Has anyone on earth created man by means of genetic engineering when he bred a pig and a chimpanzee? There are many reasons why this does not make sense, and only one reason why this man is believed - poor education when it comes to the theory of evolution
It turns out that there are 1.8 million scientific journals in the world, but none of them were willing to publish the article by Dr. Eugene McCarthy, from the University of Georgia in the USA. The university also no longer employs him because on his website -Macro evolutionHe writes that he spent his entire life in the genetics department at the University of Georgia in Athens (a city in Georgia), and has a PHD in genetics and a master's degree in mathematics - all from the University of Georgia.
McCarthy's claim
According to McCarthy, humans share many features with chimpanzees, but also quite a few with other animals, chiefly the pig. On his website he writes: "An open mind is needed to address the fact that the features that distinguish humans from chimpanzees also distinguish them from other primates, there are features that are found in humans but not in other primates, so they cannot be the product of hybridization between two types of primates. If anything, you should think about hybridizing a primate with a creature that is not a primate - a distant hybrid that will create an unusual creature."
What is the second animal that has all these qualities? The answer according to McCarthy is Sus scrofa - or the domestic pig. And immediately he adds: if we come to the conclusion that pigs bred with great apes to create the human race, this will cause the collapse of all existing theories."
More of the topic in Hayadan:
A long look at the monkey - Isaac Asimov
Only 515 students were tested on evolution in the matriculation exam in biology in 2011
"During my years in the genetics department, my dissatisfaction with the standard explanation of evolution grew. The more I read about fossils, the more I became convinced that Darwin's evolutionary explanation was fundamentally wrong. In my research on hybrid creatures I became aware of an alternative way of thinking about evolution which I call the 'stabilization theory' which better explains the existing data."
"Over the years, I published a study on new genetic software that I wrote, a survey on the genomes of mice and rice, and several articles in which I described problems in the theory of evolution and in which I presented the alternative explanation. These articles reached the hands of unknown critics and were rejected."
Why the claims are wrong
Since these claims were published on popular websites in Hebrew, I would like to take advantage of the stage to explain why the argument cannot make sense, despite the researcher's claims that "they do not recognize the claim that it will cause everyone to lose their livelihood" and a host of conspiracy theories common among creationists.
First, there is the possibility of lateral transfer of genes, but this is especially common in the lower classes of life: bacteria, archaea, and viruses. The phenomenon is widely researched and articles about it have also been published on the knowledge website.
It is also known that plants are easier to manipulate than animals (a seedless watermelon, a plant expert once explained to me, contains 3 sets of genes, compared to an even number of sets of genes that guarantee a fruitful watermelon).
Another possibility for lateral transfer of genes between different creatures is through intelligent design. God forbid I was not referring to some god that the word "intelligent planning" is simply political correctness to define, but to the only intelligent race on earth - us. In recent years, we have been able to change the genetics of plants and animals by introducing genes that will allow, for example, yellow rice to contain vitamin A that does not exist in nature, or for the purpose of the experiment - introducing genes from phosphorescent jellyfish into mice to monitor the experimental treatment they received. A significant proportion of today's corn and soybeans are genetically modified to improve their yields. When it is an upgraded mouse (or corn) and when it is a new species - it is already a question of perspective.
Today we know better the mechanisms by which heredity works, and it is much more diverse than what Darwin knew (in his experiments with hybridization of plants and pigeons) and even that of Mendel (and we must not forget that, despite the proximity of the times, Darwin did not know about Mendel's work). Today, not only is genetics used as a tool for understanding evolution, but it is only one part, as important as it may be, of a set of ways to transfer heredity, for example epigenetics and lateral transfer of genes in bacteria. But all this does not change the basic conclusion of a variety of genes in each generation that allows those best suited to the conditions in that generation to survive.
To the best of my knowledge, genetic hybridization between different and distant species of mammals that would give a hybrid creature with equal characteristics from both parents (and not a single gene or several genes, out of the over tens of thousands of genes that each animal has) has never been carried out and is still far from the technological ability of man and perhaps it is also Problematic from an ethical point of view (although an attempt can be made to create, for example, a fertile mule without ethical problems)."
Like other creationists, McCarthy also demands the existence of a miracle that cannot be proven today. In the next step, McCarthy will determine who the intelligent creature is that made this hybridization, which is impossible in nature because the pig and the chimpanzee are separated by 80 million years of separate evolution. If evolution could be taught freely in the education system, readers would not be tempted by strange theories such as creationism on the one hand and pseudo-evolutionary theories of this type on the other, and it is a shame that they are exposed to the general public without the scientific basis from elementary school.
And finally, we will mention the quote by Carl Sagan who criticized the decision to include Spock in the Star Trek series, who was a hybrid creature of a Vulcan and a human, "It's like hybridizing between Adam and Petunia." Ruling.
72 תגובות
It is a fact that even in the Torah the animals were created before man. A sign that they were before and that man is descended from them.
Humans were not created from other animals.
Why keep spouting nonsense to people to fill columns? What you have is the department of hypotheses and not science, God forbid. Human beings were created at their level. God is able to do everything. He created man directly as a 20-year-old boy. And if that doesn't make sense to you, the Torah makes sense. So see what you do believe. Transparent and pigs turned into humans. This is nonsense that is told to small children
He meant the Jews who are the descendants of the monkeys and pigs. I already wrote it in the Koran.
The only disturbing thing about this story is his dismissal. If the man has been formally trained in the sciences and works in the methods
There is no ethical problem with them, the dismissals are evidence of a lack of tolerance.
Why bother? Because he may be wrong, perhaps misleading, but the big changes and leaps in science should come from people like him who have "weird claims", and they too have a place in a pluralistic world.
If they had fired Prof. Shechtman because he was "talking nonsense" about "impossible" symmetries in crystals (claims heard from the great chemists) where would we be today?
It does not appear that he was ever a faculty member at this university, so it is not surprising that the university terminated his employment regardless of his theories. He did do a doctorate there and published several articles that were published in decent journals (you can find them in PubMed), but every doctorate comes to an end and then they say goodbye to the university.
Moshe - based on his publications, he is not an authority for anything. Beyond that, you are right that the body of a theory should be discussed, only the problem here is that the premise of the theory (a chimpanzee and a pig can reproduce in some natural way) is so far-fetched that it cannot really be taken seriously. If I propose a theory based on the assumption that the Flying Spaghetti Monster caused the Big Bang, it is unlikely that anyone will take the theory seriously, right? It's the same in this case.
Moses
The point is that a high school student knows that a descendant of a monkey and a pig is not possible. Therefore, it is not reasonable to call a person who claims that it is possible and even probable a "geneticist". In my opinion - "former geneticist" is too great a compliment for him.
I did not understand the article, if it is all based on ignorance on the part of the opponents of evolution as the author understands it, but on the other hand the opinion of a professor of evolution and a master's degree in mathematics who is one of those opponents is attacked.
How can someone claim in one article that only ignoramuses do not accept evolution and later give an example of an authority in the field as an example of those ignoramuses? After all, this is a refutation of the article itself. By the way, what is a "former geneticist"? Did the knowledge disappear for him as soon as he decided on something that His Highness does not accept? And you also decided to derogatorily call him "Creationist" when it is clear to every reader that he is not such but has a new theory that he calls the "Stabilization Theory". Personally, it seems to me that sleeping a pig with a monkey will not create a person, but science is based on theories and their refutation. The arguments for the body of a person and not for the body of a matter make you smaller than the man you wanted to insult.
I don't remember deleting your comment.
I think it's WordPress. not my father It happens to me too. try again.
my father
delete my comment after a week,
Because it doesn't fit your views?
Is this your science?
He finds another hummus master in a pita, they masturbate together, then they are two hummus in a pita.
He finds another hummus master in a pita, they masturbate together, and then they are two hummus in a pita.
That's how Adon Hummus grows in pita, apparently.
sir,
Do you think masturbation increases culture???
The reason upgrading a graphics card is an evolution is because it allows you to watch blue movies in a higher quality and masturbate more vigorously... so in fact it does increase reproduction
Dear Nissim, I got to see universes accept, and those who are strong in time can play with their place, don't take it to heart, but I notice that you also received a compliment
Water blowing
Say - can we go back in time and stay there??
Warm water
what are they blowing
In my opinion, you are closer to miracles that he is no less a fool than you. Sincerely. :)
You can click, humans and computers undergo evolution, you can see that they think and sometimes have a body attached to them, and secondly, although I laugh a little, I am closer to a monkey than to a fool, (to a monkey because in time replays I repeat the same things over and over again but in style). With respect
MouthHole
right. Either he's a jerk trying to be smart or he's a jerk...
Nissim, I think Heaven is just playing with you. You don't really have to give him such detailed answers
Reality is only thought and without thought there is simply nothing and we are touching the singular point from which thought began which is a whole
The things and from it we have reached this point and you can call it evolution, but not Darwin's but that of thought.
Water blowing
I will try to address your words
. If you type from computers to humans then someone probably built them
Why type from computers? How is man similar to a computer?
B. If there are theories about aliens and God maybe they are true
The existence of God and/or aliens is not a theory. A theory is something that explains a phenomenon, or predicts an outcome.
third. Someone can disassemble and assemble you
How did you come to this from the fact that computers are evolving?
d. The evidence in Greek literature about the hybrids may be correct
There is no evidence in Greek literature. There are stories among the Greeks about hybrids. Maybe they are really true, but how is this due to the evolution of computers??
God. Someone who is not a human is involved in writing the Tanach
How is this relevant? How is the Tanakh different from any other book?
and. And I don't sign it, like you pray to Buddha and there it is half elephant half human, run fast and put a cap on your head and mumble all kinds of nonsense
Buddha is a figure in Buddhism. Ganesha, who is half elephant and half man, is a figure in Hinduism.
Gilgamesh
I wrote a thesis (master's degree) whose topic was evolution. I'm not an expert in genetics, but I need to be informed on the subject. In particular - I know that the pig and the monkey have a different number of chromosomes and therefore cannot reproduce with each other.
And I will say the second point again - similarity in traits does not entail genetic similarity. The fish also has smooth skin….but, the first point is enough to contradict McCarthy.
Gilgamesh
If that sounds idiotic to you, that's your right.
No one claims you're not an idiot either.
There are facts. Not everyone agrees with them.
To say that an elevator is an evolution of stairs is really nonsense.
Nonsense with which I do not agree. That's why I don't say that either. (Who did say this nonsense is you).
And there is no connection between this and purpose.
Some would say that a person has a purpose. What will you say then? That man did not evolve? Think logically..
Regarding the evolution of computers, it sounds quite idiotic because a computer is a tool. If you say that an elevator is an evolutionary development of a degree, what's the point? It seems to me that this allegory stems from illogical thinking on the part of the inventor of the idea since the tool has a purpose and we look for a purpose for everything so if the computer has a purpose then the grasshopper also has a purpose which no one promised us.
Gilgamesh
There is no such thing as faulty logic.
Reason can be present or absent. not wrong
Nissim, you sound very smart, but I have no idea what kind of authority you are in the field. So many ideas killed them and said they were impossible and in the end people had to eat the hat. And why is his logic wrong? We don't draw conclusions in evolution according to hereditary similarity? I don't believe this McCarthy guy, but I'm missing some affiliation with the Mormon church or hospitalization for a fissure that he went through to complete the puzzle
Dear Nissim, there are some conclusions. . .
A. If you type from computers to humans then someone probably built them
B. If there are theories about aliens and God maybe they are true
third. Someone can disassemble and assemble you
d. The evidence in Greek literature about the hybrids may be correct
God. Someone who is not a human is involved in writing the Tanach
and. And I don't sign it, like you pray to Buddha and there it is half elephant half human, run fast and put a cap on your head and mumble all kinds of nonsense
Respectfully blowing water
Anonymous is apparently a ghost.
And the only conclusion I find is that we do not agree on definitions (and there is something beyond). If you find a different conclusion then fine 🙂
Miracles
again:
The conclusion is that you were wrong when you said that computers do not evolve.
What do we learn from this?
That you don't know what you're talking about.
What is not clear?
Anonymous … remain anonymous
I will ask again…. What is the conclusion from the fact that computers are evolving? What do we learn from this?
It's not me, it's a plugin for WordPress, and it does block 99% of spam, whereas if I set 3 links to it, it would block 90% or something like that, and then I had a lot more monitoring work.
Miracles
The conclusion is that you are wrong. Contrary to your words - computers do evolve. what did not you understand?
(The anonymous one from above is me).
Miracles
The conclusion is that you are wrong. Contrary to your words - computers do evolve. what did not you understand?
(The anonymous one from above is me).
MouthHole
Ok - let's conclude that this is semantics. What conclusion do you draw from what you say?
Gilgamesh
No journal is willing to publish the study because the study is as serious as a study on mobile perpetuum. We know that a pig and a chimpanzee cannot interbreed. That is - the idea itself is not possible at all.
Beyond that - his way of drawing conclusions is refutable. It is just as "logical" as concluding that a bat is a cross between a rat and a pigeon.
Avi,
I don't know, at least allow links that end in PDF. What spammer will give a link to a PDF? 🙂
If you say that multiple link blocking prevents spammers - then you are right. It is necessary to block them automatically. It just sounds a little strange to me... usually the spammers I know only have one link to their site... but I guess yours has more experience than me in this matter
To the honorable Mr. Nissim.
"One of the conditions for evolution is culture." - It doesn't matter if robots build robots or if the human race has further refinement - and it builds itself, in any case it's the same issue
My father, you wrote as proof of the invalidity of McCarthy's claims that no scientific journal was willing to publish them. This is not such a good argument because we have always been taught that groundbreaking ideas run into a conservative establishment that resists changing the doctrine on which it rests. And you came to the conclusion that if we basically teach evolution in schools then we won't have to follow people like this McCarthy, which is also a problematic conclusion because
Even if I studied evolution at the level of a university course, a doctor of genetics from a respected institution probably learned more about evolution than I did, and it is very possible that he also learned more than you and experimented together on hybridization, reproduction, chromosome pairs, etc. It would have been better to deny his claims this time ad hominem, and attack the person making the argument and not the claim, since no matter how far-fetched it is, he should understand the field more than laymen like me who studied evolution at the elementary and high school level
And at the same time also allow exposure to all the spammers. You have to find the balance. The system determined that 2 links or more is suspected as spam, so at most wait a little for me to see and release.
And the response was blocked because of the links.. Father, you need to improve your response blocking mechanisms a bit..
You want to encourage people to attach references and articles to their claims...
Miracles,
This is an argument about semantics. One that I will get out of only after saying this:
I know how more computers are made in the world, I know you know too. In my opinion, as soon as more are created - that's the culture. By definition
http://milog.co.il/%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%99%D7%AA/s/
In my opinion (and in the opinion of most experts), computers are evolving. There are also generations of motherboards, generations of processors, etc. and all the time the computers are developing and getting stronger...
http://promo.aaas.org/kn_marketing/pdfs/EvoutionofComputers.pdf
I hope they don't block this message because of the links that came 🙂 (Abi do something about it, every time I attach a support I get blocked).
to heath
Anonymous user
Change is not evolution. The fact that I changed the video card does not make the computer multiply faster. Ayo here is allowed and there is no competition here.
skeptic
Darwin called his theory "evolution by natural selection". This is what we mean when we talk about evolution. Therefore, those who claim that evolution is intentional, do not accept Darwin's theory. And it's a shame - the theory is proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
But - McCarthy's theory does not talk about intelligent planning. He talks about drawing conclusions from phenotype about the genotype. We have known for many, many years that this is not the case. And in addition - there is no possibility for a pig and a bonobo (this is the type of chimpanzee McCarthy was talking about) to reproduce: a bonobo has 24 pairs of chromosomes while a pig has 19 pairs.
McCarthy's theory is "good", in the sense that it can be refuted. And it was refuted... but it is wrong from the beginning because it is based on a wrong argument - that formal similarity requires genetic similarity.
I am amazed at the use of the term "evolutionist".
There is no denying evolution.
There is a negation of "random evolution".
Negation of the thought that evolution was made without the intention of reason...
Miracles
You are wrong.
The evolution of computers definitely includes a change in hardware, not just software.
For example: upgrading or improving the video card on my/your computer - will be considered as an evolution of my/your computer.
You can call it, for example, intelligent planning, but that won't change the facts.
Nissim, thanks for your responses, I'm surprised that there are so many conspiracy theorists and evolution deniers on a scientific article site.
For people who don't understand but are willing to listen: evolution is a theory that explains how life develops - this is the accepted theory among scientists today. This does not mean that it is true but it does mean that we will use it to understand the world around us in a better way as long as there is no more suitable theory.
To say that God created everything is simply not constructive because it does not contribute to our understanding and does not provide us with tools to make changes.
If we believe the theory of evolution, we get an important tool like hybridization or selection so that within a few generations we get better farm animals and plants. So in a certain way the theory proves itself - because the changes it predicts do happen.
There are criteria for a theory such as - the ability to measure and refute and predict. If they taught this in school, people would be more skeptical about fairy tales and not about the sciences
א
If it reproduces, and if it undergoes changes and if these changes are inherited and also affect the rate of reproduction of future generations - then yes, I would say that it develops by itself.
And I don't care if God planned it, or the late Steve Jobs - if he lives up to what I wrote then yes.
Please find one
Miracles, that is if I find a computer that reproduces. From this you will conclude that he developed by himself?
Water blowing
What are you trying to say?
MouthHole
No - computers do not multiply. People make computers. Computers break down and get thrown away.
The plans for building computers (design) are undergoing changes. Yes, it is a type of "meme", and the evolution of memes is certainly an open topic for discussion.
Dawkins, and Blackmore after him, explained why memes can be said to multiply. But - it is wrong to conclude from this that every meme is the result of evolution. The computer, for example, is not the result of evolution.
Miracles, you are wrong. Computers multiply and evolve. The fact that they do not reproduce themselves does not mean that they do not reproduce.
-"What does evolve - and this too is subject to debate - these are the plans for building computers."
Can you show me such an argument? I don't think there are those who argue about that...
Water blowing
One of the conditions for evolution is culture. Computers do not reproduce, and therefore do not evolve.
What does evolve - and this is also subject to debate - these are the plans for building computers.
1) Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and pigs have 19 pairs.
2) To conclude from similar external features that there is a genetic similarity is a mistake of a child in kindergarten.
It turns out that learning what others have already learned is neither complicated nor difficult.
But to learn something new that no one else has learned - few are able and do.
You have no sense either.
Look Mr. Honorable Gatekeeper, I have spelling mistakes, but no shame
Who is the mocker who signs "Blowing water"?
Shame on his teachers, shame on the Hebrew language,
Shame!
Honorable Mr. Shleima, I am not that strong in the Torah, but the religious reason that we are religiously forbidden to eat pork is - impure -, that is, does it say "maaaaahhhh" like a sheep and does not speak, with appetite
I'm not looking for anyone responsible. Maybe you got my stuff confused with McCarthy's quotes
Again, computers also have evolution, and it is "simple" for us to believe that someone built them
The skeptic advocates a classic conspiracy theory.
Instead of getting the simplest explanation, he looks for someone responsible.
I don't rule out the existence of other intelligences, but evolution is the simplest explanation.
As someone who saw how a human being is "built" and it was deleted in the "rehearsals", it is possible from personal testimony that it is difficult for me to repeat, to build a human being as you build from a computer and a phone some kind of "gad-zet", now those who "saw" will understand that there are other things besides my son A person walking around, you've seen believe it, you haven't seen it, eat what's in your stomach, it's hard to explain, it appears in the literature but whoever wrote it - is kidding you, the story above sounds to me like half a human, half the head of an animal - did you hear? This is a testimony. Sincerely
There is no evidence, it is simply impossible, but to explain why it is not possible I quoted from him, some say the quote is too long. There is no possibility even if they force the pig and the cow (or vice versa) to do the act of reproduction.
To the honorable Mr. Avi "... not possible, but in practice. . . ", but was there some evidence? ? ? - The verb is your feeling, in short (possibly)
I didn't say it couldn't be, but that in practice it wasn't on Earth. Neither aliens nor God.
Another twist to the story I was reading at the time is that the pig is a genetic cross between the wild boar and humans.
Because the humans at the time sacrificed humans on the altar to the "gods" (the ancient astronaut) so the gods engineered a replacement for them. This is also the original religious reason why it is forbidden to eat pork.
my father
What you claim in fact, because no other intelligence is possible, outside of human intelligence...
Why accept as a fact that a random change in genes can be more likely than a change in genes by intelligent factors?
The only reason is to deny the existence of any intelligence in the universe, except for man?
The lack of linguistic editing in the articles on the site is becoming unbearable. It's a shame that they don't bother to address the problem (and all the more so in the articles of the website editor himself!).
Two types of creatures whose genetic path separated a great distance from each other will often not be able to create a new generation that can reproduce. But if the defensive distance between them is smaller, their chances will be greater. As far as I know, if, say, relatives from the same mammal family that separated physically and continued to evolve separately, after a few tens of thousands of years (or maybe a few hundreds of thousands of years, at most) they can still produce a successful CROSS-BREED, but that There won't be an entirely new type of animal, one that is more like its parents.