is a thorough described propposed hypothesis, not proof. The man is a phd genetist & goes to great efforts to educate the reader on the nature of this kind of research. Hybridization radically speeds up the development of species on this planet and helps overcome the time constraints evolutionists face, prompting 'punctuated equalibrium' as a proposed solution. This also might address the cro magnon concerns.
I found the discussion of primate brain size limitation especially compelling:

http://www.macroevolution.net/hybrid-hy ... on-3.htmlI

Ideas like floating pumice islands on a moon of Jupiter are cleaver but a thread bare picture allowing one to entertain most any fanciful notion, but not one from which science can readily proceed from. Compared that to the fact that pig parts are already used successfully in the human body?...to name but one of dozens of rather tangible & salient points...no comparison.
Few people who consider evolution seem to think about, or know a lot about, hybridization & how it can transform the picture that we think we know.
I will post an exchange between Gene McCarty & a skeptic friend of mine latter. I found it very illuminating.

[ztifbob]

Condensed from a recent Facebook post of mine and subsequent discussion on the human hybrid topic including authors specific responses and quotes in bold. Please read Eugene McCarty's presentation first here : http://www.macroevolution.net/hybrid-hy ... qTCq8u9KSM

ztifbob-
this is an amazing hypothesis. The argument has been developed by a phd geneticist as an improved formulation of the current 'evolved ape' model of human ancestry. He cataloged (as published by other scientists) the physiological differences between chimps & humans and realized one other species (that could have mated with a chimp) possessed most of these traits...the pig.
As presented a key part to consider is the human brain is vastly larger than either animal's brain. Primate brain size is limited by heat dissipation issues. Physiology from the pig over comes this problem & allowed for much greater brain size to evolve in the hybrid chimp/pig. And that is just the beginning of this fantastic presentation.
Eugene McCarty-
"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, really tens of 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."

My Facebook friend Wayne, who is also a phd (though in a different field), was/is skeptical. In the following exchange with the author Wayne's questions seemed to get right to the heart of the matter.

Wayne- These days, the way to settle issues of genetic inheritance is by making trees based on DNA similarity - something like this: http://ej.iop.org/images/0295-5075/70/2 ... /img31.gif
I think it's easy to tell that pigs and humans are very far from each other.
ztifbob- Not my area but McCarty's response seems to be this:
"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."
-If you read the link you will find "backcrossing" is important to hybrids in general & key to his hypothesis in particular. This guy is a phd geneticists published by the Oxford University Press & not easy to dismiss as a simple crank or crack pot. Why so many do so in knee jerk fashion is interesting to me. I think i can see the trouble early evolutionists had getting people used to the idea of primate ancestry.
Wayne, i sent you questions on to the author & he has now responded point by point to my query.
ztifbob-
I love reading this presentation & posted a link on my Facebook page which prompted the following response. If there is something my friend has missed & you can help me point out the answer i would appreciate it. thx.
EM- Dear ztifbob, I'm glad you're liking my work. And thanks for posting a link!

Wayne- This does not seem right to me. If 20% f the nucleotides in a pig-chimp hybrid did not match and had to be repaired, there is no way that the organism could survive.
EM- In every hybrid there are nucleotide mismatches, presumably this is why a meiotic repair mechanism is necessary. So, if there are always differences, what's the magic percentage that make viability impossible? Answer: we don't know. You are talking through your hat.
Wayne- Even a single mutation can disable critical cellular functions.
EM- True, but the vast majority of point mutations have no effect on phenotype.
Wayne- Most such mutations are fatal at a very early stage.
EM- Confusion here: Most, indeed all, that disable a critical cellular function are fatal (really, this is tautalogous). But, as I say, the vast majority of point mutations have no phenotypic effect, let alone a disabling of some critical function.
Wayne- And only rarely are they beneficial.
EM- Yes, extremely rarely.
Wayne- Evolution moves slowly...
EM- Evolution, as you conceive it, moves slowly. If you're talking about hybrids it's fast.
Wayne- Also your argument about backcrossing seems to be that the 2% or whatever difference there is between human and chimp is the remaining amount that is left from the 20% from the initial hybrid.
EM- Yes, in rough terms.
Wayne- But this 2% is also the amount that we would expect to happen from 6MY of genetic drift anyway.
EM- Yes, that's the point. And I make it to show that people who think in such terms don't know the cause of that difference between us and chimpanzees. As far as we know, it might be the result of a gradual accumulation of point mutations over a 6my period or it might be the result of backcrossing. Those are the hypotheses that need testing. And as a matter of fact, a friend of mine and I are just about done writing new software that should deal with the backcrossing issue and discriminate between these two possibilities.

I hope I've answered all your questions now. If you have any others, please let me know. You might get answers back more quickly though if you add me on google plus:
https://plus.google.com/107848317177995410039/about
Again, thanks for your interest in my theory!
Warm regards, Gene McCarthy

[tholden]

.....

One thing an outsider notices immediately is that, unlike evolution, the notion that you could cross a chimpanzee and a pig and get a human is testable. Have you tried putting a chimp and a pig in a cage together to see what happens?

[tholden]

"there's never been a body of water on Earth which would be safe for humans to live in"

Why? Predators? Some legends speak of times of friendly animals. Those were the days!.

Malarial mosquitoes have never been friendly... That's before you even get to snakes, crocodiles, sharks, stingrays, and all the rest of it.

[ztifbob]

.....

One thing an outsider notices immediately is that, unlike evolution, the notion that you could cross a chimpanzee and a pig and get a human is testable. Have you tried putting a chimp and a pig in a cage together to see what happens?

In the video clip linked below he says he finds such research repugnant. Elsewhere i think i've read he admits it is the best sort of proof but not something he'd ever do.

https://plus.google.com/app/basic/10784 ... platform=1

[Spektralscavenger]

@tholden

I guess you reckon the ancient ancestors as weaklings.

Why do you rule out Mars? Transfers are more probable and we already have the Cydonia stuff as plausible evidence. Anyway, by the time Ganymede is deeply explored in situ we may not be here any more



I wonder if the worldwide legends about antediluvian giants mean giants in the sky or giants roaming around right here. Fossils have the answer.

[tholden]

@tholden

I guess you reckon the ancient ancestors as weaklings.

Why do you rule out Mars? Transfers are more probable and we already have the Cydonia stuff as plausible evidence. Anyway, by the time Ganymede is deeply explored in situ we may not be here any more

Troy and I rule out Mars as an origin world for humans because, like Earth, it would have been a very dark sort of place and, like Earth, originally at least, a good origin world for hominids or dinosaurs with their huge eyes, but not a reasonable origin world for humans with our relatively tiny eyes. As the book notes, an original world for humans needed to be wet, bright, and safe, both from cosmic radiation and from sea monsters. That would have been Ganymede and not Earth.

I wonder if the worldwide legends about antediluvian giants mean giants in the sky or giants roaming around right here. Fossils have the answer.

My own take on giants:

http://bearfabrique.org/History/giants.htm

They were real enough and the main facts concerning their burial mounds were common knowledge in the 1700s and 1800s. At least some of the remains in question were said to have had "archaic" features i.e. that they were hominid and not human. Some were said to have double rows of teeth, which would be an adaptation for longer lifespans than ours. Why is such evidence no longer seen? Ask the Smithsonian Institute...

[Spektralscavenger]

An original planet need not be comfortable, just non lethal.


Some of the giant skeletons are hoaxes but, in any case, supersized humans don´t violate laws of nature any more than dinosaurs or sequoia. Evolutive paths and chronology are what data proves to be, not XIX century theories.

http://newsrescue.com/ancient-200000bc- ... z2nHXCGnCF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiVROBhwHUM

[Chromium6]

An open source paper but makes a lot of sense to me as it combines Linguistics and DNA Haplotype groups over time.

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownl ... erID=31366

[tholden]

An open source paper but makes a lot of sense to me as it combines Linguistics and DNA Haplotype groups over time.

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownl ... erID=31366

I don't doubt that the relationships between haplogroups can be calculated. But the 160K year figure is highly questionable.

[Chromium6]

An open source paper but makes a lot of sense to me as it combines Linguistics and DNA Haplotype groups over time.

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownl ... erID=31366

I don't doubt that the relationships between haplogroups can be calculated. But the 160K year figure is highly questionable.

Didn't Yellowstone erupt around 160,000 BC?

There are two things they didn't account for explicitly in the paper:

The Toba Catastrophe bottleneck around 70,000 BC and Euro-Doggerland sinking around 6500 BC. DNA, Linguistics, Bones from slaughters and Catastrophes can provide accounts of ancient settlement in Europe. Most of the bankrupt theories since the end of WWII (Franz Boas-Boasian) are being overthrown by DNA analysis alone these days.

What date would you put on the divergences?


http://elenow.blogspot.com/2007/08/yell ... lcano.html