Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Welcome to Christforums the Protestant Community. You'll need to register in order to post your comments on your favorite topics and subjects. You'll also enjoy sharing media across multiple platforms. We hope you enjoy your fellowship here! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christforums

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy. God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now
Sign in to follow this  
William

'Humans evolved after a female chimpanzee mated with a pig': Extraordinary claim made by American geneticist

Recommended Posts

The human species began as the hybrid offspring of a male pig and a female chimpanzee, an American geneticist has suggested.

 

The startling claim has been made by Eugene McCarthy, who is also one of the world's leading authorities on hybridisation in animals.

 

He points out that while humans have many features in common with chimps, we also have a large number of distinguishing characteristics not found in any other primates.

 

Dr McCarthy says these divergent characteristics are most likely the result of a hybrid origin at some point far back in human evolutionary history.

 

What's more, he suggests, there is one animal that has all of the traits which distinguish humans from our primate cousins in the animal kingdom.

 

'What is this other animal that has all these traits?' he asks rhetorically. 'The answer is Sus scrofa, the ordinary pig.'

 

Dr McCarthy elaborates his astonishing hypothesis in an article on Macroevolution.net, a website he curates. He is at pains to point out that that it is merely a hypothesis, but he presents compelling evidence to support it.

 

Scientists currently suppose that chimpanzees are humans' closest living evolutionary relatives, a theory amply backed by genetic evidence.

 

However, as Dr McCarthy points out, despite this genetic similarity, there are a massive number of divergent anatomical characteristics distinguishing the two species.

 

These distinguishing characteristics, including hairless skin, a thick layer of subcutaneous fat, light-coloured eyes, protruding noses and heavy eyelashes, to name but a few, are unmistakeably porcine, he suggests.

 

There are also a number of less obvious but equally inexplicable similarities between humans and pigs in the structure of the skin and organs.

 

Indeed, pig skin tissues and heart valves can be used in medicine because of their similarity and compatibility with the human body.

 

Dr McCarthy says that the original pig-chimp hook up was probably followed by several generations of 'backcrossing', where the offspring of that pairing lived among chimps and mated with them - becoming more like chimps and less like pigs with every new generation.

 

This also helps to explain the problem of relative infertility in hybrids. Dr McCarthy points out that the belief that all hybrids are sterile is in fact false, and in many cases hybrid animals are able to breed with mates of the same species of either parent.

 

After several generations the hybrid strain would have become fertile enough to breed amongst themselves, Dr McCarthy says.

 

Unsurprisingly, Dr McCarthy's hypothesis has come in for substantial criticism from orthodox evolutionary biologists and their Creationist opponents alike.

 

One important criticism, which dubs his theory the 'Monkey-F******-A-Pig hypothesis', is that there is little chance that pigs and chimps could be interfertile. The two orders of creatures, according to evolutionary theory, diverged roughly 80million years ago, a ScienceBlogs post points out.

 

'Just the gradual accumulation of molecular differences in sperm and egg recognition proteins would mean that pig sperm wouldn’t recognize a chimpanzee egg as a reasonable target for fusion,' PZ Myers writes.

 

Furthermore, the blogger explains, while chimps have 48 chromosomes, pigs have just 38.

 

He adds: 'Hybridizing a pig and a chimp is like taking half the dancers from a performance of Swan Lake and the other half from a performance of Giselle and throwing them together on stage to assemble something. It’s going to be a catastrophe.'

 

Finally, he suggests rather impudently that Dr McCarthy do the experimental work himself and try mating with a pig to see how far he gets.

 

 

But Dr McCarthy believes that, in the case of humans and other creatures, his hybrid modification to evolutionary theory can account for a range of phenomena that Darwinian evolution alone has difficulty explaining.

 

Despite the opinions of some peer reviewers that Dr McCarthy's work presents a potentially paradigm-shifting new take on conventional views of the origins of new life forms, he has had difficulty finding a publisher, so he has chosen to publish a book-length manuscript outlining his ideas on his website.

 

In its conclusion he writes: 'I must admit that I initially felt a certain amount of repugnance at the idea of being a hybrid. The image of a pig mating with an ape is not a pretty one, nor is that of a horde of monstrous half-humans breeding in a hybrid swarm.

 

'But the way we came to be is not so important as the fact that we now exist. As every Machiavellian knows, good things can emerge from ugly processes, and I think the human race is a very good thing. Moreover, there is something to be said for the idea of having the pig as a relative.

 

'My opinion of this animal has much improved during the course of my research. Where once I thought of filth and greed, I now think of intelligence, affection, loyalty, and adaptability, with an added touch of joyous sensuality — qualities without which humans would not be human.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to write a full exposition on evolution quite soon, its just going to take quite a while is why I haven't done it yet, all I will say here is the Earth is 6000 years old and it can be proven, quite easily, the evolution religion is a total lie from beginning to end, I guess Ill go ahead and get started.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm...Muslims have long claimed that Jews are the offspring of pigs and apes. Do the claims by Eugene McCarthy mean that Herbert W. Armstrong and British Israelism are true?!

 

 

PermaFrost

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"When a man stops believing in God he doesn't then believe in nothing, he believes anything."

 

So a reknown geneticist has a hypothesis that rejects scripture (not that surprising) and requires redefining what makes a species. I mean, did this pig-chimpanzee couple produce an entire liter of fertile hybrid offspring of a new species, or was there some sort of pig-chimpanzee commune practicing wild experimental sexual practices and producing generations of fertile offspring of this new species. [walks away shaking head] ...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He points out that while humans have many features in common with chimps, we also have a large number of distinguishing characteristics not found in any other primates.

 

When we're told of the DNA similarities of apes and humans, that DNA similarity only applies to DNA coding of corresponding genes, but lay Evolutionists dishonestly pass off this information as applying to the whole of human vs. ape DNA. The scientist mentioned in the OP is trying to give an evolutionary explanation for the genes humans have where apes have no corresponding genes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that labels can mislead people, but I need to ask about two labels, or any that apply to this.

 

The United States History textbook, which my high school uses, divides Christians into two groups, Fundamentalists, and Modernists. Fundamentalists, when they read the Bible, use biology, geology, and physics as it existed in the sixteenth century. Modernists use modern ideas about energy, genetics, momentum, sedimentation, and tree rings, when they read the Bible.

 

So, I wonder if Christians divide themselves into these two groups?

 

My church takes the Modernist view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
o, I wonder if Christians divide themselves into these two groups?

 

There aren't two groups of Christians, 16th century vs. 21st century science users. Even if there were, "Modernists" condemn themselves as hypocrites for using 21st century science rather than 26th-century science, being too dumb to realize that doesn't earn them any points either.

 

There are indeed two groups. One group interprets the world with the assumption that God created the universe. The other group interprets the world with the assumption that the universe is all there is. What you call Modernists are just Christians who take their worldview from Atheists. Two thousand years ago they would have insisted the Earth was the center of the solar system because Aristotle said so.

 

Atheists don't have the first clue as to what created the information within DNA, before the voodoo mechanism of Darwinism could kick in. Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick, and shows like Star Trek, have shown openness to the idea that Aliens planted life on Earth, just not God. That's not science, it's just an Atheist's worldview.

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There aren't two groups of Christians, 16th century vs. 21st century science users. Even if there were, "Modernists" condemn themselves as hypocrites for using 21st century science rather than 26th-century science, being too dumb to realize that doesn't earn them any points either.

 

There are indeed two groups. One group interprets the world with the assumption that God created the universe. The other group interprets the world with the assumption that the universe is all there is. What you call Modernists are just Christians who take their worldview from Atheists. Two thousand years ago they would have insisted the Earth was the center of the solar system because Aristotle said so.

 

Atheists don't have the first clue as to what created the information within DNA, before the voodoo mechanism of Darwinism could kick in. Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick, and shows like Star Trek, have shown openness to the idea that Aliens planted life on Earth, just not God. That's not science, it's just an Atheist's worldview.

 

 

 

According to the school textbook, fundamentalists have a theological argument with modernists, not a scientific argument with scientists. Do you know of any modernist theologians?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to the school textbook, fundamentalists have a theological argument with modernists, not a scientific argument with scientists. Do you know of any modernist theologians?

 

 

You're setting up a false dichotomy. Both groups believe they follow modern science. One group doesn't follow Atheistic interpretation of science. To say that one group follows 16th century science is inaccurate and pejorative.

 

I do know some modernist theologians. They plug God into the gaps of Atheistic theories. If Nature doesn't tend to increase complexity of populations over time, then God pushed Evolution along, they reason.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You're setting up a false dichotomy. Both groups believe they follow modern science. One group doesn't follow Atheistic interpretation of science. To say that one group follows 16th century science is inaccurate and pejorative.

 

I do know some modernist theologians. They plug God into the gaps of Atheistic theories. If Nature doesn't tend to increase complexity of populations over time, then God pushed Evolution along, they reason.

 

I want to share a video with you both on the subject of the "God of the Gaps".

 

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A gap is a contradiction between what we believe and what we see. The man in the video was trying to distinguish between a gap showing a fundamental flaw in what we believe vs. a lack of detail in what we see. Mercury's motion reflected an inadequacy of Newtonian physics rather than inadequate observation (something being overlooked). There's a gap between Darwinism and our observations. Is Darwinism inadequate, or are our observations of nature inadequate?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is Darwinism inadequate, or are our observations of nature inadequate?

 

I ask whether Darwinian Evolution even follows proper scientific methods. Are creation origins observable, and/or they even repeatable, and therefore testable? I ask these questions because you said, are our "observations" of nature adequate, so I ask what observations have scientist made that follow the scientific approach to experimentation?

 

On topic of apes and humans sharing or comparing them as very close relatives, it "was" thought that apes and humans were around 97% similar. As they have mapped out what Dawkins called "junk dna" that gap has broadened. I think that it is a rather interesting point, because on one side we have people attributing randomness to Evolution, and on the other side we have order and intelligence attributed to our Creator or God.

 

I'm still dumbfounded about how there can be a scientific process that replicates complete randomness. If I were to throw in a pot all known chemical makeups of everything that exists, there would have to be no order whatsoever to what I add. Otherwise, that order would have to accredited to an intelligent process. And even if that was possible, complete randomness, someone would still have to explain why chemicals or other processes follow certain laws while rejecting an absolute law giver.

 

God bless,

William

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know that labels can mislead people, but I need to ask about two labels, or any that apply to this.

 

The United States History textbook, which my high school uses, divides Christians into two groups, Fundamentalists, and Modernists. Fundamentalists, when they read the Bible, use biology, geology, and physics as it existed in the sixteenth century. Modernists use modern ideas about energy, genetics, momentum, sedimentation, and tree rings, when they read the Bible.

 

So, I wonder if Christians divide themselves into these two groups?

 

My church takes the Modernist view.

 

In the United States of America, I do not consider myself a fundamentalist, but I believe fundamentalism was a response to post modernism. Post modernism was a response to Religion, it was meant to destroy it. And it is succeeding under the guise of Liberalism. I believe Nazi Germany contributed much to society in advancing post modernism as well as Social Darwinism.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Nephelim mated w/a retarded monkey & humanity was born. The proof is our evolved brains which make it possible to murder ourselves in greater numbers w/each generation. Rocks tied to sticks to nukes & designer diseases in only a million years. Hooray 4 humanity !!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The theory of evolution and this newer theory contradicts the Creation theory. And for me, that's just enough to debunk it. But for the sake of argument, let's look at some flaws of this theory. The first one would be that yes, cross-breeding, different animals producing offsprings, is possible. However, they do need to have the same number of chromosomes in order for that to happen.

 

So in that sense, pigs and apes couldn't have produced an offspring because they have a different number of chromosomes. If you take the argument that maybe thousands and millions of years ago they have different genetic makeups, then it could be possible.

 

Second of all, from what I've read, pigs were intentionally modified to somehow resemble our heart valves. They also have more hair before, again, that was changed as time passed by. So with these reasons, it's quite clear that they didn't resembled our heart valves or our hairlessness before.

 

Third would be that we all have some resemblance to different animals and even plants. So it's not uncommon to see that our genetic makeup is somehow similar to them. The same goes for pigs, that's why we resemble some of their characteristics physically and genetically. Again, it's the same for pigs.

 

These reasons alone disprove this theory. But the bigger reason? We have an ultimate designer, a Creator that made all these things possible. It baffles me why we cannot just accept that and need to disprove evidences that go toward that direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked with a woman once who was bound and determined that she was descended from dinosaurs. I sort of wrote it off as nonsense at the time, but I should have asked her where her information came from and which dinosaurs she was referring to. I guess I should also have asked if the dinosaur had bred with something else to create her ancestors, but silly me, I just walked away a little confused as to how she came to this bizarre claim in the first place. I'm looking at a mind-image of a giant T-Rex eyeballing a comparitively tiny gorilla or some other beast and trying to seduce said beast, while wiggling those worthless little arms all over the place. I'm picturing the gorilla dying of laughter and then shortly thereafter dying for real when Rex got mad. I imagine smooching got a bit painful for the gorilla and hugging was definitely out of the question for old Rex. Okay, I'm being silly now, but this whole evolution nonsense strikes me that way and I just want to laugh right out loud when evolutionists get all serious about this stuff.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The human species began as the hybrid offspring of a male pig and a female chimpanzee, an American geneticist has suggested.

 

The startling claim has been made by Eugene McCarthy, who is also one of the world's leading authorities on hybridisation in animals.

 

He points out that while humans have many features in common with chimps, we also have a large number of distinguishing characteristics not found in any other primates.

 

Dr McCarthy says these divergent characteristics are most likely the result of a hybrid origin at some point far back in human evolutionary history.

 

What's more, he suggests, there is one animal that has all of the traits which distinguish humans from our primate cousins in the animal kingdom.

 

'What is this other animal that has all these traits?' he asks rhetorically. 'The answer is Sus scrofa, the ordinary pig.'

 

Dr McCarthy elaborates his astonishing hypothesis in an article on Macroevolution.net, a website he curates. He is at pains to point out that that it is merely a hypothesis, but he presents compelling evidence to support it.

 

Scientists currently suppose that chimpanzees are humans' closest living evolutionary relatives, a theory amply backed by genetic evidence.

 

However, as Dr McCarthy points out, despite this genetic similarity, there are a massive number of divergent anatomical characteristics distinguishing the two species.

 

These distinguishing characteristics, including hairless skin, a thick layer of subcutaneous fat, light-coloured eyes, protruding noses and heavy eyelashes, to name but a few, are unmistakeably porcine, he suggests.

 

There are also a number of less obvious but equally inexplicable similarities between humans and pigs in the structure of the skin and organs.

 

Indeed, pig skin tissues and heart valves can be used in medicine because of their similarity and compatibility with the human body.

 

Dr McCarthy says that the original pig-chimp hook up was probably followed by several generations of 'backcrossing', where the offspring of that pairing lived among chimps and mated with them - becoming more like chimps and less like pigs with every new generation.

 

This also helps to explain the problem of relative infertility in hybrids. Dr McCarthy points out that the belief that all hybrids are sterile is in fact false, and in many cases hybrid animals are able to breed with mates of the same species of either parent.

 

After several generations the hybrid strain would have become fertile enough to breed amongst themselves, Dr McCarthy says.

 

Unsurprisingly, Dr McCarthy's hypothesis has come in for substantial criticism from orthodox evolutionary biologists and their Creationist opponents alike.

 

One important criticism, which dubs his theory the 'Monkey-F******-A-Pig hypothesis', is that there is little chance that pigs and chimps could be interfertile. The two orders of creatures, according to evolutionary theory, diverged roughly 80million years ago, a ScienceBlogs post points out.

 

'Just the gradual accumulation of molecular differences in sperm and egg recognition proteins would mean that pig sperm wouldn’t recognize a chimpanzee egg as a reasonable target for fusion,' PZ Myers writes.

 

Furthermore, the blogger explains, while chimps have 48 chromosomes, pigs have just 38.

 

He adds: 'Hybridizing a pig and a chimp is like taking half the dancers from a performance of Swan Lake and the other half from a performance of Giselle and throwing them together on stage to assemble something. It’s going to be a catastrophe.'

 

Finally, he suggests rather impudently that Dr McCarthy do the experimental work himself and try mating with a pig to see how far he gets.

 

 

But Dr McCarthy believes that, in the case of humans and other creatures, his hybrid modification to evolutionary theory can account for a range of phenomena that Darwinian evolution alone has difficulty explaining.

 

Despite the opinions of some peer reviewers that Dr McCarthy's work presents a potentially paradigm-shifting new take on conventional views of the origins of new life forms, he has had difficulty finding a publisher, so he has chosen to publish a book-length manuscript outlining his ideas on his website.

 

In its conclusion he writes: 'I must admit that I initially felt a certain amount of repugnance at the idea of being a hybrid. The image of a pig mating with an ape is not a pretty one, nor is that of a horde of monstrous half-humans breeding in a hybrid swarm.

 

'But the way we came to be is not so important as the fact that we now exist. As every Machiavellian knows, good things can emerge from ugly processes, and I think the human race is a very good thing. Moreover, there is something to be said for the idea of having the pig as a relative.

 

'My opinion of this animal has much improved during the course of my research. Where once I thought of filth and greed, I now think of intelligence, affection, loyalty, and adaptability, with an added touch of joyous sensuality — qualities without which humans would not be human.'

 

 

Let me guess....this information comes from Fox Views? It seems that nothing in this article reflects anything other than FANTASY. No legitimate geneticist would say any of this stuff. Gorillas have 48 chromosomes, humans have 46, pigs have about 36 (depending on species of pig). Hybridization is impossible. It is a shame that so many Christians have been seduced by anti-intellectualism. And remember, both Sts Peter and Paul warned us that our faith IS NOT based on "Jewish myths and Fables", but rather on CHRIST CRUCIFIED AND RESURRECTED! Yes, a great deal of flooding occurred about 10-11 thousand years ago The Sumerian Gilgamesh epic has a basis in fact, but the mythic element is not detailed fact. Myth has a valuable element worthy of study, but should be appreciated as what it is.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me guess....this information comes from Fox Views?
Oh a Fox News phobia. Nope, it was the Daily Mail.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...eneticist.html

 

No legitimate geneticist would say any of this stuff.
Evidently, so it seems, McCarthy has a BS (in Mathematics), MS (in Genetics), and PhD (in Genetics). However he is not a leading geneticist as the Daily Mail claims and is views are considered pseudoscientific nonsense.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pseudoscientific nonsense.

This is basically what any study that overtly supports evolution is.

 

Whenever something comes up that does not completely agree with their view of evolution they alter their view/definition and continue to run with it. This has been happening ever since Darwin published his theory.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is basically what any study that overtly supports evolution is.

 

Whenever something comes up that does not completely agree with their view of evolution they alter their view/definition and continue to run with it. This has been happening ever since Darwin published his theory.

 

Seems to be more symptomatic of post modernism. Anyone can define the truth or terminology, because whose to say what is true for you and not true for me? I kinda chuckled taking the logic of your post further, they alter their view/definition and continue to run with it, obviously, on issues of race and gender this is pretty apparent - no pun intended by the use of "pretty" whenever it rears its ugly head.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Seems to be more symptomatic of post modernism. Anyone can define the truth or terminology, because whose to say what is true for you and not true for me? I kinda chuckled taking the logic of your post further, they alter their view/definition and continue to run with it, obviously, on issues of race and gender this is pretty apparent - no pun intended by the use of "pretty" whenever it rears its ugly head.

 

God bless,

William

 

I think one just fueled the other, meaning as societies in general (both here and overseas) became more liberal they started embracing alternative ideas that what has been preached by the church for centuries. Reason being many people were not saved, thus were not emparted the knowledge to understand the truth, so they looked elsewhere for explanations for what is spelled out in the bible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't even make any sense. Even from a scientific point of view it doesn't make any sense. Maybe these people are just in it for the attention in the media and the religious sectors, as it would definitely give someone 15 minutes of fame with such a ridiculous claim. I honestly can't believe anyone can be so stupid, especially if the person is a learned man with a long history of studies. It just doesn't make any sense, other than seeking for attention. There have been lots of claims that sounded ridiculous over the years, but even those claims had at least some sort of sense and connection, religion-wise or science-wise. This is just a terrible claim overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently had to take a Biology course for college in which the professor was a huge Evolutionist. I decided that since I knew very little about how Evolutionists actually believe, I would sit through the class and learn something (ammo to use against future Evolutionists I ran into basically). I learned quite a bit about their theories in the class. The entire timeline he presented to the class from the creation of the first microbe to the "Evolution of Modern Man" left one huge unfillable hole that I just could not get past... At every step along the way there was a gap - "And somewhere in this gap (we haven't found hard evidence YET) is where this microbe developed the ability to process chlorophyll and set roots in the ground and became a plant". This was the basic thread of every evolutionary jump along the chain... "We are still looking for proof, but it is out there we just need to find it". The problem with arguing with Evolutionists is that lack of proof does not qualify as proof. Obviously, we KNOW that Christianity is correct, but only a person who has a personal relationship with Jesus can know that. The Evolutionist KNOWS that they are correct and will work towards proving it to non-believers much as Christians will. At some point, both "theories" come down to faith and where you place yours. The difference is that Christians who have put their faith in God and the Bible are at peace, knowing that they made the right decision. People that put their faith in Evolution know that they have made the right decision also, but the peace isn't there because there is no personal relationship with Jesus, so they will keep pushing forward looking for the proof of what they know to be correct.

 

One important side note: Evolution when talked about in the form of adaptation is a fact. We can (and have) observed adaptation on a human timescale. This is the breeding of desirable traits and the "extinction" of undesirable traits among a species over several generations. There are plenty of examples of this that have been observed, documented, and recorded over the years. When arguing with an Evolutionist, make sure you point out that Adaptation is acceptable, changing species is where the problem lies. If whoever reads all of this doesn't believe in adaptation through generations, I would be interested in finding out why not, and how you support your non-belief in adaptation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When arguing with an Evolutionist, make sure you point out that Adaptation is acceptable, changing species is where the problem lies.

It would probably be better to refer to this adaptation as natural selection and not use the term evolution at all when discussing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if nothing else this is certainly interesting. I am hoping that nobody is really putting too much into this, but I am probably wrong there. It always just makes me wonder what these people are setting out to study, and that is where you might get a problem. I think we all know of seeing what we want to see, or finding something only because we make it so or put it there. I have a feeling something like that is at work here. Who knows, though. Thanks for sharing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×