http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html
It's not aliens, it's pigs. In the case of chimp <http://phys.org/tags/chimp/> - pig hybridization, the "direction of the cross" would likely have been a male boar or pig (Sus scrofa) with a female chimp (Pan troglodytes), and the offspring would have been nurtured by a chimp mother among chimpanzees <http://phys.org/tags/chimpanzees/> (shades of Tarzan!). The physical evidence for this is convincing, as you can discover for yourself with a trip over to macroevolution.net <http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html#.UdQn3Zz5T1U>. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:40 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Nigel, > > Thanks for your erudite and interesting answers. However I don't think > you really answered the question I was interested in because you are so > saturated with the current paradigm. I sense from your answer that you are > happy with the idea that given an *actually* simple (in comparison to later > more complex) self-replicating life form, random mutations and selection is > sufficient to generate all life as we know it. I don't wish to argue > against that view, even though for myself I find it impossible to believe. > > If you could momentarily put aside the current paradigm and consider the > possibility that we have been visited by aliens who although evolving > completely independently on another planet have, incredibly as it may seem, > ended up with compatible DNA to our own - so that a case of hybrid sexual > intercourse such as Antonio Vilas Boas > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B4nio_Vilas_Boas> case could occur. > The implications to evolution of this type of case being true are I think > quite revolutionary. It means for instance that the final human DNA > outcome from the whole evolution process must be completely determined from > the very beginning!!! > > I really don't want to hear arguments about how this is impossible and the > Vilas Boas case must be fake - I appreciate them fully. What I would like > is if you could withhold disbelief sufficiently to consider whether there > you can see an argument from within your field of evolutionary genetics? > For instance, is it possible that there is sufficient information > programmed into the simplest life forms (or at least the ones that unfolded > into the forms of life that finally resulted in us) to at least allow, if > not ensure, that the final result would be human? > > Also I wonder what is the current guess at the first (and ongoingly > successful) animal to emerge from the sea? I saw some large carnivore > types that were proposed - but how would they live on land without other > animals to eat? And if they had to go back into the sea to eat (which is > their main daily and lifelong task) why not simply stay there. I think it > would need to be an animal that could live well on land plants and/or > insects (which I believe long preceded the vertebrates). > > John > > > On 27/08/2014 6:49 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote: > > To my mind there are two separate evolution question problems that need > to be addressed. The first, which you pick up on, is the evolution of > the complex folding proteins, and the second is the evolution of the > information that is used to define the complex structure of multi celled > organisms (such as us). There are countless examples which show how > duplication of whole or parts of genes genes, mutation of parts of genes > can create complex proteins from simple proteins. Indeed the > relationship between equivalent proteins in different organsisms can > often be used to produce a 'family tree' or phylogentic tree which > closely mirrors the accepted evolutionary relationship between the > species, and shows how a simple ancestral protein gave rise to lots of > complex variants in different plants/animals. > > The evolution of structure/form and instincts which is what Darwin talks > about, because he knows nothing of proteins, is very different because > we still understand very little about how this is encoded into the DNA, > although there is absolute evidence that it is. This is increasingly > looking to be encoded in the 'junk' DNA in a much more distributed and > robust way (like a hologram). These can change and mutate and give rise > to variations in the organism without being lethal. A lot of the > statistics that creationists use to show that evolution is improbable is > based on the sequences in genes that encode for proteins, where small > changes are frequently lethal. The statistics for the rest of the DNA > is completely different, and I beleive completely compatible with the > evolutionary model. > > So, I see no need for additional injection or meddling in order that DNA > could go from producing simple lifeforms to complex lifeforms, but I > dont think this can be proved mathematically yet because we dont > understand the 'junk DNA' coding rules yet. However, my hunch is that > we are in for a big surprise when we finally work out what the coding > rules are, but that is a different topic entirely. > > And the first animal to emerge from the sea was not a frog, but probably > shared some aspects of the way that it breathed with frogs. > > >
