Brian, considering your heterodoxic tendencies (At least in so far as virology/immunology), have you stumbled upon the "human as pig-chimpanzee hybrid" theory?
It is basically the only actual hypothesis of how humans came to have all the features we have that differ from chimps AND resemble pigs. For example that chimps have no vocal coords (In fact no primates do), but that pigs do and they look remarkably like ours? That humans and pigs share the same kidney shape and structure, which is pretty unique in the animal kingdom? That we share the same skin structure (In terms of our skin fat layer and blood vessels that "penetrate" it for body cooling) as pigs, which no primate has? That chimps do not sweat for thermoregulation, but pigs do?
Just like virology/immunology, a lot of the "established science" of paleontology is basically bullshit and has no mechanisms, but hybrids are a known mechanism, we can create hybrids under controlled mechanisms in both plants and animals.
I have now read a reasonable amount of that web site and it certainly does raise a number of interesting issues. The gradualists never seem to discuss these issues ...
It would be interesting to see if we have enough post-cranial fossils in enough detail to compare hominids, australopithecines, etc and chimps. However, I suspect we don't have enough of the relevant parts.
The problem with any claims of hybridization between chimps and pigs is the number of chromosomes. Chimps have 24 (it is claimed Chimp 2A and 2B have fused to form 2 in humans) while Pigs have 18.
I think hybridization would be impossible with such a large difference in chromosomes without even looking at genes present in one and not the other. I am aware, of course, that hybrids exist among mammals (eg, mules) but they tend to be infertile.
Now, there are alleged to be a small number of humans where two chromosomes have fused, but speciation would never happen in a population as large as ours but for a Chimp-Pig hybrid to be fertile would appear to require a number of small probability events, eg, some fusion or splitting of chromosomes in multiple individuals to allow fertile offspring to be produced.
On the other hand, Muntjaks provide an interesting example of what is possible (some species have half the number of chromosomes as others, so radical fusion must have occurred and males have one more chromosome than females.)
However, I would tend to think convergent evolution, but then I have not read the article :-)
And, of course, the urge to hybridize might explain that academic who was recently in trouble ...
Zebra-donkeys form hybrids that can produce fertile backcrosses. Zebras have 44 chromosome pairs, donkeys have 62. A much bigger difference than 24 and 18. They can occur naturally, but are extremely rare due to limited geographical overlap except for South Africa.
In captive breeding, female zebra-donkey hybrids can backcross.
OK, you are referring to 2N numbers (44 and 62) while I was referring to N numbers.
In addition, Zebras have three species with differing numbers of Chromosomes:
Grevy's Zebra with 46, Plains Zebra with 44 and Mountain Zebra with 32.
Also, I did not think of back-crosses. I have also heard that there are persistent rumors that someone in the US during the early 1900s created a human chimp hybrid.
Immediate thanks for bringing this interesting theory to my attention. My first impression is that it seems obvious. Aside from hybridization genes can do extreme, radical things in embryogenesis as demonstrated by McClintock with corn, but the list of "apps" that are missing in apes and present in us and pigs seems too big to be explained even by radical gene-jumping.
It seems that Darwin wrote about hybrids in his Variation of Animal and Plants under Domestication discussed hybridization or mammals but that seems to have been suppressed since.
Is there a Lizard x Human cross that would want that?
I have been reading the material at that site, and find the claims about monotremes interesting. I was aware that they had 'strange' sex-determining genes that were somewhat like ZW ... but I think it would be more convincing if there was some characteristic that birds have that reptiles don't that was also found in monotremes.
It should be noted that there seems to be some variability in sex-determining genes in both mammals and amphibians. Some Muntjacks use a single OY scheme in that males have an extra chromosome and thus have an extra chromosome compared to females. Among amphibians, Rana rugosa on one Japanese island have populations that use ZW on one side of the island and XY on the other side of the island. This was claimed in an article on sex determination on the web. XY is called male dominant which may help find the article.
I noticed the claim that some birds (eg, pigeons) produce (crop) milk and that monotremes have this in common, but the monotreme provision of milk seems like a primitive form of mammalian milk glands without nipples and not at all like crop milk.
I am not dismissing the claims in that site out of hand and need to read lots more.
The picture of Mr. Munoz and his is family is beyond depressing and has nothing to do with his needing oxygen: the only part of (who I assume to be) his wife visible in the frame is holding a cellphone; he looks over his son playing a video game. I know you can't construe an entire life from one photograph, but it certainly seems sadly representative of many, many people.
'Of note, this work cannot be misconstrued to relate to Covid vaccines, a theoretical issue that would need to be separately explored.' Maybe next time explore the theoretical issues that involve brains and deaths and major side effects before injecting a billion people? I mean or inject them first and just try and figure out it in the autopsies. Either way.
It takes a while to get used to Brian Mowrey’s writing style (seriously, Brian? “Putatively” instead of “probably”, “supposedly”, “ostensibly”, “seemingly”, “clearly”, …?) but there isn’t a better critical thinker out there who can put the uncritical thinkers (your Topol’s, Tufecki’s, et al) down so succinctly (okay: “concisely”?). And, for a guy who knows that analogies are more descriptive than argumentative, I definitely love it when Brian uses them to make his case—because he does it so well. Unbelievably well. And consistently. Example:
I highlight this rhetorical barb because it is so easy to point out the logical flaw here; Zeynep is engaging in mere sophistry. To see why, imagine for example that a town locks all its children into a basement for two years out of a mortal fear of… the rain. This imprisonment only ends upon the pretext of the discovery and deployment of a “solution” to the rain… rain-coats and umbrellas. The pro-imprisonment lobby, if criticized retrospectively, can cosset itself with the assurance that critics are minimizing the danger of the rain from the “comfort” of rain-coats and umbrellas. But this wouldn’t mean anything.
Dang. That’s some good stuff, Brian. Your brainiac rating is still a 10.
Thank you for such detailed and kind words; and criticism is always welcome. I feel I still like putatively where it is, in this case. Maybe more for not having full confidence in the injected spike study results, absent replication.
Very reasonable. Street dust is harmless as long as you follow the five second rule (exhale before five seconds). Otherwise, instantly fatal without Roombas. Children are too unpredictable, that's the problem.
In case you haven't seen it: https://research.a-star.edu.sg/articles/highlights/catching-a-covid-co-conspirator/
"Researchers identify an unexpected synergy between bacterial and viral molecules that causes severe inflammation in some patients with COVID-19."
It is said to be able to cause a cytokine storm in some patients. The actual words were "pro-inflammatory cytokine production may surge".
Another Cleveland Clinic study in case you haven't seen it:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.06.09.23290893v1.full
The imprinting effect of covid-19 vaccines: an expected selection bias in observational studies
https://www.bmj.com/content/381/bmj-2022-074404
Why do you deny that the Vaccines saved 20 billion people and even resurrected 2 million people who died from SARS-CoV-2?
It's so obvious that these claims are true!
Brian, considering your heterodoxic tendencies (At least in so far as virology/immunology), have you stumbled upon the "human as pig-chimpanzee hybrid" theory?
http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html
It is basically the only actual hypothesis of how humans came to have all the features we have that differ from chimps AND resemble pigs. For example that chimps have no vocal coords (In fact no primates do), but that pigs do and they look remarkably like ours? That humans and pigs share the same kidney shape and structure, which is pretty unique in the animal kingdom? That we share the same skin structure (In terms of our skin fat layer and blood vessels that "penetrate" it for body cooling) as pigs, which no primate has? That chimps do not sweat for thermoregulation, but pigs do?
Just like virology/immunology, a lot of the "established science" of paleontology is basically bullshit and has no mechanisms, but hybrids are a known mechanism, we can create hybrids under controlled mechanisms in both plants and animals.
I have now read a reasonable amount of that web site and it certainly does raise a number of interesting issues. The gradualists never seem to discuss these issues ...
It would be interesting to see if we have enough post-cranial fossils in enough detail to compare hominids, australopithecines, etc and chimps. However, I suspect we don't have enough of the relevant parts.
The problem with any claims of hybridization between chimps and pigs is the number of chromosomes. Chimps have 24 (it is claimed Chimp 2A and 2B have fused to form 2 in humans) while Pigs have 18.
I think hybridization would be impossible with such a large difference in chromosomes without even looking at genes present in one and not the other. I am aware, of course, that hybrids exist among mammals (eg, mules) but they tend to be infertile.
Now, there are alleged to be a small number of humans where two chromosomes have fused, but speciation would never happen in a population as large as ours but for a Chimp-Pig hybrid to be fertile would appear to require a number of small probability events, eg, some fusion or splitting of chromosomes in multiple individuals to allow fertile offspring to be produced.
On the other hand, Muntjaks provide an interesting example of what is possible (some species have half the number of chromosomes as others, so radical fusion must have occurred and males have one more chromosome than females.)
However, I would tend to think convergent evolution, but then I have not read the article :-)
And, of course, the urge to hybridize might explain that academic who was recently in trouble ...
Zebra-donkeys form hybrids that can produce fertile backcrosses. Zebras have 44 chromosome pairs, donkeys have 62. A much bigger difference than 24 and 18. They can occur naturally, but are extremely rare due to limited geographical overlap except for South Africa.
In captive breeding, female zebra-donkey hybrids can backcross.
OK, you are referring to 2N numbers (44 and 62) while I was referring to N numbers.
In addition, Zebras have three species with differing numbers of Chromosomes:
Grevy's Zebra with 46, Plains Zebra with 44 and Mountain Zebra with 32.
Also, I did not think of back-crosses. I have also heard that there are persistent rumors that someone in the US during the early 1900s created a human chimp hybrid.
Immediate thanks for bringing this interesting theory to my attention. My first impression is that it seems obvious. Aside from hybridization genes can do extreme, radical things in embryogenesis as demonstrated by McClintock with corn, but the list of "apps" that are missing in apes and present in us and pigs seems too big to be explained even by radical gene-jumping.
It seems that Darwin wrote about hybrids in his Variation of Animal and Plants under Domestication discussed hybridization or mammals but that seems to have been suppressed since.
Is there a Lizard x Human cross that would want that?
I have been reading the material at that site, and find the claims about monotremes interesting. I was aware that they had 'strange' sex-determining genes that were somewhat like ZW ... but I think it would be more convincing if there was some characteristic that birds have that reptiles don't that was also found in monotremes.
It should be noted that there seems to be some variability in sex-determining genes in both mammals and amphibians. Some Muntjacks use a single OY scheme in that males have an extra chromosome and thus have an extra chromosome compared to females. Among amphibians, Rana rugosa on one Japanese island have populations that use ZW on one side of the island and XY on the other side of the island. This was claimed in an article on sex determination on the web. XY is called male dominant which may help find the article.
I noticed the claim that some birds (eg, pigeons) produce (crop) milk and that monotremes have this in common, but the monotreme provision of milk seems like a primitive form of mammalian milk glands without nipples and not at all like crop milk.
I am not dismissing the claims in that site out of hand and need to read lots more.
The picture of Mr. Munoz and his is family is beyond depressing and has nothing to do with his needing oxygen: the only part of (who I assume to be) his wife visible in the frame is holding a cellphone; he looks over his son playing a video game. I know you can't construe an entire life from one photograph, but it certainly seems sadly representative of many, many people.
'Of note, this work cannot be misconstrued to relate to Covid vaccines, a theoretical issue that would need to be separately explored.' Maybe next time explore the theoretical issues that involve brains and deaths and major side effects before injecting a billion people? I mean or inject them first and just try and figure out it in the autopsies. Either way.
Great post Brian.
I wanted to pitch a satirical headline -- "Prominent Vaccine Expert Calls for Exploring Covid-Vaccine-Induced Skull Contamination"
That would be a good one. Clever and good click-bait.
Awwww, I was hanging out for a meta-commentary conclusion about generic vaccine hubris. Sigh...
"Did you read the latest Mowrey vaccine hubris lament?" -- frequently heard conversation starter at parties.
I like your informative random thoughts.
Thanks!
The worst... is yet to come.
Restack with a (sorry) minor dig:
It takes a while to get used to Brian Mowrey’s writing style (seriously, Brian? “Putatively” instead of “probably”, “supposedly”, “ostensibly”, “seemingly”, “clearly”, …?) but there isn’t a better critical thinker out there who can put the uncritical thinkers (your Topol’s, Tufecki’s, et al) down so succinctly (okay: “concisely”?). And, for a guy who knows that analogies are more descriptive than argumentative, I definitely love it when Brian uses them to make his case—because he does it so well. Unbelievably well. And consistently. Example:
I highlight this rhetorical barb because it is so easy to point out the logical flaw here; Zeynep is engaging in mere sophistry. To see why, imagine for example that a town locks all its children into a basement for two years out of a mortal fear of… the rain. This imprisonment only ends upon the pretext of the discovery and deployment of a “solution” to the rain… rain-coats and umbrellas. The pro-imprisonment lobby, if criticized retrospectively, can cosset itself with the assurance that critics are minimizing the danger of the rain from the “comfort” of rain-coats and umbrellas. But this wouldn’t mean anything.
Dang. That’s some good stuff, Brian. Your brainiac rating is still a 10.
While I struggle sometimes to discern the exact meeting of some of Brian's writing, in this particular case "putatively" was just fine with me :)
Thank you for such detailed and kind words; and criticism is always welcome. I feel I still like putatively where it is, in this case. Maybe more for not having full confidence in the injected spike study results, absent replication.
Very reasonable. Street dust is harmless as long as you follow the five second rule (exhale before five seconds). Otherwise, instantly fatal without Roombas. Children are too unpredictable, that's the problem.