SH Archive Human Origins: Are We Hybrids?

[Whitewave]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: whitewave
Date: 2020-05-08 02:57:38
Reaction Score: 3

Well this is an interesting thread. I do have to ask what might be the reason to create (and keep) such a genetic experiment if that is what we are?

I can understand scientific curiosity in dabbling with hybridization but why keep such a freak of nature?

If there was a specific purpose in mind (Sitchin suggests mining capabilities), why keep us around when the job is done?

Were we made as a novelty item for bragging rights? If so, we've gotten entirely out of hand so, again, why keep us around?

Scientists make chimeras today, allegedly for medical advancement research, but the hybrids are not kept, nurtured and encouraged to breed. If we were made as spare parts incubators then surely 7 billion of us aren't needed for that purpose. Plus, we're indiscriminate breeders totally messing up the genetic "purity" of the seed lines.

Maybe I suffer from lack of imagination but I just can't think of one good reason to cross a chimp with a pig, repeatedly back cross them with one parent line or the other in order to produce a "human" race.

I think we are fearfully and wonderfully made-just not in a laboratory test tube.

 

[plamski]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Banta
Date: 2020-05-09 02:49:24
Reaction Score: 0

I've known about this pig-chimp hybrid theory* for years, and while it's interesting to speculate upon, I don't know how valid it is. You'd need to get pretty freaky to validate it at all and even then it would be obviously a very long project to try and replicate the backcrossing.

That said, I absolutely love it. It would be fantastic if human, thought by ourselves to be so special and unique, were simply the result of a pig and a chimp getting down and dirty. Takes a lot of wind out of the sails of hubris!

*theory, not in the scientific sense of the word. None of this origin of species stuff can be proven using the scientific method.

 

[plamski]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: plamski
Date: 2020-05-09 11:38:15
Reaction Score: 1

If there was a specific purpose in mind (Sitchin suggests mining capabilities), why keep us around when the job is done?

Maybe it was a spontaneous crossing. It happens all the time with birds and even mammals.

Bestiality is still legal in a lot of countries in the world, which suggests that it's not something rare. Say that a human male mates with a female goat and decides to keep the off-spring for some reason. If the off-spring mates back with other humans then you'll have the start of the process of "backcrossing". Hybrids could be fully infertile but McCarthy claims that relative infertility is more common. So technically this is all possible even today.

He uses our relative low fertility and other traits as indicators that we are hybrids and this is hard to argue against. He also has an article where he explores the possibility that gorillas are ALSO hybrids of a chipm and a large hog. Gorillas have low fertility too.

 

[plamski]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Banta
Date: 2020-05-14 03:02:36
Reaction Score: 3

Maybe it was a spontaneous crossing. It happens all the time with birds and even mammals.

Bestiality is still legal in a lot of countries in the world, which suggests that it's not something rare. Say that a human male mates with a female goat and decides to keep the off-spring for some reason. If the off-spring mates back with other humans then you'll have the start of the process of "backcrossing". Hybrids could be fully infertile but McCarthy claims that relative infertility is more common. So technically this is all possible even today.

He uses our relative low fertility and other traits as indicators that we are hybrids and this is hard to argue against. He also has an article where he explores the possibility that gorillas are ALSO hybrids of a chipm and a large hog. Gorillas have low fertility too.

Right on, and this is frankly why the theory appeals to me. It's just nature at work, with time and a touch of luck of the draw added in. Sexual gratification is an incredible driving force and animals who don't have any cultural stigmas or moral reservations will attempt the "business" with virtually anything (I don't think I need a source for this, right?). Once physical compatibility and geographic availability are settled, that leaves the primary argument as being the general consensus of the inability for hybrids like this to exist and procreate and as you've noted, McCarthy, a subject matter expert is there ever was one, cites evidence that he lead him to believe hybrids with reproductive capability are more common than thought.

None of that makes him right, but it makes the argument pretty hard to outright dismiss. Again, it's possible too that some "intelligence" in the past utilized this process to try and design some new species, but it seems as though the natural mechanisms are in place so that taking that suppositional leap isn't necessary.

I also want to state that if humans are result of a natural hybridization process, it does not take away any of the wonderment or uniqueness of our existence, despite what my previous post may have implied. I think that our reality/consciousness itself is a divine miracle and how our physical form was ultimately created does not somehow lessen us or have to lead us back into strict materialism.

 

[fabiorem]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: fabiorem
Date: 2020-05-14 03:25:55
Reaction Score: 3

What if the idea of nutrients itself is a hoax? The idea that you need a balanced diet, minerals, etc - perhaps all this is just a way of creating a new market? I mean, look at Pandas - they eat bamboo, cows - grass, lions - meat. Those creatures don't have a 'balanced' diet, but they do ok, no? Perhaps its about projection of belief - if you believe the food you eat is good - it is! Maybe that's all there is to it. Maybe its hard to gather up much belief in the food we eat, knowing that the system we find ourselves in is not about the best produce, but about produce that is cheap yet looks good enough.

I noticed it a long time ago. Every time I see a vegan preaching against meat, I'm reminded of tigers eating raw flesh from dead animals.

We dont need nutrients. But one thing I noticed we need is heat. The tiger eat the dead animal while still fresh, and eat it fast because it still have heat. Thats why the tiger have a big mouth, with sharp teeth.
Humans cook the meat so that it can be served warm. The same food heated gives more sustainance than non-heated. A lunch with cheese, heated in a electric grill, gives more nourishment than if you take it outright from the fridge. Men had the development of the hand, which the animals dont have, so he dont need sharp teeth.

 

[plamski]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Banta
Date: 2020-05-14 03:40:21
Reaction Score: 1

We dont need nutrients. But one thing I noticed we need is heat. The tiger eat the dead animal while still fresh, and eat it fast because it still have heat.

I'd also add I've come to see the wisdom in "life from life, death from death." Live food (or closest to it) is much better than food that is decomposing or would be if not for additive intervention. Adhering to this on a mass scale would likely eliminate lots of degenerative disease.

 

[plamski]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: ripvanwillie
Date: 2020-05-26 06:15:33
Reaction Score: 7

First of all, I wasn't sure where to place this article but please, move it if need it. Secondly, as far as I gather this forum is critical of the Theory of Evolution. Although this hypothesis is not contradicting the theory, it proposes a different middle kind of way. Finally, apologies if it has already been discussed. I searched but I didn't find something concrete, apart from Japod briefly mentioning it.

HUMAN ORIGINS: ARE WE HYBRIDS?

Always remember, a cat looks down on man, a dog looks up to man, but a pig will look man right in the eye and see his equal.
Winston Churchill.

The gatekeepers at the castle of truth, otherwise known as “The Controllers”, always give us a bit of the truth but never the whole truth. This especially applies for the theory of Evolution and The Origin of Man.

There are a number of non-mainstream hypothesis of the human origins and one of them is the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (AHH). It was proposed by Alister Hardy (a marine biologist). It states that a branch of apes was forced by competition over terrestrial habitats to hunt for food such as shellfish on the sea shore and sea bed leading to adaptations that explained distinctive characteristics of modern humans such as functional hairlessness and bipedalism.

The mainstream hypothesis is that chimpanzees are humans' closest living evolutionary relatives, a theory backed by genetic evidence and visual similarities, which are obvious. One of the evidence in support of the Great Apes Theory (GAT) is that the great apes and humans have the same blood types: A, B, AB and O. The Rhesus factor isn't limited to humans, either. So in theory, chimpanzees and gorillas could donate blood to humans and vice versa - provided they have the same blood type. In reality though, blood donations are unlikely as our bloods differ in too many details that still need to be investigated.

Despite genetic similarities though, there are a massive number of divergent anatomical characteristics distinguishing humans from apes. How did those characteristics developed and why?

What if we have actually begun as hybrids?

According to Dr Eugene McCarthy, an American geneticist and one of the world's leading authorities on hybridisation in animals, the human species began as the hybrid offspring of a male pig and a female chimpanzee [1].

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 points out that that is merely a hypothesis, but he presents compelling evidence to support it.

One common characteristic of animal hybrids is the relative infertility. But contrary to the common belief, according to McCarthy not all hybrids are completely sterile (like the mule) and in some hybrids the animals are able to breed with mates of the same species of either parent.

Humans have a relatively low fertility compared to other mammals, which is an indication of being a hybrid. 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 and a high percentage of human spermatozoa are actually dysfunctional.

We learn that the birth of the human species did not occur from just one crossing. The first pig-chimp creature 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. After several generations the hybrid strain would have become fertile enough to breed amongst themselves.

Human traits not seen in other primates but seen in pigs.
I’ll shorten the long list but you can find it in McCarthy’s blog [1]:

DERMAL FEATURES Naked skin Layer of subcutaneous fat Large content of elastic fiber in skin Thermoregulatory sweating Epidermal lipids contain triglycerides and free fatty acids	FACIAL FEATURES Lightly pigmented eyes common Protruding, cartilaginous nose Narrow eye opening Short, thick upper lip Cleft lip Eyebrows Heavy eyelashes Earlobes
CRANIAL FEATURES Brain lobes: frontal and temporal prominent Thermoregulatory venous plexuses Well-developed system of emissary veins Enlarged nasal bones Divergent eyes (interior of orbit visible from side) Large, blunt-cusped (bunodont) molars Thick tooth enamel Helical chewing	OTHER TRAITS Nocturnal activity Particular about place of defecation Good swimmer, no fear of water Extended male copulation time Female orgasm Short menstrual cycle Snuggling Tears Alcoholism Able to exploit a wide range of environments and foods Heart attack Atherosclerosis Cancer (melanoma)
FEATURES RELATING TO BIPEDALITY Short, dorsal spines on first six cervical vertebra Fewer floating and more non-floating ribs More lumbar vertebrae Fewer sacral vertebrae Centralized spine Massive gluteal muscles Hind limbs longer than forelimbs Talus suited strictly for extension and flexion of the foot Narrow pelvic outlet	ORGANS Diverticulum at cardiac end of stomach Valves of Kerckring Mesenteric arterial arcades Multipyramidal kidneys Heart auricles level Nipples low on chest

What do we have in common with pigs?

Do pigs have any of these characteristics above?

View attachment 44735

They have heavy eyelashes, protrusive, cartilaginous nose, a thick layer of subcutaneous fat, short digits, and a naked skin. They are an intelligent animals, terrestrial, not arboreal (climbing and walking on trees), and adaptable to a wide range of foods and environments.

In fact, pigs have every one of the many traits listed. Ask yourself: Is it likely that an animal unrelated to humans would possess so many of the “human” characteristics that distinguish us from primates?

Pig skin tissues and heart valves are used in medicine because of their similarity and compatibility with the human body. Pigs are being used as incubators for growing human organs for transplants. Researchers from University of California, Davis, have successfully injected human stem cells into pig embryos to produce human-pig embryos, known as chimeras that can potentially grow into creatures that contain human organs, reports the BBC [2]. Why not goats, dogs, or bears — animals that, in terms of taxonomic classification, are no more distantly related to human beings than pigs?

Pigs are omnivore and we are omnivore. Some pigs have blue eyes, some brown like humans. I will speculate that white people have more of the domesticated pig genes in us as our skin is pinkie and many have blue eyes.

Our cross-species hybrid nature could explain why we can adapt to different climates and yet our bodies are never fully integrated into the environment, which is the reason why we have to store food and obtaining it is very hard work.

Pigs Intelligence

Our hybrid nature could explain our intelligence and the consequent elaborate religious beliefs trying to find out our true origin. Perhaps, our mixed up nature prompted us to be more innovative in order to survive. Maybe, the answer is in both of our possible ancestors – the chimp and the pig.

Most people are familiar with the intelligence of chimpanzees but the main historical reason that pig’s intelligence has only recently been recognised, is due to the fact that pork meat has formed an important part in diets for centuries. One can somewhat describe it as a method of denial, as our society would usually not consume an animal which we consider to have a level of intelligence, based on ethics. Example of some of these animals include, dogs and dolphins.

In fact, pigs are among the most intelligent animals [3] – together with elephants, ravens, cows and octopuses. They are cognitively complex, capable of naturally socializing, learning and even deceiving.

Pigs know what a mirror is and how it works, using it as a tool to grab food and distract their peers. It is a sign of complex cognitive processing and an indication of a certain level of awareness. [7]

Pigs also love video games [8] and are very protective of children. Mother pigs raised in sanctuary remain with their children for their lifetime and continue the same maternal care even when their adult offspring have grown up. [9]

If you ever have a pig as a pet you would find that they are in fact very clean. If given the opportunity, pigs would choose to not defecate where they eat and sleep. The popular misconception of the uncleanliness of the pig is consequence of captive breeding conditions and does not represent the natural behaviour and/or intelligence of pigs in any way.

Dr McCarthy says:

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.

Yes, but can they swim like us?

In places like Nassau or The Exumas in the Bahamas one of the popular tourist attraction are the swimming pigs. [4]

In comparison, unlike humans and pigs, apes can't swim properly as they have very little body fat. They sink straight to the bottom of pools and can even walk across the bottom while submerged underwater.

Cultural references

For a very long time, humans have been tweaking with animal hybrids and we seem quite obsessed with. Especially dogs/cats and cattle crossbreeding are hugely popular. Recently, they have started playing extensively with human-animal breeds - 150 human animal hybrids grown in UK labs: Embryos have been produced secretively for the past three years. Link

Pigs characters are very popular in children’s stories (The Three Little Pigs and Peppa Pig, for exmple) and there are a lot of literature with human-animal hybrids as the main plot. For example, in Mikhail Bulgakov's novel Heart of a Dog (1925) a Moscow surgeon Dr. Preobrazhensky transplants human organs into the body of homeless dog. As a result, the animal transforms into the man, Poligraf Poligrafovich Sharikov. In the end of the novel Preobrazhensky undergoes another operation to return him to the dog's state.

H.G. Wells, a well know insider and author, imagined a place in his science fiction novel “The Island of Dr. Moreau” where human-animal hybrids were developed via V-section. Some of “the beasts” created are swine-man and swine-woman.

No wonder so many cultures forbid the eating of pigs as if this hypothesis is true it would mean cannibalism. Pork consumption is highest among countries of European cultural origin and South East Asia. Maybe we can draw some conclusions about these cultures.

The Critics

As you can imagine this hypothesis would be a hard one to swallow for the mainstream. The main counter-argument is that pigs and chimps, according to evolutionary theory, diverged roughly 80 million years ago so there is a little chance they can mate. Also, chimps have 48 chromosomes, pigs have just 38.

According to McCarthy While differences in chromosomes of this sort do bode ill for the fertility of the resulting progeny, but it is only a rule of thumb. He gives more explanations in his blog [1].

Another argument is that successful animal hybrids, do not occur in a state of nature and that that only plants hybridize, and never animals. But McCarthy has 4,000 different types of hybrid crosses listed in his book on hybridization in birds and approximately half are known to occur in a natural setting. His current research indicates a comparable rate for mammals.

Hybrid can be detected by nucleotide sequence data but the further we go back in time the more difficult it becomes for any true remote descendant of backcross hybrids produced in ancient time, which is what human may actually be. McCarthy suggests, 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.

In Conclusion

We cannot ignore the fact that McCarthy’s hypothesis could explain a range of different phenomena including those that Darwinian evolution alone has difficulty explaining.

Dr McCarthy himself 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.

Also:

The general examination of the process of evolution as a whole strongly suggests that most forms of life are of hybrid origin. Why should humans be any different?

I personally am also shocked by this hypothesis as anyone who discovers it now would be too. Is it possible that we have been given only a half-truth about the nature of human origins? Is it possible for a pig to hybridize with a chimpanzee? I have no way of knowing or rejecting that idea so I will leave it for you to decide for yourself.

Thomas Mann (1955, p. 271),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.

Why Your Uncle Is A Boar

This ancestral shake-up is big
Not just apes can lay claim to that gig
I just figured out
Where I got my big snout
Turns out great-granddad was a pig!

References

• Human origins: Are we hybrids?
  Eugene M. McCarthy, PhD Genetics
  The Hybrid Hypothesis: Introduction
• US bid to grow human organs for transplant inside pigs
  Fergus Walsh
  Bid to grow transplant organs in pigs
• How Intelligent Are Pigs?
  By Ameera Mills. August 13, 2018
  How Intelligent Are Pigs? - Let’s Find Out!
• The swimming pigs of Bahamas
  
• How Long Can A Piglet Hold Its Breath?
  Erika Schagatay, Swedish professor of environmental physiology
  How Long Can a Piglet Hold its Breath? | Freedive Earth
• Humans evolved after a female chimpanzee mated with a pig': Extraordinary claim made by American geneticist
  By Damien Gayle
• Pigs Use Mirrors to Find Hidden Food
  https://www.wired.com/2009/10/pigs-and-mirrors/
• Cute pigs playing video games
  
• Pigs Will Do Anything For Their Babies
  6 Farm Animal Moms Who Will Do Anything For Their Babies

This is one of my favorite theories. What really shook me is the pictures of the pigs hanging in the slaughterhouse. Replace the hooves and heads for human ones, and it looks like a storehouse for fat human carcasses. Pigs really do look an awful lot like humans when placed erect.
The big question still remains. How did we develop the hips to walk? Neither pigs nor apes share that with us. And of course our brains and ability to speak. So while I love this theory, it clearly is incomplete. But I think a great starting point to discover what we really are.

 

[plamski]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: plamski
Date: 2020-05-26 10:58:01
Reaction Score: 1

This is one of my favorite theories. What really shook me is the pictures of the pigs hanging in the slaughterhouse. Replace the hooves and heads for human ones, and it looks like a storehouse for fat human carcasses. Pigs really do look an awful lot like humans when placed erect.
The big question still remains. How did we develop the hips to walk? Neither pigs nor apes share that with us. And of course our brains and ability to speak. So while I love this theory, it clearly is incomplete. But I think a great starting point to discover what we really are.

McCarthy states that the backcrossing was with other chimps not pig so the upright posture was possible because chimps already can hold such posture and we were "forced" by some environmental pressures. As for the intelligence, I think it's from the pig - lazy and smart.

 

[wild heretic]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: wild heretic
Date: 2020-05-26 12:05:10
Reaction Score: 5

This is one of my favorite theories. What really shook me is the pictures of the pigs hanging in the slaughterhouse. Replace the hooves and heads for human ones, and it looks like a storehouse for fat human carcasses. Pigs really do look an awful lot like humans when placed erect.
The big question still remains. How did we develop the hips to walk? Neither pigs nor apes share that with us. And of course our brains and ability to speak. So while I love this theory, it clearly is incomplete. But I think a great starting point to discover what we really are.

I agree with this. It is a piece of the puzzle but it isnt the puzzle itself.

Also, there is talking. Neither spieces can do that due to physiology.

There is clearly artificial intelligent tinkering going on here imo. Maybe they used those two animals as building parts (dna) so to speak rather than the blueprint itself? You know, fusing together a chromosome etc.

I reckon it was the gods, or rather noahs descendants, who did this. I just cant see us all being directly descended from noah himself looking at the geneology. The aristocracy, sure, but not all of us. We had mortals and immortals. They were ordered to populate the earth, so they did. They also possessed technology and magic unknown to us, especially cham (zoroaster). This lost magic so to speak is the basis of ancient freemasonry and the templars.

 

[plamski]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: plamski
Date: 2020-05-26 13:24:56
Reaction Score: 1

I reckon it was the gods, or rather noahs descendants, who did this. I just cant see us all being directly descended from noah himself looking at the geneology. The aristocracy, sure, but not all of us. We had mortals and immortals. They were ordered to populate the earth, so they did. They also possessed technology and magic unknown to us, especially cham (zoroaster). This lost magic so to speak is the basis of ancient freemasonry and the templars.

I am not saying it is completely impossible but the problem I have with these kind of theories is that they are extremely egocentric. They somehow suggest that we're somewhat special and the object of special attention by the gods. This again is all driven by the fear of immortality syndrome we seem to suffer from. It is the main reason why we are so disconnected from our environment and why we could never be happy and content.

We are not created for any grander purpose than the ants that are there or the flies that are hovering around us or the mosquitoes that are sucking our blood. If anything, I consider all other creatures a lot more content with what they are than we are. It is the main reason why the hybrid hypothesis of human origin rings so true. We're a bit off.

 

[plamski]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Red Bird
Date: 2020-05-26 14:12:21
Reaction Score: 1

I am not saying it is completely impossible but the problem I have with these kind of theories is that they are extremely egocentric. They somehow suggest that we're somewhat special and the object of special attention by the gods. This again is all driven by the fear of immortality syndrome we seem to suffer from. It is the main reason why we are so disconnected from our environment and why we could never be happy and content.

We are not created for any grander purpose than the ants that are there or the flies that are hovering around us or the mosquitoes that are sucking our blood. If anything, I consider all other creatures a lot more content with what they are than we are. It is the main reason why the hybrid hypothesis of human origin rings so true. We're a bit off.

Then why even write this?
Maybe you’re being programmed to believe you’re nothing more than an ant. In fact I’ve heard scientists etc. say this. How do you know insects are ’content’?

Also a skinned bear looks just like a human carcass. There are other similarities to pigs.
Don’t get me wrong I think there is most likely funny business with pigs, but being a lot like something doesn’t necessarily equate to same as. I think the Bible ‘kind’ groups Fits best.

 

[plamski]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: plamski
Date: 2020-05-26 14:19:37
Reaction Score: 5

How do you know insects are ’content’?

Barking is the indicator. Domesticated people and domesticated dogs bark most.

 

[feralimal]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Feralimal
Date: 2020-05-26 15:01:35
Reaction Score: 0

I am not saying it is completely impossible but the problem I have with these kind of theories is that they are extremely egocentric. They somehow suggest that we're somewhat special and the object of special attention by the gods. This again is all driven by the fear of immortality syndrome we seem to suffer from. It is the main reason why we are so disconnected from our environment and why we could never be happy and content.

We are not created for any grander purpose than the ants that are there or the flies that are hovering around us or the mosquitoes that are sucking our blood. If anything, I consider all other creatures a lot more content with what they are than we are. It is the main reason why the hybrid hypothesis of human origin rings so true. We're a bit off.

Blimey.

Are you making the atheist case for our cosmology, only you're ditching evolution for, well, not genetic manipulation even, but selective interspecies breeding? Surprising! Is that where you're coming from?

 

[plamski]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: plamski
Date: 2020-05-26 15:26:35
Reaction Score: 1

Are you making the atheist case for our cosmology, only you're ditching evolution for, well, not genetic manipulation even, but selective interspecies breeding? Surprising! Is that where you're coming from?

There are natural (or supernatural if you wish) forces out there, this is plain "to see". But thinking that the human species are somewhat more special or chosen over other species is nothing short of religious dogmatism superimposed today by modern cult of transhumanism. In fact, it's quite pathetic, in my opinion.

We humans are still to find our natural state. That's highly unusual, we're either very young species or something is off. I've explained myself in Part 2.

 

[plamski]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: tupperaware
Date: 2020-05-26 15:38:27
Reaction Score: 1

Right on, and this is frankly why the theory appeals to me. It's just nature at work, with time and a touch of luck of the draw added in. Sexual gratification is an incredible driving force and animals who don't have any cultural stigmas or moral reservations will attempt the "business" with virtually anything (I don't think I need a source for this, right?). Once physical compatibility and geographic availability are settled, that leaves the primary argument as being the general consensus of the inability for hybrids like this to exist and procreate and as you've noted, McCarthy, a subject matter expert is there ever was one, cites evidence that he lead him to believe hybrids with reproductive capability are more common than thought.

None of that makes him right, but it makes the argument pretty hard to outright dismiss. Again, it's possible too that some "intelligence" in the past utilized this process to try and design some new species, but it seems as though the natural mechanisms are in place so that taking that suppositional leap isn't necessary.

I also want to state that if humans are result of a natural hybridization process, it does not take away any of the wonderment or uniqueness of our existence, despite what my previous post may have implied. I think that our reality/consciousness itself is a divine miracle and how our physical form was ultimately created does not somehow lessen us or have to lead us back into strict materialism.

Think of what kind of simian organization would increase the chances of a successful simian/pig hybrid - naturally. Just like certain environments (mudpots) dramatically increase the chances for novel molecules to form, a hyper sexual bonobo chimp group might make it a lot more likely to work. The bonobo alpha male might think it more desirable to mate with the first generation hybrids for example just to keep the females more interested or the sexually mature juvenile males not getting much action all of a sudden via hybrid offspring are satiated. Same with Gorillas but not being hyper sexual just requires a few more thousands of years. This also suggests things can get out of hand with other species hybridizing. If species were intelligently designed and too much hybridization occurred - reset locally or globally.

There are natural (or supernatural if you wish) forces out there, this is plain "to see". But thinking that the human species are somewhat more special or chosen over other species is nothing short of religious dogmatism superimposed today by modern cult of transhumanism. In fact, it's quite pathetic, in my opinion.

We humans are still to find our natural state. That's highly unusual, we're either very young species or something is off. I've explained myself in Part 2.

I think our natural state is exploring and especially exploring other moons, asteroids and planets. No other species gets close to us in this regard as in light years distant. Getting off planet could have been the entire reason for any intelligent design on Earth.

 

[plamski]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Banta
Date: 2020-05-26 16:38:36
Reaction Score: 1

Then why even write this?
Maybe you’re being programmed to believe you’re nothing more than an ant.

I can't speak for plamski, but I do see some validity in what has been posted. For me, the larger point in all of this is we are all God's children. All of existence is Creation and each species is unique, with certain skills and roles. So, it's less about reducing humans to the level of an ant, but rather raising up all other life (and potentially things that aren't classically looked at as "living").

It's a very fine line. Evolution and other unproven "scientific" assertions do contain the subtext of "you're just a silly, stupid animal, do whatever you feel like" and try to reduce all of us to mere soulless meatbag objects. We may be more "complex", but that classification is largely meaningless in a grander sense, since it is simply a human convention. I would stop well short of asserting that if we are the result of hybridization that we are somehow "flawed" or not in our "natural state", but at the same time, I can see that being a source of our apparent disharmony. It does not mean we are some sort of mistake or separate from the rest of Creation, which is interestingly enough a line of thought that's defended by both creationists and evolutionists alike. It is simply life acting out God-given free-will, which is the basis of existence.

Reducing Man's ego by "elevating" the totality of Creation seems like a potentially positive development to me. If acknowledging that we may have come into existence by more humble means and our "value" and "lives" are no more important than anything else, perhaps it would lead to a better balance with the rest of Creation.

Again though, I can see the opposing opinion, that believing we're descended from pigs and chimps would lead into deeper into the delusion of random chance materialism, so it's definitely tricky to accurately parse and explain. Without an unwavering "faith" in a higher "power" of Creation or Unity as a foundation, many paths can lead one deeper into the follies of the flesh.

 

[feralimal]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Feralimal
Date: 2020-05-26 17:21:01
Reaction Score: 1

There are natural (or supernatural if you wish) forces out there, this is plain "to see". But thinking that the human species are somewhat more special or chosen over other species is nothing short of religious dogmatism superimposed today by modern cult of transhumanism. In fact, it's quite pathetic, in my opinion.

We humans are still to find our natural state. That's highly unusual, we're either very young species or something is off. I've explained myself in Part 2.

So, you think humans are equivalent to animals, nothing special? But what about complex use of language, complex tool use, etc? Would a clever monkey-pig do that, you think?

"religious dogmatism superimposed today by modern cult of transhumanism" - would you explain this a bit more, I don't think I get it...?

Reducing Man's ego by "elevating" the totality of Creation seems like a potentially positive development to me. If acknowledging that we may have come into existence by more humble means and our "value" and "lives" are no more important than anything else, perhaps it would lead to a better balance with the rest of Creation.

These are just hypotheses though, they're not necessarily true. When you start talking about the utility of a potential story in that it helps 'reduce man's ego', you're doing something else. It's becoming a foundation for your belief system. It may be a good foundation, I don't know... Integrating a half-arsed one into your thinking would be a bad idea, IMO. But then again, why not try it out for a bit then discard it if you find it wanting. Personally, I try to base my thinking on provable, verifiable info, but each to their own.

 

[plamski]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Banta
Date: 2020-05-26 18:34:40
Reaction Score: 1

These are just hypotheses though, they're not necessarily true. When you start talking about the utility of a potential story in that it helps 'reduce man's ego', you're doing something else. It's becoming a foundation for your belief system. It may be a good foundation, I don't know... Integrating a half-arsed one into your thinking would be a bad idea, IMO. But then again, why not try it out for a bit then discard it if you find it wanting. Personally, I try to base my thinking on provable, verifiable info, but each to their own.

Sure, it's why I said it's a very fine line to walk. I personally don't think there's much in this reality that is 100% verifiable anyway, especially when dealing with the past, so I do like trying out different ideas.

I was mostly trying to explain that believing in the hybrid theory does not necessarily mean that one has to be a strict materialist or take on the baggage that comes with a mainstream evolutionary belief structure. Not that I'm trying to build a foundation of a belief structure (or "integrate" anything into myself, sounds uncomfortable), I mostly think that's very self-limiting and a bit of a fool's errand. I value fluidity.

Additionally, I think a lot of the negative issues in this world come from violating the free will of other life. Perhaps ego is not the best word, but when humanity considers itself superior to the rest of Creation, for whatever reason, it leads to thinking we know "best" and then attempts to impose our will on others. This is a slippery slope and mostly delusional, in my opinion. And only my opinion, I might be totally wrong!

 

[Whitewave]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: whitewave
Date: 2020-05-26 19:41:07
Reaction Score: 5

If such a thing were possible or even probable I would expect to see more of such "natural" behavior. Why not shark/alligator/eel hybrids?

Why not turtle, skink, snake hybrids?
Where are all the promiscuous, non-discriminating skunk, raccoon, possum hybrids? You'd think if interbreeding were a natural occurrance between species, we'd see evidence of it all over the place. Animals aren't that picky it seems.

 

[plamski]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: plamski
Date: 2020-05-26 20:01:32
Reaction Score: 1

The idea of transhumanism with its ultimate goal is to eliminate the body is a weird hybrid of both deism and the atheism. The former promotes the idea that the flesh ought to suffer to purify itself (beautifully illustrated in The Doctrine of Suffering) and we should only keep "the divine consciousness" as it's what is divine. The latter considers life as an eternal struggle (natural selection) with no goal and meaning so we might as well get rid of the vessel and further evolve/morph into another reality.

The problem is that with the instrument we have in use, our thinking, we can not grasp life AT ALL. It was not intended for such purposes. Don't tell me that animals do not think - they do think and they talk too. But in man it has become a very complex structure, and the problem is how to free ourselves from this structure and use it only as an instrument to function in this world -- it has no other use at all -- it has only a contingent value, to communicate something, to function in the workaday world -- "Where is the railway station? Where can I get tomatoes? Where is the market?" - that's all. Not philosophical concepts - that has no meaning at all. Wanting anything other than the basic needs - food, clothing and shelter - that is where your self-deception begins, and there is no end to our self-deception there. So all this thinking has no meaning at all - it just wears us out.