Originally Posted by Darkpriest667
This is what gets me... I mean I don't discount it as plausible but what happens to that "law of conservation of mass-energy" thing if this is true?
This is totally true and two of the biggest examples are E.O. Wilson--description of why below.Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I posted a video 2 days ago (on Friday) called "Lord of the Ants" It was about E.O. Wilson an entomologist who's study of Ants lead him to some provocative discoveries. Wilson, is responsible for over half of the ant species discovered. He is unquestionably the authority on Ants. When one says "He wrote the book on Ants" he literally did WRITE THE BOOK ON ANTS.
While that is very interesting and nerdy and I love to learn these things there are some things that E.O. Wilson has done that are far greater in the impact on humanity he will have. The first was a controversial topic that he coined: Sociobiology. I'll steal from the wiki here about what it says. "Sociobiology is defined as the scientific or systematic study of the biological basis of all forms of social behavior, in all kinds of organisms including man, and incorporating knowledge from ethology, ecology, and genetics, in order to derive general principles concerning the biological properties of entire societies."
Now that sentence is pretty telling. Before 1975, the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY (I am emphasizing it for a reason which will be revealed later) pretty much by complete consensus that all social behavior was learned culturally. It was so hated by some scientists that he was accused of racism, misogyny, and eugenics. Anyone that has ever even read the man's work would know better than that. Ironically, now Sociobiology is not only an accepted theory in the scientific community it has been integrated into the evolutionary biology curriculum.
And more recently Dr. Eugene Mccarthy who has his PhD in Genetics and his life work was literally: The origin of the species (meaning our own)
You want to talk about an interesting paper that his life's work sums up well here is a linkhttp://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html#at_pco=cfd-1.0&at_ord=0
I'll tell you what. After reading his paper and theories I have to say.. I am starting to doubt the direct descent "theory" from chimps myself. Everything he explains is genetically and biologically sound. It will throw you for a loop.
Its a good read but lets straiten one thing out first. The current leading theory does not say that we are descended from chimps. It says chimps and humans had a common ancestor. Big difference.
To put it in gamer terms
The common ancestor is the Quake engine
Humans are iD tech 5 engine
Chimps are the Source engine
What this paper suggest (if I'm reading it correctly) is that the human fork is much younger and a result hybridization (cross between to different species kinda like a Liger)
But then the question arises: If an ancient cross between the chimpanzee and some parental form "X" produced the first humans, then what was that parent? Does it still exist? What was it like?
One of the stumbling blocks for this hypothesis is the other parent. The article you posted suggest it could be the Pig
Looking at a subset of the listed traits, however, it's clear that the other parent in this hypothetical cross that produced the first human would be an intelligent animal with a protrusive, cartilaginous nose, a thick layer of subcutaneous fat, short digits, and a naked skin. It would be terrestrial, not arboreal, and adaptable to a wide range of foods and environments. These traits may bring a particular creature to mind. In fact, a particular nonprimate does have, not only each of the few traits just mentioned, but every one of the many traits listed in th sidebar. Ask yourself: Is it likely that an animal unrelated to humans would possess so many of the "human" characteristics that distinguish us from primates? That is, could it be a mere coincidence? It's only my opinion, but I don't think so.
What is this other animal that has all these traits? The answer is Sus scrofa, the ordinary pig.
Now I'm no geneticist or anything but I don't see a chimp and a Pig producing offspring nor do I know of any pre-chimp pre-pig comb that really fit the bill (again I'm not a geneticist). Granted there could have been some other yet unknown species that was more compatible with chimps but really that's all speculation with little merit.
The article does not either specify where along the line of evolution this hybridization would have taken place. Surely it would have had to happen before Homo erectus as the neanderthals shared so much of our human traits.
Really if you want to look for possible sources of hybridization traits the I for one would turn my eyes to the neanderthal. Indeed there have been several scientists that have suggested the neanderthals and humans might have been bumping uglies. The question being would that have produced offspring and backcross breeding.
Whatever the case may be I find it far more likely (and believable) that the modern human did evolve along the lines that mainstream sciences suggest and that if we indeed are a hybrid then or "parents" where two ape species and not a chimp + pig(or some other animal).Edited by Bit_reaper - 8/20/13 at 9:37am