I’ve become interested lately in the possibily of hybrid origins for humans. I have found a lot of material online (for example macroevolution.net) suggesting at least that the possible combinations go far beyond the best known and most intuitive (horse-donkey; lion-tiger; cow-bison) and into things like pic related, 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.It is also suggested that many “genetic defects” in newborn livestock may be more simply explained through a human sire.Anyway, what do you think? Are humans a hybrid species? It seems to me that scientific research in this direction would be hard to conduct ethically. But maybe someone knows something?
>>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.
>>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.
>>16480216Modern 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 FranceA 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 vegetablesThat 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
>>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 haresYes 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 handPic related is another example, a suspected hybrid of sheep and pig.
>>16480216>PicThat's how your mom was conceived?
>>16480216coarse>>16480272cog>>16480473shig:DDD
>>16480216While 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.>>16480473This 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.
>>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".
>>16480216We 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.
>>16480841>5,000 dedicated online perverts>vs 5,000,000,000 horsefucking 3rd-world peasants
>>16480993Noink.
>>16481077You'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 peasantsZoophilia 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
>>16480993>related to chimpanzeesHuman 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?
>>16481192>what are early hominids
>>16481192I believe this guyhttp://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html
>>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 agoAnd 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 pigNo 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 hairhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangalica
>>16481200Still not an explanation.>>16481208I remember that one. The question remains if the DNA rearrangement came before or after that proposed hybridization.
>it’s another humans are pig hybrids threadwngmi
>>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 workedWho? The people in OP pic tried, and they say it worked.>That’s just a breed of pig with curly hairHow 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
>>16481667>Man diverged from the apes 5 million years BC, after horses diverged from donkeysUnlikely. 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 workedSaying 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 raccoonsLiterally 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
>>16481667What about lynxes? They sound like humans and they look weird. I also think dolphins may potentially be human hybrids as well.
>>16481667>it’s “just a breed” of cat with raccoon-like characteristicsThat looks like a completely average tabby Maine coon
>>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 topIt 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 breedingThis 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 fieldAnother gif: suspected pigeon-chicken hybrids being farmed in China
What if we hyberdized small long horns got any miniature long horn ponies?
>>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 fieldNobody 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 ChinaAgain those are just pigeons, the breed is called Moderna. Chickens and pigeons aren’t even in the same orderhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modena_pigeon
>>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 hybridisationSo 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.
>>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
>>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 todaySource? 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?
>>16481801>Whether those things really matter or not is what’s at disputeOf 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 effortCan’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 picLol
>>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 willSpeak 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
>>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 LockeWritten 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 birdGood one. Tell another
>>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 commonI 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 evidenceYou’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 anotherpdf related
>>16481943>Therefore we are far from ruling out the jumartWe really aren’t>Therefore it is also no surprise that jumarts do not occur without human interventionThe 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 ridiculousI 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 existsYou 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
>>16481943>https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.08.14.607926v1.full.pdfHis 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?
>>16482014>We really aren’tBy 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 amYou 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 specimensIndeed. 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.
>>16482066>You really aren’tI 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 cowNo 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 disprovenExcept 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 otherSo 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
>>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 claimsI’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 claimsI 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 youIndeed. 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.
>>16485459>there is plenty of witness testimony of the jumart, and it is you who chooses to dismiss it out off handWhich 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 confirmedDismissing 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 hypothesesYou 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 careersThey 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
>>16485492>Dismissing unsubstantiated stories of impossible hybrids isn’t the same thing as dismissing every piece of written materialThis 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 evidenceThey 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 birdsReplace 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.)
>>16485676>This is not what you said beforeYes 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 uncriticallySuch 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 necessaryAnd 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?
>>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 amOf 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 comparableThese 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 dholesInteresting, 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 hybridsYou 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.
>>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 husbandryWhich contemporary expert in animal husbandry thinks horses and cows can breed?>and also John LockeA random>I would like to see the question studied by serious and competent modern biologists in a good-quality studyAnd 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 canidWhat 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, machineryAre 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 themIf 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
>>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 materialThat’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?
>>16485994>But still, in its present state, fruitful dicussion will not be possibleYeah 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-contemporarySo 17th century peasants. Yeah sounds like they’d be well educated>then supply would increase to meet the new demandHard 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
>>16486029>while asking for all the evidence yourselfI 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 educatedLater 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 farmNo farmer I know uses animals to do a machine’s work. Former “working” animals are basically pets or else a tourist attraction
>>16486147>I have given evidence of some things, up to and including a paper on molecular biologyThat 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 windOh 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 attractionExcept 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
tl;dr OP is a faggot./thread
>>16486198>and it was pure garbageNow 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
>>16486508>but even the modern scientific papers that you so fetishize, as long as you don’t like themI 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 potatoesYou’re more retarded than I thought
>>16486854>I’d bet it’s not even peer reviewedWho 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.
>>16487642>Who needs peer reviewlol>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 againI got the point. It wasn’t a very good one
>>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 oneFrom what you said earlier, it really seems you did nit.
