Indeed. McCarthy's cockamamie idea has been dubbed the MFAP hypothesis. And if ever a hypothesis was in need of experimental evidence, his is.
Our parents? |
Posted on 11/30/2013 3:12:24 AM PST by Eurotwit
The human species began as the hybrid offspring of a male pig and a female chimpanzee, a leading geneticist has suggested. The startling claim has been made by Eugene McCarthy, of the University of Georgia, who is also one of the worlds 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I can only tell you what a hypothesis is to a working scientist. It is an educated guess, a logical (but not necessarily correct) extension of what is known on the subject and is consistent with known physical laws. In the scientific world, it is a precursor to more research—in fact, one cannot conduct research without formulating a hypothesis to guide the research.
What this guy did doesn’t reach the level of “hypothesis.” He has made a claim that is not based on any knowledge of evolution and which is physically impossible. I can only guess at his motives—maybe he wasn’t a very good scientist after all, and found out that he could earn money by writing books about outrageous claims? Whatever. Wild speculation is not science.
Indeed. McCarthy's cockamamie idea has been dubbed the MFAP hypothesis. And if ever a hypothesis was in need of experimental evidence, his is.
Our parents? |
That was a fascinating read at the link. The blog author describes the chromosomal issues quite nicely.
LOL, good question!
In today's Orwellian world, the recipients would probably be considered potential ham and bacon donors, depending on political affiliation of course. Under the Obamacare Soylent Green clause, page 1765, Subsection A.
“What this guy did doesn’t reach the level of “hypothesis.” “
BS. Observation is a perfectly legitimate basis for a hypothesis, and in fact was the primary (because it had to be) means of developing a hypothesis through the ages.
What you seem to be suggesting is that he should have the conclusion and the process for achieving that conclusion already in mind before a hypothesis can be developed.
Much research conducted today essentially has the per-ordained conclusion that “We need more government research grant money”.
There is nothing wrong with an observational hypothesis, and you know it.
Fred Nerks quoting imam/mullah: "and they are indeed descendants of apes and pigs,"
Bingo! That has to be the answer to this crude joke: it's not in any way-shape-or-form genuine science, rather, it's politics.
The good professor is obviously angling for a large research grant from our current islamophilic government.
After all, what could possibly be more worthy of "scientific" investigation, and contribute more to "world peace", than by scientifically "proving" all those mullahs & imams are not stark-raving lunatics?
Of course the mullahs would not consider themselves to be so descended, since their book teaches otherwise...
So, once we show them they were scientifically correct all along about that "monkey/pig" thing, they'll start to love us, right?
</sarc>
A hypothesis must also be plausible, and what this guy came up with is not plausible. There is no known data set that would suggest humans and pigs have recent ancestry, and the actual data sets suggest that the last common ancestor was about 80 million years ago. Therefore, the guy's speculation is based in no fact, and is not a hypothesis.
What you seem to be suggesting is that he should have the conclusion and the process for achieving that conclusion already in mind before a hypothesis can be developed.
Actually, yes. Part of hypothesis formulation *is* figuring out what test(s) will validate or refute the hypothesis. One must also know what results the tests will return if the hypothesis is valid, or if it is invalid (i.e., if the null hypothesis is true). If someone comes up with an idea that cannot be tested, it is not a hypothesis.
Let me give an example. Back in undergraduate school, we did some mouse experiments. We had some known facts--mice have a self-preservation instinct and most animals avoid falling. We hypothesized that mice placed on top of a box would avoid the edge (with the null hypothesis being that they would not avoid the edge). We tested this by placing a mouse on top of a box with a grid on it, and recording the position of the mouse every 15 seconds. For the control, we turned the box over and put the mouse inside the box and recorded its grid position every 15 seconds. With ten pairs of students in the class, we had a sample set of ten mice. We did indeed find that the mice on top of the box spent more time in the center grid squares than when they were inside the box, and all ten mice behaved this way. Hypothesis validated; null hypothesis rejected.
“A hypothesis must also be plausible, and what this guy came up with is not plausible”
Again, you are encouraging herd behavior in scientific inquiry by setting a subjective “plausiblility” criterion.
Observing that there are biological characteristics in humans that are not found in chimpanzees or pigs, but are largely covered, biologically speaking by both is not an invalid observation. There is nothing wrong with this hypothesis.
“Actually, yes. Part of hypothesis formulation *is* figuring out what test(s) will validate or refute the hypothesis.” It is not a requirement for a “valid” hypothesis to have already developed research methods, tools and tests.
The actual research on a posited hypothesis is dependent on the methods of observing and testing the hypothesis, but just because the means for testing a specific hypothesis do not yet exist does not mean the hypothesis is invalid, for example.
Again, you know this to be true, I’m perplexed that you are even arguing this point. The fact is, that there are means for testing this guys hypothesis. It no doubt can and will be done eventually. Yes, biologically speaking, there is a very high hurdle to prove “hybridization” but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
For reasons that are all too clear on this thread, there are social, religious, even political reasons for NOT engaging in this research - and it may be a waste of money and research resources in the end if somebody does do it - but THAT in and of itself does not make it an “invalid hypothesis”
I don’t think that’s it. I think he *may* not have too much on the ball.
[snip] Note: It has often been suggested that Homo habilis was the immediate ancestor of H. erectus. However, a recent research (Spoor et al. 2007) indicates the two coexisted for at least half a million years. [/snip]
http://www.macroevolution.net/homo-erectus.html#.UptdBsRDtXY
Co-existence isn’t really diagnostic of that.
Thanks again Fred Nerks for the link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3096779/posts?page=153#153
Gives credence to the pig-man theorem.
I doubt that a pig chased the chimp. It was probably the chimp chased the female pig. Note: on Borneo or somewhere near there the cannibals call humans “long pig”.
My mother had a pig valve replacement of her mitral valve at 78. By age 88 it was failing and she died at 89 of congestive heart failure. These valves often fail after about 10 years, but she was too frail for another surgery.
Mine just made her 85th year, and is talking funeral arrangements. *sigh*
Spanked!!!
What a kook.
Um... requiring that people have a plan before they enter the lab is now "herd behavior"? That's a new one on me.
The fact that a hypothesis must be plausible is not subjective. Is the hypothesis consistent with physical law? Is it consistent with the existing knowledge on the subject? If the answer to these objective questions is yes, then the hypothesis is plausible.
Observing that there are biological characteristics in humans that are not found in chimpanzees or pigs, but are largely covered, biologically speaking by both is not an invalid observation. There is nothing wrong with this hypothesis.
Those are only observations, and hypothesis formulation cannot proceed without delving into the why of the observed characteristics. Many superficial similarities exist in nature, but do not really signify anything at all.
The actual research on a posited hypothesis is dependent on the methods of observing and testing the hypothesis, but just because the means for testing a specific hypothesis do not yet exist does not mean the hypothesis is invalid, for example.
I never said that inadequate technology invalidates a hypothesis. I said that part of hypothesis formulation is the determination of how to test the hypothesis. Scientists are usually pretty clever about using existing technology to test a hypothesis, but they are also clever about developing new technology for that purpose. In a way, every scientist is an inventor--there are journals dedicated to nothing but new technology for the lab.
Now, in the case of this guy with the ridiculous claim that chimps and pigs interbred to create humans--it is not technology, or lack of it, that causes his claim to fail at being a hypothesis. It is the fact that it is chemically, biologically, and physically impossible for animals separated by tens of millions of years of evolution to interbreed that makes the claim bogus. Actually testing the claim would be pretty easy, if anyone wanted to do it. Put a chimp and pig together in a pen--do they breed? Artificially inseminate one species with the other species' sperm--does pregnancy result?
Again, you know this to be true, I’m perplexed that you are even arguing this point. The fact is, that there are means for testing this guys hypothesis. It no doubt can and will be done eventually. Yes, biologically speaking, there is a very high hurdle to prove “hybridization” but that doesn't mean it’s impossible.
Please don't make assumptions about what I know and don't know. I spent many years in graduate school, followed by many more years as a working scientist; I know an awful lot, but that does not necessarily mean I "know" whatever misconceptions about science may be floating around out there.
As I already pointed out, it is not difficult and takes no advanced technology to show that this guy is full of something. I doubt anyone would bother, because the claim violates the laws of physics and is, therefore, in no need of testing. Besides, we have better things to do... like working on new antibiotics, cures for cancer, viable biofuels, etc.
“Um... requiring that people have a plan before they enter the lab is now “herd behavior”? That’s a new one on me.”
Ah, I see the problem now, you jump to conclusions without the data to support it.
A plan is different from a hypothesis, unless you have pre-ordained conclusions in mind, which seems to be a recurrent theme with you.
“The fact that a hypothesis must be plausible is not subjective.”
Your conclusion that this guys valid observational hypothesis is not valid is absolutely based on subjective criteria. If you are saying that a hypothesis must not violate “existing knowledge” on the subject and you are not capable of seeing the fault (and humor) with that there is nothing more that can be accomplished with our little debate here.
“Many superficial similarities exist in nature, but do not really signify anything at all. “
Scientific inquiry requires you to question what may seem to you to “not really signify anything at all”. I’m frankly astounded by your attitude here.
“I never said that inadequate technology invalidates a hypothesis” Fair enough, you didn’t say this, and I don’t disagree with this paragraph at all.
“with the ridiculous claim that chimps and pigs interbred to create human”
AGAIN! you misunderstand the difference between “claim” and “hypothesis”. He does not claim anything here - deliberately advances it as a “hypothesis” not as a “claim”.
“the claim violates the laws of physics” It is a hypothesis, I’m quite sure he doesn’t delve into the mechanics of how it may have occured.
“I spent many years in graduate school, followed by many more years as a working scientist”
You must be a government researcher. No, you HAVE to be...
“Besides, we have better things to do”
Spoken like a true bureaucrat dictating what is “good” and what is “bad”
“viable biofuels” Good lord. And you complain about someone investigating a monkey screwing a pig?
Now’s the time for a picture of Bill and Hillary.
A plan is different from a hypothesis, unless you have pre-ordained conclusions in mind, which seems to be a recurrent theme with you.
I think you do not understand the scientific process.
Let me first explain that, in order to formulate a hypothesis, you must also formulate a null hypothesis. Then you must devise a plan of action to test the hypothesis and the null hypothesis. You must predict what the result of the test will be if the hypothesis is true, or if the null hypothesis is true. But knowing what to expect in each case is *not* the same as having a "pre-ordained conclusion." If you try to do the experiments without knowing the results to expect in each case, then you have no way of interpreting the results you do get, nor can you know that you did the right kind of experiment to test the hypothesis.
You cannot possibly have a plan without having a working hypothesis, any more than you can have a plan to build without knowing what it is you want to build.
Your conclusion that this guys valid observational hypothesis is not valid is absolutely based on subjective criteria. If you are saying that a hypothesis must not violate “existing knowledge” on the subject and you are not capable of seeing the fault (and humor) with that there is nothing more that can be accomplished with our little debate here.
Oh, please. This guy did *not* make a valid observational hypothesis, as I and several others have pointed out. It looks more like he came up with a ridiculous idea and then came up with "evidence" to support it. His "evidence" is right about at the level "Eggs are round. Birds come out of eggs. Ping pong balls are round. Therefore, birds can come out of ping pong balls."
What I said is that a hypothesis must be consistent with the existing body of knowledge. All science is based in physics, and the laws of physics are absolutely invariable. When someone comes along (like this guy) and makes a claim that violates the laws of physics, it is pretty safe to dismiss him as a kook.
What I find amusing is that you are actually trying to convince me that monkeys mating with pigs and producing not just offspring, but fertile offspring, is a completely believable premise. Why in the world would you believe such a thing?
AGAIN! you misunderstand the difference between “claim” and “hypothesis”. He does not claim anything here - deliberately advances it as a “hypothesis” not as a “claim”.
As I have already pointed out multiple times, a hypothesis must be plausible in that it cannot violate the fundamental laws of physics and must be consistent with the body of knowledge already existing on the subject. Do you seriously believe that pigs and monkeys mating to produce viable, fertile offspring is possible? This guy did not make a hypothesis. He made an utterly ludicrous claim. The fact that he claims to be a geneticist doesn't make what he says science. It isn't even good science fiction.
You must be a government researcher. No, you HAVE to be...
Spoken like a true bureaucrat dictating what is “good” and what is “bad”
Most scientists get their funding from government, which means from taxpayers. As a taxpayer, do you seriously want your tax money going to research every single bogus claim made by every kook trying to get money without earning it honestly? Conversely, if you are really convinced that monkey/pig hybrids are actually plausible, and that this guy has a valid hypothesis, how much of your own money are you willing to dedicate to scientifically research this claim? (I can guarantee no grant committee is going anywhere near this one.)
BTW, viable biofuels are very plausible. All you need are microorganisms that produce a high percentage of their weight as long-chain carbons, preferably through photosynthesis, and an economical way to harvest those long-chain carbons. Depending on the exact composition of the long-chain carbons, their combustion characteristics would probably be different than gasoline or diesel, which would necessitate re-engineering car engines... but biofuels are do-able. Please note how this hypothesis is completely plausible, breaks no laws of physics, and is consistent with scientific knowledge--unlike monkey-pig claims...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.