Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 05:37:01 UTC No. 16480230

>>16480216
>where they are breeding a cow with a horse to create a so-called {\it jumart}. These Jumarts were once common in Switzerland and the south of France.

Jumarts weren't real, OP, they're a make-believe animal like a Jackalope.
Horses and Cattle can't hybridize - they're completely different animals.

>Are humans a hybrid species?

We are insofar that modern humans are the hybridized byproduct of consecutive migrations of pre-humans out of Africa that subsumed and absorbed other all other hominid species into a single one through replacement interbreeding migration. See pic related for a more clear visual: other hominid species forming 'rivers' that drain their genetic contributions into a large cosmopolitan population of modern human populations.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 06:29:58 UTC No. 16480272

>>16480230
>Horses and Cattle can't hybridize - they're completely different animals.
That is a plausible hypothesis, but it requires proof. On the other side, we have plenty of witness accounts—including one by John Locke himself—saying that [math]\it jumarts[/math] were once a common sight in the French Alps and modern day Turkey. But they fell out of fashion, and since apparently a bull does not naturally couple with a mare, that’s why you don’t see any jumarts around today.

But this could be settled with a series of experiments.

Pic vaguely related, it’s a suspected cat-rabbit hybrid that was discovered in Mexico. Apparently, its favorite foods are vegetables.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 06:51:38 UTC No. 16480291

>>16480216
Modern humans are “hybrids” in the sense that we have a bit of Neanderthal, Denisovan, etc depending on where you’re from
>These Jumarts were once common in Switzerland and the south of France
A cow is more genetically compatible with a whale than it is with a horse. They can’t breed. If those hybrids existed back then they would still exist at least occasionally by accident regardless of how in fashion they are. Horses and cows run into each other frequently enough that we’d see hybrids if they could interbreed.
>>16480272
>Pic vaguely related, it’s a suspected cat-rabbit hybrid that was discovered in Mexico. Apparently, its favorite foods are vegetables
That is a deformed cat. Anybody who says that they could somehow interbreed, especially by accident, is a liar. Rabbits can’t even hybridise with hares

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:16:49 UTC No. 16480466

>>16480291
>A cow is more genetically compatible with a whale than it is with a horse. They can’t breed.
>
>That is a deformed cat. Anybody who says that they could somehow interbreed, especially by accident, is a liar. Rabbits can’t even hybridise with hares
Yes yes, but I am asking how you know all that. There are notions of genetic distance that can be measured, and I think these are what you’re getting at, but it isn’t clear to me why that necessarily rules out hybridization. For example horses and donkeys diverged 10 million years ago—longer ago than humans and apes—and it’s well known they can hybridize. Horses and donkeys don’t even have the same chromosome count, yet somehow their chromosomes can figure it out.

What I’m asking, and we’re getting off topic from OP but in any case it’s germane, is where the scientific evidence is that a non-obvious hybrid such as cow-horse is not possible. Once again, John Locke and other trustworthy sources say it is possible, and we can’t dismiss them out of hand

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:23:27 UTC No. 16480473

>>16480291
>A cow is more genetically compatible with a whale than it is with a horse. They can’t breed.
>
>That is a deformed cat. Anybody who says that they could somehow interbreed, especially by accident, is a liar. Rabbits can’t even hybridise with hares
Yes yes, but I am asking how you know all that. There are notions of genetic distance that can be measured, and I think these are what you’re getting at, but it isn’t clear to me why that necessarily rules out hybridization. For example horses and donkeys diverged 10 million years ago—longer ago than humans and apes—and it’s well known they can hybridize. Horses and donkeys don’t even have the same chromosome count, yet somehow their chromosomes can figure it out.

What I’m asking, and we’re getting off topic from OP but in any case it’s germane, is where the scientific evidence is that a non-obvious hybrid such as cow-horse is not possible. Once again, John Locke and other trustworthy sources say it is possible, and we can’t dismiss them out of hand

Pic related is another example, a suspected hybrid of sheep and pig.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:27:40 UTC No. 16480478

>>16480216
>Pic
That's how your mom was conceived?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:00:24 UTC No. 16480520

>>16480216
coarse
>>16480272
cog
>>16480473
shig
:DDD

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:20:08 UTC No. 16480830

>>16480216
While this guy did a lot of good work collecting historical testimonies of purpoted animal hybrids, some of the conclusions he makes from this material are just inane. And yet, distantly related animal hybrids are not a totally crazy idea. Hybrids across species are allegedly more common among birds than mammals, and much fewer biologists seem to pay attention to these. And leaving animals behind, among plants hybrids are very common, sometimes with bizarre genome configurations (e.g. dodecaploids).

So of course, this poses the question of what conditions must be met for this to be possible. As proven by e.g. mules and the aforementioned plants, it's not an issue of chromosome counts like many naive biologists and anons ITT like to parrot, so there must be a different variable at play.

>>16480473
This is a mangalitsa, which is literally just a pig with curly bristles. If you had touched one, you'd know the difference instantly. You know, it's really unprofessional that a PhD isn't able to simply get a few animal tissue samples from a local farm and throw them into genetic analysis for a couple bucks.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:30:21 UTC No. 16480841

>>16480216
>It is also suggested that many “genetic defects” in newborn livestock may be more simply explained through a human sire.
As an anon that hopes to impregnate a mare one day this is relevant to my interests, and no, nobody in the online zoophile community has managed to replicate this, despite many documented "attempts".

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 18:21:41 UTC No. 16480993

>>16480216
We believe that humans are related to chimpanzees because humans share so many traits with chimpanzees. Is it not rational then also, if pigs have all the traits that distinguish humans from other primates, to suppose that humans are also related to pigs? Let us take it as our hypothesis, then, that humans are the product of ancient hybridization between pig and chimpanzee.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 19:04:41 UTC No. 16481077

>>16480841
>5,000 dedicated online perverts
>vs 5,000,000,000 horsefucking 3rd-world peasants

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 19:18:39 UTC No. 16481099

>>16480993
Noink.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:13:42 UTC No. 16481178

>>16481077
You'd expect the 5000 dedicated online perverts regularly fucking horses across multiple decades to come up with at least one case of genuine conception
>vs 5,000,000,000 horsefucking 3rd-world peasants
Zoophilia isn't common in the 3rd world. A horse can end a raping brown with a single kick, so for safety reasons they prefer to rape their neighbours or family members

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:22:08 UTC No. 16481192

>>16480993
>related to chimpanzees
Human DNA is structured very differently from DNA from other primates. How did that happen? And if it happened, would it not happen with a single individual? If so, how did that indivisual propagate when the rest of the flock had totally different DNA?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:24:19 UTC No. 16481200

>>16481192
>what are early hominids

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:31:07 UTC No. 16481208

>>16481192
I believe this guy
http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 21:45:44 UTC No. 16481299

>>16480473
>There are notions of genetic distance that can be measured, and I think these are what you’re getting at, but it isn’t clear to me why that necessarily rules out hybridization
>For example horses and donkeys diverged 10 million years ago
And cows diverged from horses like 60 million years ago. They are not comparable. We know they can’t interbreed because people have tried it and it never worked, so yes we can rule out hybridisation
>Pic related is another example, a suspected hybrid of sheep and pig
No it isn’t, stop believing every retarded caption you see on a picture of a funny animal. That’s just a breed of pig with curly hair
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangalica

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 22:06:28 UTC No. 16481327

>>16481200
Still not an explanation.

>>16481208
I remember that one. The question remains if the DNA rearrangement came before or after that proposed hybridization.

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 00:37:19 UTC No. 16481498

>it’s another humans are pig hybrids thread
wngmi

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 03:19:18 UTC No. 16481654

>>16481299
>And cows diverged from horses like 60 million years ago. They are not comparable.
Humans diverged from chimpanzees pnly 5 million years ago. Does that mean humans are mutually fertile with chimpanzees?
>We know they can’t interbreed because people have tried it and it never worked
Which people? The people in OP pic tried it, and said it worked.

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 03:29:14 UTC No. 16481667

>>16481299
>And cows diverged from horses like 60 million years ago. They are not comparable.
Man diverged from the apes 5 million years BC, after horses diverged from donkeys. Does that mean we can make a man-ape?
>We know they can’t interbreed because people have tried it and it never worked
Who? The people in OP pic tried, and they say it worked.
>That’s just a breed of pig with curly hair
How do you suppose the breed originated?

Pic related, it’s “just a breed” of cat with raccoon-like characteristics, which originated spontaneously in a state that happens to be full of raccoons

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 03:49:52 UTC No. 16481679

>>16481667
>Man diverged from the apes 5 million years BC, after horses diverged from donkeys
Unlikely. 10 mya is probably an overestimate. The oldest known Equus species is less than 5 million years old, and other studies suggest a divergence date for modern horses of around 5.6 mya.
>Does that mean we can make a man-ape?
There’s no proof we can. Even if we say horses and donkeys diverged 10 mya, that doesn’t necessarily mean they drifted as much in that timeframe as humans did from chimps in 5 million years. There’s a reason donkeys and horses are both members of the genus Equus yet humans aren’t in the same genus as chimps and bonobos
>The people in OP pic tried, and they say it worked
Saying it worked means fuck all. There’s no photos, remains or any proof of these hybrids
>How do you suppose the breed originated?
The same way we got sheep with curly wool, by selective breeding
>Pic related, it’s “just a breed” of cat with raccoon-like characteristics, which originated spontaneously in a state that happens to be full of raccoons
Literally nothing about that looks like a raccoon. Not even the markings are similar. Hybrid animals aren’t just copy pastes of one parent with the colour scheme or fur of the other slapped on top

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 03:56:06 UTC No. 16481687

>>16481667
What about lynxes? They sound like humans and they look weird. I also think dolphins may potentially be human hybrids as well.

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 03:57:09 UTC No. 16481689

>>16481667
>it’s “just a breed” of cat with raccoon-like characteristics
That looks like a completely average tabby Maine coon

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 04:20:26 UTC No. 16481707

>>16481679
>There’s no proof we can.
Fascinating. I note that this is also the strength of your “evidence” against the widely-attested [math]\it jumart[/math].
>Hybrid animals aren’t just copy pastes of one parent with the colour scheme or fur of the other slapped on top
It would not make mathematical sense to get a breed of 50:50 cat-raccoons. It would have been one 50:50 cat-raccoon that mixed its genes back into the local cat population. So genetically, the creature could be 90% or more [math]\it Felis\ cattus[/math].
>selective breeding
This is obviously compatible with hybridization—both “deliberate” hybrization as in mules and [math]\it jumarts[/math], and selective breeding from an interesting hybrid or “mutant” that appeared in your field

Another gif: suspected pigeon-chicken hybrids being farmed in China

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 04:38:25 UTC No. 16481731

What if we hyberdized small long horns got any miniature long horn ponies?

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 04:42:58 UTC No. 16481737

>>16481707
>I note that this is also the strength of your “evidence” against the widely-attested jumart.
I didn’t say that was evidence against the jumart, I said there’s no evidence of the jumart. That’s not the same thing. The burden of proof is on you since you’re so sure these things existed. So far the “evidence” you’ve given are of random pictures of animals who are believed to be hybrids by literallywho because they look kind of funny
>It would not make mathematical sense to get a breed of 50:50 cat-raccoons. It would have been one 50:50 cat-raccoon that mixed its genes back into the local cat population. So genetically, the creature could be 90% or more Felis cattus.
First generation hybrid cats like F1 bengals or ligers aren’t even fertile in both sexes and you expect a hybrid between two species that aren’t even in the same suborder to be fertile? And again, that cat looks nothing like a raccoon in the first place
>This is obviously compatible with hybridization—both “deliberate” hybrization as in mules and jumarts, and selective breeding from an interesting hybrid or “mutant” that appeared in your field
Nobody said that they were incompatible. The point was that the curly hair in that breed of pigs was selectively bred for, and had nothing to do with hybridisation
>Another gif: suspected pigeon-chicken hybrids being farmed in China
Again those are just pigeons, the breed is called Moderna. Chickens and pigeons aren’t even in the same order
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modena_pigeon

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 05:03:15 UTC No. 16481750

>>16481737
>I didn’t say that was evidence against the jumart, I said there’s no evidence of the jumart. That’s not the same thing. The burden of proof is on you since you’re so sure these things existed.
Here we go again. No, I’m holding you to account. You claimed that
>they're a make-believe animal like a Jackalope.
>They can’t breed.
>We know they can’t interbreed because people have tried it and it never worked, so yes we can rule out hybridisation
So you can drop the weaselly lawyer routine. I want to see your proof that jumarts are fake. So try to find a source with a high impact factor, yeah? Because right now it’s your word against, oh, who was that again—? oh yeah, John fucking Locke’s.

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 05:15:36 UTC No. 16481763

>>16481750
>No, I’m holding you to account. You claimed that
>they're a make-believe animal like a Jackalope.
>They can’t breed.
Those aren’t even me retard.
>So try to find a source with a high impact factor, yeah?
A high impact factor like they diverged around 60 million years ago? How about the fact that they don’t differ by just two chromosomes but by fucking four? What about the fact that one is a Perissodactyl and one is an Artiodactyl? What about the fact that these hybrids somehow have never been produced in the modern day despite more cows and horses existing today than ever before with massive potential for overlap on farms?
>Because right now it’s your word against, oh, who was that again—? oh yeah, John fucking Locke’s.
Who? Is that a renowned geneticist or biologist, or some 17th century barber-doctor who didn’t even know what a gene was? You say that like he’s an authority on breeding hybrid animals

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 06:28:15 UTC No. 16481801

>>16481763
> like they diverged around 60 million years ago? How about the fact that they don’t differ by just two chromosomes but by fucking four? What about the fact that one is a Perissodactyl and one is an Artiodactyl?
Whether those things really matter or not is what’s at dispute.
>these hybrids somehow have never been produced in the modern day despite more cows and horses existing today
Source? From OP pic it seems like something that takes considerable human effort. Can you bame one person who has tried? Peer review, impact factor?
>Who? Is that a renowned geneticist or biologist, or some 17th century barber-doctor who didn’t even know what a gene was?
Vs what? An anonymous city-dweller on an anime forum who probably only found out about mules today?

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 06:58:47 UTC No. 16481825

>>16481801
>Whether those things really matter or not is what’s at dispute
Of course they matter. Why wouldn’t they? The more time has passed since they diverged and the less related they are, the more incompatibilities they are to act as a barrier between reproduction. Saying that’s a dispute tells me you know fuck all about it
>Source?
Asking for a source that proves something so obscure doesn’t exist is disingenuous and you know it. Give me a source that says black lions definitely don’t exist, they’re far more realistic than a cow/horse hybrid yet you won’t find any proof of them nor will you find anything that proves they definitely don’t exist. You seem convinced that it’s possible, but can’t seem to say why there aren’t any barriers preventing them from breeding
>From OP pic it seems like something that takes considerable human effort
Can’t be that hard if they were apparently so common at the time.
>Vs what? An anonymous city-dweller on an anime forum who probably only found out about mules today?
vs a zoology major who knows more about animal reproduction than you ever will and your barber-doctor ever did
>creationist anti-evolution pic
Lol

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 07:33:19 UTC No. 16481852

>>16481825
>The more time has passed since they diverged and the less related they are, the more incompatibilities they are to act as a barrier between reproduction.
That’s plausible enough. Assuming it is true, the correct conclusion is: it is at least as hard to breed a jumart as it is to breed a mule. It is not enough to conclude that the jumart is impossible.
>Asking for a source that proves something so obscure doesn’t exist is disingenuous and you know it.
On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that they do exist, including testimony from the great John Locke. On the other hand, if you want to argue in good faith here, then your task is simple: find a (peer-reviewed, good-quality, controlled, reputable, high-impact) scientific study that has honestly tried and failed to produce one. This should be easy stuff for the “watching animals have sex” department at any major univrsity.
>vs a zoology major who knows more about animal reproduction than you ever will
Speak of the devil..! Then you will be interested to know that Dr Eugene McCarthy, who first postulated the hybrid-origin hypothesis, has a PhD in genetics.

Another pic, once considered a hoax and cryptid, is most likely a result of hybridization across classes, between a mammal and a bird

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 08:07:48 UTC No. 16481880

>>16481852
>it is at least as hard to breed a jumart as it is to breed a mule. It is not enough to conclude that the jumart is impossible.
It is enough to conclude that it’s impossible, since it’s never been demonstrated. Until you actually prove it’s even remotely likely to occur when attempts to breed even less extreme hybrids like the Russian’s humanzee have proven impossible then you’re just spewing shit. If it were as hard to breed a horse and cow as it is to breed a horse and donkey then why are mules so common yet these jumarts have about as much proof going for them as unicorns?
>On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that they do exist, including testimony from the great John Locke
Written testimony is hardly evidence
>find a (peer-reviewed, good-quality, controlled, reputable, high-impact) scientific study that has honestly tried and failed to produce one. This should be easy stuff for the “watching animals have sex” department at any major univrsity.
Ah yes, because those studies definitely exist. This is what I meant by being disingenuous.
>Then you will be interested to know that Dr Eugene McCarthy, who first postulated the hybrid-origin hypothesis, has a PhD in genetics.
Also probably a schizo retard seeing as he put forward the idea that humans a pig/chimp hybrids because we share things like pink hairless skin with pigs… even though pigs didn’t have pink hairless skin until we bred them that way. If a hairy chimp bred with a hairy wild boar then why are we mostly hairless? What about all the non-human hominins that predate us? If he’s apparently a PhD geneticist then why hasn’t he demonstrated any molecular evidence of interbreeding between humans and pigs in support of his theory? I’m gonna take a wild guess and say it’s because there’s no evidence and he’s a crackpot
>is most likely a result of hybridization across classes, between a mammal and a bird
Good one. Tell another

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 09:24:08 UTC No. 16481928

>>16481880
>If it were as hard to breed a horse and cow as it is to breed a horse and donkey then why are mules so common
Mules are not common. Back when they were common, it was due to human intervention.
>Written testimony is hardly evidence
You’re not willing to throw all written materials out the window, don’t be ridiculous. What the hell are you trying to pull here?
>Ah yes, because those studies definitely exist. This is what I meant by being disingenuous.
This is what I meant by the weaselly lawyer act. This isn’t reddit, nobody is falling for that. What you have just actually admitted is that you have no scientific evidence for your claims, and you doubt that any exists.
>>16481880
> If he’s apparently a PhD geneticist then why hasn’t he demonstrated any molecular evidence of interbreeding between humans and pigs in support of his theory?
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.08.14.607926v1.full.pdf
>Good one. Tell another
pdf related

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 09:31:38 UTC No. 16481943

>>16481880
>If it were as hard to breed a horse and cow as it is to breed a horse and donkey then why are mules so common
I did not say they were the same. I said that, under the hypothesis, breeding a jumart should be at least as difficult as breeding a mule. You are right that this is not saying much, as mules are easy to breed. Therefore we are far from ruling out the jumart. (As a sidenote: it is not true that mules are common. Back when they were common, it was only due to human intervention. Therefore it is also no surprise that jumarts do not occur without human intervention.)
>Written testimony is hardly evidence
You’re not willing to throw all written accounts of things out the window, don’t be ridiculous.
>Ah yes, because those studies definitely exist. This is what I meant by being disingenuous.
This is what I meant by the weaselly lawyer act. This isn’t reddit, nobody is falling for that. What you have just actually admitted is that you have no scientific evidence for your claims, and you doubt that any exists.
>>16481880 #
> If he’s apparently a PhD geneticist then why hasn’t he demonstrated any molecular evidence of interbreeding between humans and pigs in support of his theory?
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.08.14.607926v1.full.pdf
>Good one. Tell another
pdf related

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 10:23:14 UTC No. 16482014

>>16481943
>Therefore we are far from ruling out the jumart
We really aren’t
>Therefore it is also no surprise that jumarts do not occur without human intervention
The same can be said for lots of hybrids, but we have no shortage of photos, videos and specimens of those
>You’re not willing to throw all written accounts of things out the window, don’t be ridiculous
I am because they’re the absolute weakest form of evidence. Any retard can make shit up, especially if they’re some 17th century zombie. The written accounts say they were quite common, yet not a single hide, skeleton, etc was ever put in a museum somehow
>What you have just actually admitted is that you have no scientific evidence for your claims, and you doubt that any exists
You are the last person who can say this. There’s no scientific evidence for something that doesn’t exist because nobody has never needed to prove it doesn’t exist. In just this thread alone you have tried to suggest that a breed of pig is a sheep/pig hybrid, a deformed cat is a rabbit/cat hybrid, a perfectly normal cat is a raccoon/cat hybrid, a breed of pigeon is a chicken/pigeon hybrid and a platypus is a mammal/bird hybrid with 0 evidence. You don’t get to call anyone out on a lack of evidence while pulling that

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 10:27:50 UTC No. 16482015

>>16481943
>https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.08.14.607926v1.full.pdf
His theory hinges on the idea that on average human autosomal genes differ from bonobos in 1.3% of nucleotides in the sequence, and that about 1.3% of nucleotides match pigs. However it doesn’t say WHICH of those 1.3% of nucleotides match up to pigs, and whether or not they are the same nucleotides that differ in bonobos. We differ on 1.3% of base pairs from bonobos and 1.3% of base pairs from chimps, but that 1.3% of nucleotides which we differ in are different between each of those two species. What we differ from in chimps is the same amount as what we differ from in bonobos, but they aren’t the same pieces of code. All he’s shown is the amount, not the placement that counts. Also, if we can only be a hybrid between either chimps and pigs OR bonobos and pigs then how are we roughly equally related to both chimps and bonobos? Where does that leave all the non-human hominins?

He also lists off phenotypic traits like sparse hair and white sclera, which are traits that we bred into pigs and aren’t present in wild boar so couldn’t have arisen until after humans existed. Chimps and Sus scrofa don’t even overlap in the wild either, did a chimp get on a plane to go get a pig wife?

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 11:36:56 UTC No. 16482066

>>16482014
>We really aren’t
By that line of argument, at least, yes we are.
>>You’re not willing to throw all written accounts of things out the window, don’t be ridiculous
>I am
You really aren’t. There are 10,000 precious things you only know from books. But let’s move on.
>The same can be said for lots of hybrids, but we have no shortage of photos, videos and specimens
Indeed. Here is another that I have been holding back, due to its unsettling appearance: a suspected dog-cow hybrid. As you can see, it has the mouth of a dog, but (apparently) the front teeth of a cow.
> You are the last person who can say this. There’s no scientific evidence for something that doesn’t exist because nobody has never needed to prove it doesn’t exist.
You seem pretty invested. Why don’t you spend a few months on the farm, and substantiate your claims?
>In just this thread alone you have tried to suggest that a breed of pig is a sheep/pig hybrid, a deformed cat is a rabbit/cat hybrid, a perfectly normal cat is a raccoon/cat hybrid, a breed of pigeon is a chicken/pigeon hybrid and a platypus is a mammal/bird hybrid with 0 evidence.
These are hypotheses only, and not one of them has been scientifically disproven. Let us also note that many of these hypotheses are in fact compatible with the “competing” explanation, as in the case of the cat-raccoon creature; and in most other cases, a good-quality scientific study should be able to put the matter to rest one way or the other.

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 22:31:50 UTC No. 16484435

>>16482066
>You really aren’t
I am and I did
>Indeed. Here is another that I have been holding back, due to its unsettling appearance:
That’s not a horse/cow hybrid, you still seem to be lacking any evidence of those. Every photo and video of a supposed hybrid animal has just been a weird looking animal, or in the case of the cat a completely normal looking animal. And again, if these hybrids are apparently so common then how have none of them made their way into any collections?
>As you can see, it has the mouth of a dog, but (apparently) the front teeth of a cow
No it doesn’t, it’s just has a deformity that means it’s missing its cheeks. Dogs still have cheeks, their mouth isn’t open all the way to the ear. That calf is missing its cheeks entirely. Nothing about that is dog-like. Next you’ll be saying a cow with 6 legs is an insect hybrid
>You seem pretty invested. Why don’t you spend a few months on the farm, and substantiate your claims?
Why am I the one who needs to find proof to disprove something you have no evidence of? It is on you to find evidence for your own claims in the first place dipshit, it’s not other people’s job to do your homework for you
>and not one of them has been scientifically disproven
Except for the sheep/pig which turned out to be a mangalica breed pig, the pigeon/chicken which turned out to be a modena breed pigeon and the raccoon/cat which turned out to be a tabby long haired cat breed. At this point you are lying to try and make it seem like these are all hybrids without even bothering to look up whether or not they’re just a breed of animal you haven’t seen before
>as in the case of the cat-raccoon creature; and in most other cases, a good-quality scientific study should be able to put the matter to rest one way or the other
So why don’t you do one? You are the one making grand claims, it’s not everyone else’s job to do the work for you

Anonymous at Wed, 20 Nov 2024 00:18:30 UTC No. 16485459

>>16484435
>Why am I the one who needs to find proof to disprove something you have no evidence of? It is on you to find evidence for your own claims
I’m going to start ignoring this weasel act, butfor one last time: there is plenty of witness testimony of the jumart, and it is you who chooses to dismiss it out off hand (along with all written materials in existence, as you have bizarrely confirmed)
>Except for the sheep/pig which turned out to be a mangalica breed pig, the pigeon/chicken which turned out to be a modena breed pigeon and the raccoon/cat which turned out to be a tabby long haired cat breed.
Wrong. The hypothesis in these cases, as I have told you, is that a single B ancestor has bred with an A ancestor, and their offspring mixed into a population of A. Human intervention is possible at either of the two stages.
>You are the one making grand claims
I am making no claims, only hypotheses. You, on the other hand, are making strong positive claims, whether or not you view them as grand.
>it’s not everyone else’s job to do the work for you
Indeed. Yet, it is odd that the university professors who watch animals having sex professionally haven’t got around to these “low-hanging fruit” even decades into their watching animals having sex careers.

Anonymous at Wed, 20 Nov 2024 00:30:10 UTC No. 16485492

>>16485459
>there is plenty of witness testimony of the jumart, and it is you who chooses to dismiss it out off hand
Which is barely evidence at all. The witness testimony is about as reliable as stories of dragons and unicorns. Not a single specimen was preserved despite them being apparently common, so why should anyone believe they’re anything more than a fictional creature?
>along with all written materials in existence, as you have bizarrely confirmed
Dismissing unsubstantiated stories of impossible hybrids isn’t the same thing as dismissing every piece of written material and if you’re retarded if you think that
>I am making no claims, only hypotheses
You are making claims. Like the claim that old stories of cow/horse hybrids are enough evidence to suggest they existed despite them never being reproduced in the modern day despite plenty of opportunity and no specimens existing in museum collections, or that a platypus is “most likely” a hybrid between mammals and birds despite no evidence pointing to that. Saying it’s most likely a hybrid is not just a hypothesis, since you are implying that you have reason to believe that it’s a hybrid in the first place. So what exactly makes you think it’s “most likely” a hybrid between two animals with entirely incompatible reproductive systems?
>Yet, it is odd that the university professors who watch animals having sex professionally haven’t got around to these “low-hanging fruit” even decades into their watching animals having sex careers
They have though. Even in hybrids between turkeys and chickens they’ve observed extremely high rates of embryo mortality and little if any chicks successfully develop. It’s not odd at all that nobody has tried to hybridise cows and horses to disprove something that doesn’t need to be disproven. Like I said, that’s like asking to absolutely disprove that black lions exist and they’re far more realistic than a cow/horse hybrid. You are working backwards

Anonymous at Wed, 20 Nov 2024 02:01:32 UTC No. 16485676

>>16485492
>Dismissing unsubstantiated stories of impossible hybrids isn’t the same thing as dismissing every piece of written material
This is not what you said before, and your imprecision with language does not inspire confidence in the rigor of your thought process (and earlier red flag was when you got confused about the meaning of “greater than or equal to”). Anyway, I encourage you to develop your personal theory of knowledge a little (by yourself, not here) and in particular think about where you really do want to draw the line on received wisdom
>You are making claims. Like the claim that old stories of cow/horse hybrids are enough evidence
They are evidence. “Enough,” really depends. There are similar stories that you have read and believed uncritically. But further discussion on this topic will not be fruitful, because you have not yet developed your own theory of knowledge
>or that a platypus is “most likely” a hybrid between mammals and birds
Replace with “suspected”.
>It’s not odd at all that nobody has tried to hybridise cows and horses to disprove something that doesn’t need to be disproven.
By the same token, it is not odd that it would have been common knowledge 200 years ago, when people were much closer to the land and beasts of burden were very necessary. (But actually, I do dispute you “not odd,” on the “low-hanging fruit” grounds for academic funding grants.)

Anonymous at Wed, 20 Nov 2024 02:28:51 UTC No. 16485703

>>16485676
>This is not what you said before
Yes it is. I said written accounts are hardly evidence, which is true. Stories about a cow/horse hybrid from the 17th century written by some random and something like written accounts of animal behaviour made by biologists are not comparable, and even if they were they still aren’t treated as fact just because somebody wrote it down once. You would need more evidence than that. There are far more written accounts of dholes killing tigers and bears, but nobody treats these as fact even though it’s much more plausible
>There are similar stories that you have read and believed uncritically
Such as?
>Replace with “suspected”
You didn’t say suspected, you have clearly been trying to suggest that these animals are likely to be hybrids. Not a single one even remotely looks like an actual hybrid animal. You say these are suspected hybrids because you desperately want them to exist, regardless of how much any of them even resemble a hybrid animal
>it is not odd that it would have been common knowledge 200 years ago, when people were much closer to the land and beasts of burden were very necessary
And yet they still don’t exist today even though beasts of burden still exist and are common in much of the world. Mules are purposefully bred for tasks, and if the stories are to believe the same was true for those supposed cow/horse hybrids. Why doesn’t anyone still do it then?

Anonymous at Wed, 20 Nov 2024 05:07:27 UTC No. 16485925

>>16485703
>>This is not what you said before
>Yes it is.
see:
>>You’re not willing to throw all written accounts of things out the window, don’t be ridiculous
>I am
Of course I was right, but it doesn’t matter. All we have established is a lack of rigor in your thought process.
>>16485703
>Stories about a cow/horse hybrid from the 17th century written by some random and something like written accounts of animal behaviour made by biologists are not comparable
These are not randoms, these are contemporary experts in animal husbandry, and also John Locke. But as I have said, I would like to see the question studied by serious and competent modern biologists in a good-quality study.
>You would need more evidence than that.
And I welcome more scientific evidence in either direction.
>There are far more written accounts of dholes
Interesting, I have never heard of a dhole. From the google pictures they look themselves not wholly canid. What language are these accounts written in?
>you have clearly been trying to suggest that these animals are likely to be hybrids
You could look at it that way. “Be it resolved: these animals are hybrids!”
>beasts of burden still exist and are common in much of the world. Mules are purposefully bred for tasks, and if the stories are to believe the same was true for those supposed cow/horse hybrids. Why doesn’t anyone still do it then?
Even in the old accounts, these animals were bred only in specific areas, including the French Alps and modern-day Turkey. Why the practice did not spread further, and apparently died out, I do not know. Perhaps it was “out-competed in the market” by a “more efficient technology” such as other types of animal, and, later, machinery. In any case, the only peoples that still use animal labor in place of tractors are by definition primitive and backward, and might well be incapable of husbandry in its more advanced forms, even if news of the possibility somehow did reach them.

Anonymous at Wed, 20 Nov 2024 05:25:32 UTC No. 16485933

>>16485925
>Of course I was right, but it doesn’t matter. All we have established is a lack of rigor in your thought process.
I am willing to throw out any written accounts like that as evidence, especially in this context where they are the only evidence. That is not the same thing as throwing away all written material in every scenario moron
>These are not randoms, these are contemporary experts in animal husbandry
Which contemporary expert in animal husbandry thinks horses and cows can breed?
>and also John Locke
A random
>I would like to see the question studied by serious and competent modern biologists in a good-quality study
And as I have said nobody is going to spend time disproving something that doesn’t need disproving
>Interesting, I have never heard of a dhole. From the google pictures they look themselves not wholly canid
What about that very dog looking dog doesn’t look wholly canid? Again, you see something that doesn’t look right to you and try to spin some narrative about it to fit this idea like a cat being a raccoon hybrid despite having literally nothing in common with the raccoon
>these animals were bred only in specific areas, including the French Alps and modern-day Turkey. Why the practice did not spread further, and apparently died out, I do not know. Perhaps it was “out-competed in the market” by a “more efficient technology” such as other types of animal, and, later, machinery
Are beasts of burden not still used in the French alps? Again, this is just more of a problem with the idea that they actually existed
>In any case, the only peoples that still use animal labor in place of tractors are by definition primitive and backward, and might well be incapable of husbandry in its more advanced forms, even if news of the possibility somehow did reach them
If you seriously believe this then you are very much retarded. People who use beasts of burden are not primitive or else they wouldn’t be used in developed first world countries today

Anonymous at Wed, 20 Nov 2024 07:33:16 UTC No. 16485994

>>16485933
>I am willing to throw out any written accounts like that as evidence, especially in this context where they are the only evidence. That is not the same thing as throwing away all written material
That’s good. You are inching towards what may one day become a coherent epistemology. But still, in its present state, fruitful dicussion will not be possible.
>Which contemporary expert in animal husbandry thinks horses and cows can breed?
*then-contemporary
>Are beasts of burden not still used in the French alps?
I have not been, but I believe they keep pack animals mainly to please tourists. Perhaps if we all went to the ski resort from James Bond and acted all agog over jumarts, then supply would increase to meet the new demand
>People who use beasts of burden are not primitive
I suppose you mean the Amish?

Anonymous at Wed, 20 Nov 2024 08:49:07 UTC No. 16486029

>>16485994
>But still, in its present state, fruitful dicussion will not be possible
Yeah as long as you continue to insist everything is a hybrid and refuse to post any proof while asking for all the evidence yourself the discussion won’t go anywhere
>*then-contemporary
So 17th century peasants. Yeah sounds like they’d be well educated
>then supply would increase to meet the new demand
Hard to meet a demand for something that doesn’t exist, never has existed and never will exist
>I suppose you mean the Amish?
No I mean anyone living on a farm

Anonymous at Wed, 20 Nov 2024 11:13:13 UTC No. 16486147

>>16486029
>while asking for all the evidence yourself
I have given evidence of some things, up to and including a paper on molecular biology, but you’re right that I am mostly posing hypotheses and asking questions, just as stated in OP
>So 17th century peasants. Yeah sounds like they’d be well educated
Later than that, and peasants don’t write books. Besides, more educated people than that have written harder-to-believe things. According to Pliny, there are horses in Portugal who are impregnated by the wind
>No I mean anyone living on a farm
No farmer I know uses animals to do a machine’s work. Former “working” animals are basically pets or else a tourist attraction

Anonymous at Wed, 20 Nov 2024 11:42:18 UTC No. 16486198

>>16486147
>I have given evidence of some things, up to and including a paper on molecular biology
That is the only thing you’ve provided, not up to and including, and it was pure garbage
>Besides, more educated people than that have written harder-to-believe things. According to Pliny, there are horses in Portugal who are impregnated by the wind
Oh so I assume then you take Pliny’s written account as evidence those existed?
>No farmer I know uses animals to do a machine’s work. Former “working” animals are basically pets or else a tourist attraction
Except in terrain that is inaccessible to machines, or in mustering were the ability for a horse to turn on the spot is useful, or in selective logging where roads don’t need to be cleared to remove timber. Way to show you know nothing about farm work. You probably don’t know any farmers to being with, so much for “anonymous city dweller who found out about mules today” I guess

Anonymous at Wed, 20 Nov 2024 15:08:00 UTC No. 16486432

tl;dr OP is a faggot.
/thread

Anonymous at Wed, 20 Nov 2024 16:05:32 UTC No. 16486508

>>16486198
>and it was pure garbage
Now you are openly rejecting not just old witness testimony that you don’t like, but even the modern scientific papers that you so fetishize, as long as you don’t like them.
>Oh so I assume then you take Pliny’s written account as evidence those existed?
Yes, it is evidence that they existed. Tet I do not think they did exist. Do you see the difference?
>Except in terrain that is inaccessible to machines, or in mustering were the ability for a horse to turn on the spot is useful, or in selective logging where roads don’t need to be cleared to remove timber.
Those are all essentially hobbyist activities, like webm related. Perhaps you can makes a little money that way. But actual real farms do not require a train of mules to ferry potatoes out of the inaccessible potato patch

Anonymous at Wed, 20 Nov 2024 19:55:33 UTC No. 16486854

>>16486508
>but even the modern scientific papers that you so fetishize, as long as you don’t like them
I didn’t reject it because I don’t like it, I rejected it because it’s junk science. See >>16482015. I’d bet it’s not even peer reviewed
>Yes, it is evidence that they existed. Tet I do not think they did exist. Do you see the difference?
So you openly reject witness testimony as long as you don’t find it believable? So hypocritical of you tut tut
>Those are all essentially hobbyist activities, like webm related
>mustering and selective logging are hobbies equivalent to farmers market potatoes
You’re more retarded than I thought

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 08:14:43 UTC No. 16487642

>>16486854
>I’d bet it’s not even peer reviewed
Who needs peer review when you can just point to some random anon >>16482015 who has misunderstood the point of the article?
>So you openly reject witness testimony as long as you don’t find it believable?
Unfortunately, you have missed the point again.

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 09:33:54 UTC No. 16487675

>>16487642
>Who needs peer review
lol
>who has misunderstood the point of the article?
Where is it misunderstood there? Can you actually say or did you just not read or understand the paper?
>Unfortunately, you have missed the point again
I got the point. It wasn’t a very good one

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 11:29:10 UTC No. 16487743

>>16487675
>Can you actually say or did you just not read or understand the paper?
It states that, at the genetic level, Man shares certain DNA with the pig, and that amount of agreement with pig is the same as the amount of disagreement with apes. The suggestion, as I understand it, is that the 1.3% agreement may be the same as the 1.3% disagreement, as if porcine DNA had been neatly inserted into an ape genome. Thus it represents evidence towards the Hybrid Origins theory. However, I am not a geneticist, so I cannot speak directly to the methods of data analysis nor to the conclusions. An anon has suggested that maybe the 1.3% agreement with pig overlaps with the 98.7% agreement with ape, and if so it would seem to suggest that the hybridization event is actually more ancient, i.e. that these particular apes (bonobos) are also part pig. But again, I am not a geneticist
>I got the point. It wasn’t a very good one
From what you said earlier, it really seems you did nit.

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 19:55:52 UTC No. 16488231

>>16487743
>The suggestion, as I understand it, is that the 1.3% agreement may be the same as the 1.3% disagreement, as if porcine DNA had been neatly inserted into an ape genome
But nowhere in the study does he demonstrate this. It is an enormous assumption
>An anon has suggested that maybe the 1.3% agreement with pig overlaps with the 98.7% agreement with ape, and if so it would seem to suggest that the hybridization event is actually more ancient, i.e. that these particular apes (bonobos) are also part pig
That is not that it would suggest at all. The point was that the author doesn’t demonstrate where this overlap occurs. If the 1.3% shared with pigs doesn’t occur in same part of the code as the 1.3% different from bonobos then that wouldn’t suggest it’s a more ancient hybridisation event, it would suggest that it’s not a hybridisation event at all. Also, as stated the 1.3% we differ from bonobos is not entirely the same as the 1.3% difference from chimps, if we share the same percentage difference with each of those two species but not the same pieces of code then how can pigs account for that difference in both? If that 1.3% was from pigs then it should be the same in both chimps and bonobos. Also it it were from an ancient hybridisation event then we would expect genetic drift to have occurred, which wouldn’t be the case if pigs fit exactly into the code we differ from in bonobos. On top of that, the pig genetic sample this is all based on is from domestic pigs which didn’t exist until we bred them
>I am not a geneticist
I can tell

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 04:46:26 UTC No. 16488830

>>16488231
>back-of-the-envelope calculations from a non-expert
Sure, I can do that too. The fact is, this is all speculation, because the scientists in their article did not specify exactly how their software works. When you get used to reading scientific articles, you will find out this is normal. So it is possible—dare I say, likely—that you are comparing apples to oranges. But if we are indeed looking at three different 1.3% with zero overlap, and they are all the same kind of 1.3%, that is still perfectly compatible with the Hybrid Origins hypothesis. In that case, perhaps the chimpanzee carries some DNA of the pig (causing its pink skin, among other things) and the bonobo carries the DNA of some other animal. Just to speculate a little more: the range of the bonobo overlaps with that of the mountain-gorilla [math]Gorilla\ beringei[/math]. Since two apes would pass your spurious and arbitrary “genetic distance, chromosome count, millions years BC” test, obviously you find this plausible.

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 05:34:13 UTC No. 16488858

>>16481825
>creationist anti-evolution pic
the whole "so many species are in fact hybrids" is a creationist schtick, meant to support their primitive idea of "baramins", which is sorely tested by the existence of too many species. OP is a creationist or trolling like one.

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 09:13:57 UTC No. 16488959

>>16488830
>back-of-the-envelope calculations
Those aren’t calculations
>The fact is, this is all speculation
But it shouldn’t be. It should not be hard for a PhD geneticist to find out what loci the shared information between humans and bonobos/pigs are at
>In that case, perhaps the chimpanzee carries some DNA of the pig
Did you even read the paper you’re citing? He used bonobo DNA for his study, not chimp
>But if we are indeed looking at three different 1.3% with zero overlap, and they are all the same kind of 1.3%, that is still perfectly compatible with the Hybrid Origins hypothesis
It really isn’t and you don’t seem to be able to articulate why it would be
>causing its pink skin
As said several times before, pigs didn’t have pink skin until we bred them to have pink skin. How did that trait appear before humans were around to domesticate pigs? Have you never seen a photo of a wild boar?
>Just to speculate a little more: the range of the bonobo overlaps with that of the mountain-gorilla Gorilla beringei. Since two apes would pass your spurious and arbitrary “genetic distance, chromosome count, millions years BC” test, obviously you find this plausible.
What do gorillas have to do with this? I don’t even see what point you’re trying to make here

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 11:02:51 UTC No. 16488996

>>16488959
>But it shouldn’t be. It should not be hard for a PhD geneticist to find out what loci the shared information between humans and bonobos/pigs are at
Here is a question for you. If the scientists gave you the locations of 1.3% of human DNA that exactly matched DNA of the pig and exactly non-matched DNA of the bonobo, would you accept it as evidence in favour of the Hybrid Origin hypothesis? If the answer is no, can you name a specific feature of DNA that, if you saw it, you would consider to be evidence?
>pigs didn’t have pink skin until we bred them to have pink skin
You can’t breed a mutation into existence. The genes were always there. (Sidenote—it is not so much breeding as tameness which gives pigs their pink color. Pigs that turn wild also become brown “razorbacks”.)
>What do gorillas have to do with this?
I was just thinking aloud. Maybe the reason that bonobos have black skin rather than white is some degree of gorilla admixture?

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 11:29:12 UTC No. 16489012

>>16488996
> The genes were always there.
more creationist schtick.

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 12:54:54 UTC No. 16489086

>>16489012
>he thinks its 1985 and there are creationists under the bed
Tilting at windmills anon.

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 12:56:56 UTC No. 16489087

>>16481178
the traditional way to lose their virginity for the human males is to fuck a goat or something.

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 13:29:52 UTC No. 16489111

>>16489086
so, the genes were always there? in the hadean age, for instance.

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 18:23:14 UTC No. 16489420

>>16489087
>the traditional way to lose their virginity for the human males is to fuck a goat or something.
Which country are you from?

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 20:49:10 UTC No. 16489612

>>16488996
>If the scientists gave you the locations of 1.3% of human DNA that exactly matched DNA of the pig and exactly non-matched DNA of the bonobo, would you accept it as evidence in favour of the Hybrid Origin hypothesis?
You would need a lot more evidence than that. For example demonstrating that we don’t also share those sequences with other pigs/ungulates. You would also need to demonstrate that pigs don’t share that 1.3% with other primates. Also we should have expected to see genetic drift occur in the meantime which would prevent those pieces from matching up exactly. Second we shouldn’t see a 1.3% and 98.7% match anyways since that’s not how hybrid genetics work. If a pure pig shares only 1.3% with humans then as hybrids we shouldn’t inherit all of that to make us a perfect 1.3 to 98.7% mix. Europeans trace 3-5% of their genetics back to Neanderthal interbreeding, but sub-Saharan Africans still share over 99% of their DNA with Neanderthals despite never meeting
>You can’t breed a mutation into existence. The genes were always there
Yes you can. Saying this tells me you know fuck all about genetics. A mutation is not a gene that already existed and was waiting to be shown, it is a shift in the sequence of a gene that can produce a change. Those are not the same. We bred pigs to be pink and hairless by selecting for a mutation that didn’t exist in wild boar the same way wolves don’t have the gene for a poodle’s curly hair
>Sidenote—it is not so much breeding as tameness which gives pigs their pink color. Pigs that turn wild also become brown “razorbacks”
First generation wild pigs can also be pink. The tameness of a pig has fuck all to do with it, raising a pure wild boar in captivity and training it like a dog doesn’t make it turn pink. Even after several generations they wouldn’t be pink unless you bred for it. The pink colour is a physical expression of a gene. Temperament doesn’t change it

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 20:52:05 UTC No. 16489620

>Maybe the reason that bonobos have black skin rather than white is some degree of gorilla admixture?
Black skin is basal to apes, why would it be the result of admixture from gorillas?
>>16488858
Seems likely

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 03:15:00 UTC No. 16490133

>>16489612
>We bred pigs to be pink and hairless by selecting for a mutation that didn’t exist in wild boar the same way wolves don’t have the gene for a poodle’s curly hair
That’s an interesting theory. Of course an alternative theory is that you are wrong, and a wolf can have curly hair. A third possibility is that the curly hair comes from another hybridization event, perhaps with a sheep.
>First generation wild pigs can also be pink.
This is not true. The pig begins to metamorphose the minute it turns feral.
>>16489111
Yes, it’s silly to think that a pig turned pink through random mutation. Just like a black sheep is not caused by mutation, only a recessive gene that is already in the population. But in a such as a wooly pig, which does not occur naturally, hybridization is a plausible and epistemically parsimonious answer
>>16489620
>Black skin is basal to apes
Then why does the chimpanzee have white skin?

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 04:08:15 UTC No. 16490168

>>16490133
>That’s an interesting theory. Of course an alternative theory is that you are wrong
You’re welcome to try and prove that, but I don’t see a whole lot of pink wild boar running around
>and a wolf can have curly hair
Only if one were to have a mutation that gave it curly hair, but that has never happened in wolves unless you want to count a poodle as a wolf
>A third possibility is that the curly hair comes from another hybridization event, perhaps with a sheep
As much as you desperately want that to be the case it’s not a possibility
>This is not true. The pig begins to metamorphose the minute it turns feral
Not even close. The extent of change that can happen in an individual pig turned loose are simple epigenetics, like growing its hair a bit thicker. For changes in leg/skull morphology, thicker hide, etc it takes multiple generations. There is a reason why it’s not uncommon to see feral pigs that are multiple generations wild still have pink skin or spots that are not seen in populations of pure wild boar
>Just like a black sheep is not caused by mutation, only a recessive gene that is already in the population
It is caused by a mutation, specifically melanism. I’m not sure you understand what a mutation is. That recessive gene exists in the population because at some point a sheep had a mutation that gave it melanism. If it’s not present in any of their wild ancestors but arose in domestic sheep then how isn’t it a mutation?
>But in a such as a wooly pig, which does not occur naturally, hybridization is a plausible and epistemically parsimonious answer
Except it isn’t. Mangalica are a recent breed from the 19th century, there are records of how they were bred and none involve sheep. The genes that control hair growth are also entirely different from one another, domestic sheep have a mutation that causes continuous hair growth so they need to be sheared regularly. Mangalica pigs do not because they don’t have that same mutation

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 04:09:15 UTC No. 16490170

>>16490133
>Then why does the chimpanzee have white skin?
First of all not all of them do, second of all it would be a derived trait seeing as bonobos have dark skin

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 10:54:00 UTC No. 16490323

>>16490168
>As much as you desperately want that to be the case it’s not a possibility
Now we’re getting somewhere. What is your scientific proof that a sheep could not hybridize with a pig.
>If it’s not present in any of their wild ancestors but arose in domestic sheep then how isn’t it a mutation?
You are asking me to believe uncritically that there is no such thing as a black wild sheep. But it also doesn’t matter; you have admitted that the black-sheep gene is already there in the domestic sheep, and not caused by new mutation events
>Mangalica are a recent breed from the 19th century, there are records of how they were bred and none involve sheep.
Old written testimony from a couple of unwashed peasants? They were probably drunk on wood alcohol and hallucinated it. More seriously, then hypothesis is that they began the breeding programme from a single specimen of 50:50 sheep-pig, which they may well have assumed to be just a peculiar pig
>>16490170
>derived trait
Would it not be striking, then, if Man and the chimpanzee had simultaneously, independently, evolved white skin? That would be a massive coincidence.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 22:26:27 UTC No. 16490931

>>16490323
>What is your scientific proof that a sheep could not hybridize with a pig
For starters their chromosome count differs by fucking 14
>You are asking me to believe uncritically that there is no such thing as a black wild sheep
Typically they don’t. It would be like finding an albino, aka an animal with a mutation that influences pigmentation. It could definitely randomly occur in wild individuals, but that’s irrelevant if they’re not the founding stick that domestic sheep descend from
>you have admitted that the black-sheep gene is already there in the domestic sheep, and not caused by new mutation events
Are you retarded or illiterate? It exists in domestic sheep because of a mutation event. You still don’t seem to understand what mutation means. We already know what genes control melanism in sheep
>Old written testimony from a couple of unwashed peasants?
Which can be corroborated by modern genetic analysis. Don’t act like it’s in any way comparable to unsubstantiated stories of cow/horse hybrids
>More seriously, then hypothesis is that they began the breeding programme from a single specimen of 50:50 sheep-pig, which they may well have assumed to be just a peculiar pig
Except the founding stock didn’t have curly hair, nor do the modern mangalica have the same genes for wool growth as domestic sheep
>That would be a massive coincidence
Not really. Pigmentation mutations are about as basic as a mutation gets. Individual chimps have been born with human-like white sclera, and they’re clearly not hybrids seeing as both parents are known. Not to mention chimp pigmentation isn’t equivalent to human’s. Chimps can start off with white skin and turn black as they mature and often have black and white skinned individuals within a single continuous population, humans don’t

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 22:29:39 UTC No. 16490933

>>16490323
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731110001382
“Of the latter four sheep, two carried the ED allele of the MC1R gene that may be the cause of their black coat colour. The coat colour of all other black animals may be determined by non-functional ASIP alleles (non-agouti alleles, Aa) and in a few cases by the EDExtension allele. At least three frequent ASIP haplotypes ([D5:g.5172T], [N:g.5172A] and [D5:g.5172A]) were detected (organized into six different diplotypes). In conclusion, the results indicated that coat colours in the Massese sheep breed are mainly derived by combining ASIP and MC1R mutations”
>https://academic.oup.com/jas/article/doi/10.1093/jas/skad084/7080500
“The most differentiating region between black-headed sheep and all-white sheep was found to harbor a haplotype covering melanocortin receptor 1 (MC1R) gene. The share of this haplotype by the black-headed sheep from Africa and Asia suggested that the convergent change in the MC1R region is likely to determine this unique coat color. Two missense mutations (g. 14251947T>A and g. 14252090G>A) within this haplotype of MC1R gene were found”

tldr: black sheep have mutations affecting pigmentation

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 04:09:25 UTC No. 16491265

>>16490931
>For starters their chromosome count differs by fucking 14
I can see heuristically why that might lower fertility rates, but have never seen scientific proof that it does, much less that they drop to zero
>can be corroborated
Weasel words (no offense).
>Don’t act like it’s in any way comparable to unsubstantiated stories of cow/horse hybrids
Substantiated how? Like the Nebraska Man?
>Except the founding stock didn’t have curly hair
Claim the peasants. By the way, have you ever seen the founding stock? It’s probably a fairy tale.
>albinism
>black sheep
>>16490933
These sheep have inherited genetic differences that may have arisen through ancient mutations. Albinism is caused by inheriting two copies of a recessive gene that may have arisen through an ancient mutation. If that is all “having mutations” means, then sure, a pink pig might “have mutations” too, and a pink human might “have mutations” inherited on the pig side. Do you have a point here?

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 04:48:08 UTC No. 16491292

>>16491265
>but have never seen scientific proof that it does
Because it prevents proper chromosome pairing in meiosis. Please go take a first year biology class before saying something like this
>much less that they drop to zero
You can already get widespread fertility issues, high infant mortality and the inability to produce both male and female offspring when the chromosome count differs by just two and you think a difference of 14 wouldn’t be a barrier?
>Substantiated how?
By physical remains or genetic evidence neither of which exist. Even better actually breeding one would be good but that’ll never happen
>Like the Nebraska Man?
How is this even remotely related
>By the way, have you ever seen the founding stock? It’s probably a fairy tale
I don’t need to, since the genetics paint a pretty clear picture. Studies about mangalica pedigrees aren’t hard to find and yet none identify any anomalies relating to sheep. With such a massive difference in relation and being such a recent breed it shouldn’t be hard to identify if they were related to sheep
>These sheep have inherited genetic differences that may have arisen through ancient mutations
Yes, that’s what we call a mutation
>Albinism is caused by inheriting two copies of a recessive gene that may have arisen through an ancient mutation
Congrats, you know middle school biology
>If that is all “having mutations” means, then sure, a pink pig might “have mutations” too
Obviously
>and a pink human might “have mutations” inherited on the pig side
Again, pink pigs didn’t exist until we bred them that way
>Do you have a point here?
Yes, that you have an absolutely surface level understanding of genetics and you’ve put that on display for everyone to see. Maybe go learn about the thing you’re trying to argue about

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 07:54:04 UTC No. 16491397

>>16491292
>Because it prevents proper chromosome pairing in meiosis.
This is the plausible heuristic argument, argument, it’s just that you already know it isn’t a hard-and-fast rule. You already know about horses and donkeys, which differ by one chromosome pair. And I suppose you know about sheep and goats, which differ by three chromosome pairs. But did you know about donkeys and zebras? A whopping 15 chromosome pairs. And we haven’t even left the barnyard yet! Strange that you don’t know this from middle-school biology. Have you considered changing middle schools?
>Even better actually breeding one would be good but that’ll never happen
Not a scientific thought process
>Again, pink pigs didn’t exist until we bred them that way
Just like black sheep and albino crows, I’m sure. You are being ridiculous
>Yes, that you have an absolutely surface level understanding of genetics and you’ve put that on display for everyone to see.
The only thing on display is the quality of rhetoric (never biology) taught in the zoophilia department of Krusty’s Klown Kollege

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 08:46:22 UTC No. 16491423

>>16491397
>But did you know about donkeys and zebras? A whopping 15 chromosome pairs. And we haven’t even left the barnyard yet! Strange that you don’t know this from middle-school biology. Have you considered changing middle schools?
Equus has some of the biggest variation in chromosome count within a genus of any known group. If you have to pick the biggest absolute standout example then you’re not doing a good job. The difference is that zebra/donkey hybrids are possible because zebras have only fused some of their chromosome pairs, having only diverged from donkeys less than 2 million years ago. There’s a lot more wiggle room for hybridisation in that case. As far as pigs and sheep are concerned they share far less, it’s not just the same chromosomes that have fused since sheep didn’t come from an ancestor with the same number of chromosomes as pigs as zebras do with donkeys. Also those zebra hybrids are nearly always infertile, even more so than mules. That’s not a very good example for hybrid descent if getting the hybrid to breed is a one in a thousand chance. Their karyotypes are not even remotely comparable to pigs vs sheep
>Not a scientific thought process
(lol)
>Just like black sheep and albino crows, I’m sure. You are being ridiculous
Kek I’m not the one calling every animal I can find a hybrid, you’re in no place to call anyone ridiculous. How many pink wild boar do you see around? A better comparison would be pink pigs vs piebald cows, not albinos
>The only thing on display is the quality of rhetoric (never biology) taught in the zoophilia department of Krusty’s Klown Kollege
Kek2 see above

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 08:54:25 UTC No. 16491427

>>16491397
I’ll add that chromosome count is also just one barrier. That’s not even taking into account barriers like gamete morphometrics, internal developmental conditions, behavioural cues, etc. All of those are far more similar in zebras vs donkeys than sheep vs pigs. Even if we assume there are no barriers, you are still just speculating that mangalicas are sheep hybrids with absolutely no proof, the best you’ve come up with is “they both have curly hair” even though the genes controlling said hair are entirely different. And again, the ancestry of mangalicas has already been examined through genetic analysis and there was exactly zero mention of sheep. If such a recent and massive hybridisation event had occurred it would stick out in a genetic analysis like nothing else.
You have a pre-established want for these animals to be hybrids to the point that you will even call pictures of completely normal looking animals “hybrids”. Why that’s the case I’m not sure, but it makes 0 fucking sense to assume something is a hybrid because it barely resembles something else at a glance

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 12:22:52 UTC No. 16491526

>>16491423
>>16491427
>I said 14 chromosomes was too much, and you raised a counterexample, here’s why I was right
It’s like something out of Monty Python, or the New York Times.
>how many pink wild boars have you seen??
OK, but I’ve never met an albino either *cue 5-minute Terry Gilliam cutaway animation about a black sheep with albinism*

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 12:25:38 UTC No. 16491528

>>16491423
>>16491427
>I said 14 chromosomes was too much, and you raised a counterexample with 30 chromosomes, here’s why I was right
Can you believe this guy? It’s like something out of Monty Python.
>how many pink wild boars have you seen??
OK, but I’ve never met an albino either *cut away to Terry Gilliam animation about a black sheep with albinism*

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 12:39:24 UTC No. 16491540

>>16491528
>Can you believe this guy? It’s like something out of Monty Python
I said the difference in chromosome count was a barrier “for starters”, not that it was the sole barrier or an all encompassing one. Chromosome count differences are not a be all end all prevention of interbreeding, but they are a pretty common barrier. That idea seems to be beyond you though since you seem to think only in absolute terms
>OK, but I’ve never met an albino either
But you’ve seen photos of them and know they exist, not so much for pink wild boar

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 05:48:49 UTC No. 16492497

>>16491540
>Chromosome count differences are not a be all end all prevention of interbreeding, but they are a pretty common barrier.
We have reached the point where what you are saying now is what I was telling you several days ago. With that, you have confessed that your only “proof” that a horse-cow hybrid be impossible, were more of a rule of thumb. Please don’t think of this as “losing the argument,” by the way. What we have done is a collective search for the truth, which by its nature requires at times entertaining erroneous views.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 07:19:51 UTC No. 16492568

>>16492497
>We have reached the point where what you are saying now is what I was telling you several days ago
No we haven’t. You might believe so but you’re mistaken, which seems to be a common trend in this thread. Chromosome count is one of many barriers that limits hybridisation
>you have confessed that your only “proof” that a horse-cow hybrid be impossible, were more of a rule of thumb
You’ve gotten lost in your own argument. What I said was that it was one of the reasons why pig/sheep hybrids were impossible, but they are at least both artiodactyls. Horses on the other hand are perissodactyls while cows are artiodactyls. Nor is it the only reason why hybridisation would be prevented. As stated earlier horses and cows diverged over 60 million years ago, you would have better luck hybridising a cow with a whale. Horses and cows have very different gametes, the likelihood they could even fuse much less lead to a viable embryo is essentially zero. But do make sure to explain why the compatibility of gametes doesn’t matter
>Please don’t think of this as “losing the argument,” by the way
There’s not much to lose. You still haven’t shown any proof that they can interbreed nor any information that would give reason to believe any of the animals you’ve posted might be actual hybrids. You’re still yet to actually provide any proof that it’s plausible or even possible that such hybridisation could occur in the first place. Maybe stop shitting your pants over finding an example of an extreme case of inter-genus chromosome count differences while ignoring that they’re a recent example of chromosome fusion rather than totally different karyotypes like in pigs/sheep and provide any physical evidence of reproductive compatibility in horses and cows

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 07:22:16 UTC No. 16492569

>>16492497
>What we have done is a collective search for the truth, which by its nature requires at times entertaining erroneous views
You are not searching for truth, you are searching for validation of whatever pre-conceived view you have while ignoring anything that contradicts it. You have proven this time and again every time you pluck an example out of the air that you think you can use as ammunition. Now that is what I would call an unscientific mindset

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:35:47 UTC No. 16492653

>>16492568
>>16492569
>but they are at least both artiodactyls. Horses on the other hand are perissodactyls while cows are artiodactyls.
My cat has six toes, and judging by the local stray kitten population, this has nothing to do with reproduction.
>you would have better luck hybridising a cow with a whale.
Even if this claim is true, all you have done is reduce the horse-cow problem to a cow-whale problem. However I think horse-cow will be simpler to test directly.
>Horses and cows have very different gametes, the likelihood they could even fuse much less lead to a viable embryo is essentially zero.
Do you mean the spermatozoon will ignore the ovum? This is something you can test with a classroom microscope.
>You’re still yet to actually provide any proof that it’s plausible or even possible that such hybridisation could occur in the first place.
I have provided various photos and references (never directly pasted, from what I recall) to witnesses who say such animals are possible and even give written and instructions on how to produce them. This is not definitive on the level of mathematical “proof” but it also is more than you have given for any of your claims.
>You are not searching for truth, you are searching for validation of whatever pre-conceived view
There is no view here, other than the hypothesis hybridization may be possible between more widely divergent species than many assume possible
>every time you pluck an example out of the air
That’s how examples always work.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:37:56 UTC No. 16492654

We came from giant lizards. Not monkey and pig. You retards.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 11:20:29 UTC No. 16492678

>>16492653
>My cat has six toes, and judging by the local stray kitten population, this has nothing to do with reproduction
What does this even mean? What does the number of toes a cat has have to do with ungulates from different orders apparently interbreeding?
>However I think horse-cow will be simpler to test directly
Do us all a favour and do it then
>This is something you can test with a classroom microscope
It is, and yet nobody has ever found that cow sperm can interact with a horse ovum or vice versa. You’d think something so easy to test would have been done if it were possible
>I have provided various photos and references (never directly pasted, from what I recall) to witnesses who say such animals are possible and even give written and instructions on how to produce them
You’ve posted photos of non-hybrid animals and written accounts that are entirely unsubstantiated, neither of which are proof
>This is not definitive on the level of mathematical “proof” but it also is more than you have given for any of your claims
It’s a good thing I’m not the one making claims about hybrid animals then. As stated before you’re not going to find proof of something so obscure being specifically disproven because nobody has ever had to disprove it, and the reason nobody has ever had to disprove it is because there’s no reason to believe it is possible in the first place. The burden of proof is on you
>There is no view here, other than the hypothesis hybridization may be possible between more widely divergent species than many assume possible
Don’t pretend that’s the case when you try to shoehorn entirely unrelated topics like Nebraska man into the discussion. Don’t pretend there’s no retarded agenda you intend to reinforce with this thread
>That’s how examples always work
The point is those examples just keep showing you have no clue what you’re talking about

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 12:17:30 UTC No. 16492711

>>16480216
Horses and cattle can’t interbreed. Bovine and equine gametes are frequently used in heterologous assays specifically because bovine sperm readily binds to equine oocytes without any chance of development.
>Oocytes were examined at 24 hours for cleavage. No equine oocytes cleaved after IVF or PVI. However, ICSI conducted with equine sperm treated with dilauroyl phosphatidylcholine resulted in 85% of the oocytes cleaving. Sperm injected into the PV space of equine oocytes did not appear to enter the ooplasm. This study validated the use of bovine oocytes for equine sperm studies and indicates that failure of equine IVF is more than an inability of equine sperm to penetrate the ZP.
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0093691X14001812

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 22:27:25 UTC No. 16493391

>>16480216
>It is also suggested that many “genetic defects” in newborn livestock may be more simply explained through a human sire
How is this more simple than a genetic defect

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 22:33:05 UTC No. 16493402

>>16493391
The highest class of training will be offered to you soon to solidify your future. To go with your great pay checks, you'll get the opportunity to become a masterclass in various fields.

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 02:25:28 UTC No. 16493617

>>16492711
OP BTFO

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 23:05:17 UTC No. 16494607

>>16481801
>Nearly all experts agree Lucy was just a 3 foot tall chimpanzee
Not a single expert thinks this, nor is Lucy the only Australopithecus. Her bones look nothing like a chimp’s, especially in the pelvis and legs
>Heidelberg man was a jaw bone that was conceded by many to be quite human
That’s because it is a human in the genus Homo, it was not Homo sapiens but a similar separate species of human. The genetics and anatomy are both different. If you looked at a lion and tiger’s jaws they’d look very similar but they aren’t the same species
>Nebraska man scientifically built up from one tooth, later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig
First off it was a tooth from a peccary not a pig, second it wasn’t scientifically built up but a premature and over ambitious act. Peccary teeth do look very similar to human teeth and the people who disproved it did so in a scientific fashion
>Piltdown man jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape
This is the only true hoax on the list
>all evidence of Peking man has disappeared
It was just a Homo erectus which is known from many specimens. Having one stolen or lost doesn’t mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things
>Neanderthal man just had arthritis
Strange I didn’t know arthritis changed the shape of the skull, shows up in genetics of people with Neanderthal ancestry and is consistent in every member of an entire species
>New Guinea man is a species found in the region just north of Australia dating back to 1970
Calling people from New Guinea an extinct human species is pretty racist bro. They’re still around
>Cro-magnon man is equal in physique and brain capacity to modern man… so what’s the difference?
There isn’t any. That’s the whole point of cro-magnons. They are the oldest anatomically modern humans known, not a separate extinct species

Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:40:31 UTC No. 16495994

>>16492711
OP went real quiet after this huh

Anonymous at Fri, 29 Nov 2024 13:29:30 UTC No. 16497154

>>16481880
>If a hairy chimp bred with a hairy wild boar then why are we mostly hairless?
you get gorillas from that