Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans?

m.phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 89 posts

Re: A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans?

#61

Post by bobbydavid »

nitrogen wrote: post #51
hetman wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said crackpots are guaranteed to be visionaries, though I'm sure it made a convenient strawman for you to argue against. My only point was that you can't be certain either way a priori, to be sure you must actually investigate it (and history tells us even then that's not always going to guarantee certainty).

The depth of investigation should be proportional to the probability of correctness, weighted by the cost of being wrong. Crackpots are called such because the probability of correctness is very low. Given all the evidence, I consider the MFAP origin hypothesis to be significantly less likely than the primate evolution theory. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

to play devil's advocate: consider the extreme absurdity of einstein's theory of relativity, the theory that time may speed up or slow down depending on your velocity.

Re: A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans?

#62

Post by lesslaw »

gus_massa wrote: post #15
Geee wrote: post #11

Extremely interesting. I suggest you to read the article at http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html The author seems to be a well-established scientist, and the arguments are quite plausible, given that this level of hybridization actually could be possible. What I find amazing (based on the article) is that hybridization hasn't really been researched very well, and that hybrids aren't actually infertile, on…

Many hybrids are infertile. There are some documented cases of fertile hybrids in very related animals and very related plants (plants are weird!). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_(biology)#Hybrid_species But and hybrid between a chimp and a pig: simply no way! Even creating a live pig-chimp hybrid is probably almost impossible, a fertile pig-chimp hybrid would be a miracle.

You say "no way" as though you are an authority on the subject to a hypothesis put forward by a man who is an authority on the subject.

Re: A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans?

#65

Post by c3d »

thelibrarian wrote: post #6

There's at least one fairly well-know biology professor/blogger who is unimpressed with what he dubs the "MFAP" hypothesis: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/07/02/the-mfap-h...

Call me unimpressed by the "proof by eminent authority", in particular when said authority offers only a "proof by public ridicule".

Re: A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans?

#66

Post by klipt »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #12
gojomo wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vindication? The broad (though not universal) taboo against eating primate meat has some basis in the higher risk of shared/cross-species diseases, due to a closer genetic relationship. If there's a little pig in us, that'd argue for stronger taboos against eating pork... exactly as in Judaism and Islam.

Yes - I think many religious taboos have their basis in sensible food hygiene and incest avoidance. But that's not how it's pitched; often the claim is that "pigs are unclean". Which is why it'd be funny.

Dead human bodies are considered unclean too. That's not a value judgment about live humans.

Re: A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans?

#68

Post by giergirey »

nitrogen wrote: post #36
hetman wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What often distinguishes the crackpot from the visionary is whether they are eventually vindicated. The latter usually begins their career being perceived as the former.

This is a tautology. Of course visionaries are the ones who were vindicated. That doesn't mean that being perceived as a crackpot is a reliable indicator of being a visionary. It's similar to the argument that opposition equals confirmation -- some religious groups and conspiracy theorists argue that the fact that people oppose them means they are right.

I rather like this quote attributed to Carl Sagan:

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Re: A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans?

#69

Post by floobynewb »

gojomo wrote: post #4
duncan_bayne wrote: post #2

My gut feel is that this is bat-shit crazy, but wouldn't it be amusing to see the response from the Jewish and Islamic world should it turn out that humans are pig hybrids? ;)

Vindication? The broad (though not universal) taboo against eating primate meat has some basis in the higher risk of shared/cross-species diseases, due to a closer genetic relationship. If there's a little pig in us, that'd argue for stronger taboos against eating pork... exactly as in Judaism and Islam.

@gojomo, this is what I had thought the original poster meant. Shame it was a better, nicer joke that way around.

Re: A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans?

#70

Post by James_Duval »

bobbydavid wrote: post #59
nitrogen wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The depth of investigation should be proportional to the probability of correctness, weighted by the cost of being wrong. Crackpots are called such because the probability of correctness is very low. Given all the evidence, I consider the MFAP origin hypothesis to be significantly less likely than the primate evolution theory. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

to play devil's advocate: consider the extreme absurdity of einstein's theory of relativity, the theory that time may speed up or slow down depending on your velocity.

But who called Einstein a crackpot at the time?

He had a lot of weight behind his claims.

Post reply on HN