I thought this was funny. Even if it is true I suspect even proponents of evolution will find it hard to swallow due to the emotional factor.

A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans?

Funny thing, I read a short sci-fi story on exactly this premise over 20 years ago.

 

No more ridiculous than us descending directly from Chimps, in my opinion

...But that's a topic reserved for a different forum.

 

No more ridiculous than us descending directly from Chimps, in my opinion

Whoever said we did?

 

Whoever said we did?

Perhaps that was a poor choice of words on my part. I was referring to the theory of Evolution.

 

Seems legit.

 

Seems legit.

Sad part is I've seen enough of that show to get the joke.

 

Seems legit.

Adding all those halves you have in fact 1.5 of something! It couldn't work.

 

Adding all those halves you have in fact 1.5 of something! It couldn't work.

It makes up for it in its size. It's half again as tall as a regular human

 

Seems legit.

Hey, that's the guy that used beat up on me in Jr. high! Only they left out a part. According to him he was twice the man any of the rest of us was, so I guess he was half idiot too.

 

Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence

 

The Pig-Man exists!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42zKhHgWb9s

 

The moderators had a discussion about the topic, since it was postponed for a long time to the point that it caused some misunderstandings with members.

This is the outcome:
Any scientific theories regarding the origins of the human species are welcome to be discussed in AAC, in the General Science subforum. AAC is a site that promotes science and all of its expressions, even though we are mostly focused in electronics.
As long as a theory has scientific basis, is well founded and comes with references, it is has its place in this subforum.

On the other hand, any explanation on the origins of man given by religions constitutes a religious topic and thus isn't allowed to be discussed in AAC. We do not want to offend anyone for his religious beliefs nor make a fool out of him for thinking different.

However, we cannot hold back our support for science, when it seemingly contradicts religion. These are two different things and should not be put in the same place. We deal with the first, we leave the latter up to you to judge.

Understand the separating line and do not cross it.

 

However, we cannot hold back our support for science, when it seemingly contradicts religion. These are two different things and should not be put in the same place. We deal with the first, we leave the latter up to you to judge.

Sometimes science is opposed to the current religious belief. The Catholic Church believed that the world was flat. Galileo had a different idea.

 

Yes, we all understand that. This is why I clarified that we will discuss all scientific opinions (not cons or naive approaches) but we will not allow for religious opinions to be expressed here. There are other places for than, AAC is not one of them.

We will not have debates of science vs. religion.

 

As long as we are talking science again...

No more ridiculous than us descending directly from Chimps, in my opinion

Evolutionary theory doesn't hold that humans descended from chimps. That's a common misconception. Champanzis are the closest relative to humans and have a recent common ancistery. Current theory holds that the common ancistor would be similar to the meercat.

 

Right now, as I understand it, the big debate is whether two very dissimilar species can produce viable off spring. To the best of my knowledge this has not happened, though a liger comes to mind. Since tigers and lions are both felines I tend to not count them.

It is a bit of a reach to have two species mate and produce fertile offspring, but just because we (humans) have never seen it does not mean it can not happen. Just for the record, I believe this story to be funny but not all that likely.

It is important to note though, most new theories are thoroughly rejected by mainstream science when first proposed. Plate tectonics comes to mind here. It is almost a truism you have to wait for the old guard to die off and the new guard of scientists to take over for a radical theory to gain traction.

 

As long as we are talking science again...



Evolutionary theory doesn't hold that humans descended from chimps. That's a common misconception. Champanzis are the closest relative to humans and have a recent common ancistery. Current theory holds that the common ancistor would be similar to the meercat.

Very interesting, I had never heard that. Do you have links or articles about it? I'd be interested to read them!

 

You might start with "The Origin Of Species" by Darwin.

Seriously though, there are lots of articles and papers available. I also recommend "Evolution" from the Discovery Channel. The series might be available at your local library, or from Netfilx.

 

Right now, as I understand it, the big debate is whether two very dissimilar species can produce viable off spring.

I didn't realize that's a big debate. Mainline thinking is that evolution is a slow process, and comes from small changes in organisms that gives the organism some advantage for survival and reproduction.

I saw something lately that some specie cross breeding produces fertile offspring, contrary to what I understood. I don't really think this will become a major part of evolutionary thinking however. If there is a pig-man, that doesn't necessarily mean a pig-ish and man-ish species were bred. Actually, man and pig are very similar in many ways. If we trace back our evolutionary family tree, we'll probably find some commonality.

 

Maybe the DNA should be considered, where we share 99% of our DNA with Chimps and Bonobos!.
A good one from Neil Tyson, you have to wait for 8min in.
http://www.wimp.com/disturbingthought/
Max.