MAN CAME FROM A PIG

The man came from a monkey (and pig too)!
No, it was not a time for a pig and another that crossed a chimpanzee and a human was born. We're talking about a long process and strong evidence presented to us by the geneticist Eugene McCarthy. In those days, having a PhD is probably the last thing you want to do if you have the goal of revolutionizing the world. If, however, you want to propose an idea, rather than a technology, the title might serve for you. Served for Eugene McCarthy, whose career has focused on studying the hybridization (or "hybridization") in animals. He now cares for an information website about biology called Macroevolution.net where accumulated an impressive range of evidence suggesting that the origins of man can be [better] explained by hybridization between pigs and chimpanzees.

Extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence, and McCarthy does not disappoint. Instead of relying on comparisons of genetic sequences, it offers extensive anatomical comparisons, each of which allows it to be confronted individually but are surprising when considering the set.

You may wonder: Why did not anyone come to that conclusion before? McCarthy suggests that it is because of excessive reliance on genetic data among biologists. He argues that human beings are probably the result of several generations of backcrossing with chimpanzees. This makes comparisons nucleotide sequence data chewing effectively no contribution of the pig.

In general, hybrids between species, such as mules, ligers (cross between lion and tiger) or zebroides (some sort of zebra and horse), are less fertile than parents who produced them. However, as McCarthy has documented on his years of research on this subject, many hybrids can interbreed and reproduce among themselves. "The mule is a hybrid unusually barren, but does not represent the hybrids as a whole," he says. Ligers females, for example, in backcross progeny can produce both as lions with tigers.

McCarthy also points out that fertility can be increased through successive backcrossing with a parent, a common technique used by breeders. In the case of hybridization chimpanzee, pig, playback would probably have occurred between a male boar (Sus scrofa) with a female chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the chicks had been fed by a mother chimpanzee chimpanzee between themselves. Physical evidence for this is compelling, as you can discover for yourself on the website of the scientist.

Strange as this hypothesis may seem at first glance, it has a basis of a list of anatomical specializations too extensive to be just coincidence. The similarities in the face, the skin and organs of the microstructure is difficult to explain. Other features occasionally observed in humans as bicornuate uteri and supernumerary nipples also be difficult to have been incorporated by humans as a primate purely tree.

Asked when this would have occurred hybridization, McCarthy presented two possibilities. The first is that the hybridization between pigs and monkeys have produced the first hominids millions of years ago [according to evolutionary chronology, of course] and the subsequent mating within that group of hybrids has resulted in several types of hominids and modern humans.

Another possibility raised is that crosses between pigs and monkeys have produced distinct hominids - and there is still a possibility even more frightening that this hybridisation can still occur today in regions where these species remain in contact, as in South Sudan .

This latter possibility may not seem so absurd after reading the fascinating details that suggest that the origin of the gorilla can be [better] explained by hybridization with the giant forest hog, wild swine largest in the world. This pig is found in the same habitat of the gorilla and shares many habits and various unusual physical characteristics. Moreover, the hybridization can be the explanation for fertility problems and other physiological peculiarities of the gorillas.

(Hypescience)

Note: So, convinced? So we need to rewrite the maximum repeated ad nauseam over the years (even taking into account that the evolutionary question): "The man came from a monkey." Correction: "The man came from a monkey and pig." Pointing the anatomical similarities (which obviously reflected in the genome) between different species as evidence of evolution would be like saying that motorcycles and airplanes have originated from common ancestors because they both have wheels. What would prevent the Creator have used functional features in different species, but also depend on these resources? As there are no similarities between living beings that breathe the same air, feed primarily from the same sources and who need to move and reproduce? That would be evidence of ancestry or would be signing the Designer? I know one thing: increasingly evolutionists are animalizando humans and trying to obscure its noble origin. [MB]