Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: News: Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence

Expand Messages
  • Robert Karl Stonjek
    ... From: hibbsa To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 11:40 PM Subject: Re: News: Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory
    Message 1 of 16 , Jul 26, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: hibbsa
      Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 11:40 PM
      Subject: Re: News: Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence

      The theory is almost certainly going to prove correct. Whereas standard
      theory relies on processes that have never actually been observed, the
      hybrid theory relies on two processes that are well documented:
      hybridization followed by stabilization processes via backcrossing. So
      just from an empirical perspective the way the theory is constructed is
      profoundly more scientific and robust.

      And robustness in the scientific sense feeds directly through into a
      capacity for hard evidence to be physically obtainable. No general
      theory of speciation  has anything like the solid footing that his
      general theory has. As a worked-through example of his general theory,
      no theory of human origins solves all the most difficult problems - at
      all - the way his theory solves all of them most elegantly.

      No theory of human origins expects of itself a hard-science standard of
      evidence and argument, the way this theory does. The argument is
      extremely detailed, throwing up a catalogue of evidence that can only
      realistically be explained bya hybrid origin with pigs.

      From any reasonable, objective, scientific standpoint, the hybrid theory
      with pigs should far and away be the leading theory of human origins.
      Don't miss out on history through a simple failure to go read his
      argument and evidence rather than dismiss an idea based on what will
      likely be a largely misconceived set of assumptions about hybridization.

      As a further point, the article yesterday for a mathematical theory that
      small single celled life does not speciate, presents yet another layer
      of evidence in the form of the idea of speciation as an emergent
      phenomenon of complex life.  Hyrbidization would clearly be a strong
      candidate for an emergent property of this sort.
      RKS:
      The theory assumes that male pigs bred with female hominids.  This is the unlikely part of the theory.  Whilst males will readily use farm animals for sex, females doing the same is extremely rare and I have never heard of pigs being able to mate with human females.
       
      Robert
    • Edgar Owen
      Robert, I wouldn t jump to conclusions. MANY more women than men copulate with dogs and other animals... You can find tens of thousands of videos of them doing
      Message 2 of 16 , Jul 26, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Robert,

        I wouldn't jump to conclusions. MANY more women than men copulate with dogs and other animals... You can find tens of thousands of videos of them doing it on USENET...

        Edgar



        On Jul 26, 2013, at 6:53 PM, Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:

         

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: hibbsa
        Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 11:40 PM
        Subject: Re: News: Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence

        The theory is almost certainly going to prove correct. Whereas standard
        theory relies on processes that have never actually been observed, the
        hybrid theory relies on two processes that are well documented:
        hybridization followed by stabilization processes via backcrossing. So
        just from an empirical perspective the way the theory is constructed is
        profoundly more scientific and robust.

        And robustness in the scientific sense feeds directly through into a
        capacity for hard evidence to be physically obtainable. No general
        theory of speciation  has anything like the solid footing that his
        general theory has. As a worked-through example of his general theory,
        no theory of human origins solves all the most difficult problems - at
        all - the way his theory solves all of them most elegantly.

        No theory of human origins expects of itself a hard-science standard of
        evidence and argument, the way this theory does. The argument is
        extremely detailed, throwing up a catalogue of evidence that can only
        realistically be explained bya hybrid origin with pigs.

        From any reasonable, objective, scientific standpoint, the hybrid theory
        with pigs should far and away be the leading theory of human origins.
        Don't miss out on history through a simple failure to go read his
        argument and evidence rather than dismiss an idea based on what will
        likely be a largely misconceived set of assumptions about hybridization.

        As a further point, the article yesterday for a mathematical theory that
        small single celled life does not speciate, presents yet another layer
        of evidence in the form of the idea of speciation as an emergent
        phenomenon of complex life.  Hyrbidization would clearly be a strong
        candidate for an emergent property of this sort.
        RKS:
        The theory assumes that male pigs bred with female hominids.  This is the unlikely part of the theory.  Whilst males will readily use farm animals for sex, females doing the same is extremely rare and I have never heard of pigs being able to mate with human females.
         
        Robert


      • Anna
        Not wild pigs. And I do not think there were domesticated pigs by apes at any time. Anna From: Nancy Bovee Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 8:06 AM To:
        Message 3 of 16 , Jul 26, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Not wild pigs.
          And I do not think there were domesticated pigs by apes at any time.
          Anna
           
          Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 8:06 AM
          Subject: [evol-psych] Re: News: Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence
           

          I think the pig/human notion might be a result of adaptation in similar environments. Pigs have many of the same physiological adaptations as humans (but that doesn't mean they interbred). To my mind, it has something to do with living near and depending upon water for some period.

          Nancy Bovee

        • Anna
          While there are fertile hybrids ... fertile or ... Obviously you did not read the paper, otherwise you would know that the barriers which exist now could had
          Message 4 of 16 , Jul 26, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            While there are fertile
            hybrids
            >
            between closely related species, I've seen no evidence of any matings
            >
            between animals of even different families producing off-spring,
            fertile or
            > non-fertile, much less animals from different orders, which this
            would
            > require.
             
            Obviously you did not read the paper, otherwise you would know that the barriers which exist now  could had been  absent in the ancient past. In fact this is a very valid point when trying to understand the origin of so many various species we have.
             
            You also you are wrong regarding sterility of the  hybrid offspring. The only question in regards to human species if whether  various “races”  could have had different backgrounds. After all, there were many different pigs and many varieties of apes, not just one defenseless female  chimpanzee and one pink  brute rapist pig. And  if I am not mistaken, the author seems to suggest that  black race comes from gorilla.
            Unless one is racist, there is nothing racist when trying to figure it out.
             
             

            7.10: Hybrid Infertility

             

            Theory



            << Section Intro<< Previous pageContentsWorks CitedNext page
            >>
            Next Section
            >>
            EUGENE M. MCCARTHY, PHDOrientation: What is this page?

            Hybrid Infertility. Various theories have been offered to explain why hybrids are commonly less viable and/or fertile than their parents. One explanation, which makes sense with regard to the production of inviability, as opposed to infertility, is that hybridization combines at random two distinct genetic programs, which may interact in an inharmonious way. Here the causative factors are clear enough — production of organisms by a trial-and-error approach of this sort would be expected often to lead to bad results. The combination in a single organism of two genomes that are separately functional will frequently (but not always) result in adverse interactions because each of the genes in one genome must be compatible with all the genes in the other. Stabilization theoryconcurs with neo-Darwinian theory in explaining hybrid inviability in this way. Therefore, if one is attempting to judge the two theories on the basis of their explanatory powers, one cannot discriminate on this basis. However, as we shall see, the phenomenon of hybrid infertility is a different matter. In this latter case, stabilization theory provides a much more satisfactory explanation than does neo-Darwinian theory. 

            Hybrid infertility: Reduction in the quality and/or number of gametes produced by a hybrid (in comparison with its parents).
            Hybrid inviability: Impairment of a hybrid's ability to survive (in comparison with its parents).
            A frequently encountered explanation of the pervasiveness of hybrid infertility suggests that natural selection acts directly to increasereproductive isolation. In this scenario, two distinct somasets are derived from a single ancestral somaset by divergence in geographic isolation. This process, known as "reinforcement", supposedly occurs when the two somasets come back into contact ("secondary contact"). At this stage, natural selection is said to favor those individuals that mate with their own kind. Thus, it is said, reproductive isolation eventually becomes complete, as hybrids become less viable and fertile. Reinforcement, however, is controversial (Butlin 2005). Even those who accept the idea of reinforcement would admit many biologists do not accept it. Selection for infertile, inviable offspring is, in fact, a contradiction in terms — natural selection is a process favoring traits that help, not hinder, the production of offspring. Indeed, no explanation, accounting in terms of natural selection, for the general finding that hybrids are typically of reduced fertility is accepted by all biologists.

            But many do accept an explanation not based on selection, the Dobzhansky-Muller (D-M) model (Bateson 1909;Dobzhansky 1937a; Muller 1942). This explanation, however, is seriously flawed. An explicit presentation of the D-M model would require the introduction of a number of technical concepts. But non-geneticists can simply ignore such technicalities and consider the D-M model as a simple black-box process. For those who wish it, Coyne and Orr (1997) give a concise description of this model, quoted in the footnote below. The process there described produces two genetically distinct populations. Coyne and Orr say it is "entirely possible," if individuals from those two populations interbred, that the resulting hybrids "could be sterile" (this is the sort of hypothetical language typically used in connection with the D-M model).

            However, there is really no reason for us to expect such hybrids to be sterile. Since the D-M model is supposed to explain a general phenomenon (hybrid sterility), it should identify a general causative mechanism. An analogy will clarify: If we wished to take a boat out for a cruise, it would be "entirely possible" that it would sink. But in the absence of known causative mechanisms making such an event likely or inevitable (e.g., enemy gunboats on patrol, gale warnings, an incompetent captain), we would have no reason to expect it to occur. If shipwreck is not the expected outcome under such circumstances in even one case, then, certainly, we would have no reason to expect shipwreck to a regular outcome of going for a boat ride.

            The same reasoning applies to the D-M model. True. It describes a process that could produce sterile hybrids. But its proponents fail to explain why we should expect it to do so. If it were somehow true that two distinct types gained an advantage by producing sterile offspring together, then we would expect natural selection to favor the production of sterile . We would therefore expect sterility generally to be a trait of hybrids. However, the D-M model eschews selection and it specifies no other causative mechanism. If, in the case of any particular cross, hybrid sterility is shipwreck, where is the gunboat that will make such cases likely? For, given that most crosses produce hybrids of reduced fertility, there must be some factor that makes it likely for crosses to have this characteristic. Under stabilization theory the gunboat is the widespread occurrence of karyotypic differences distinguishing even closely related forms (see Section 3). Under such circumstances hybrids are expected to bestructural heterozygotes, which are typically less fertile than their homozygous parents. Structural heterozygosity is known to disrupt meiosis and interfere with the production of gametes.¹ Here the mechanism causing hybrid infertility is clear. Hybrids commonly have impaired fertility because they are often structural heterozygotes.

            But in the case of the D-M model the causative mechanism (i.e., the mechanism making the production of such crosses not merely possible, but likely) is not at all clear. Proponents of the model claim a sufficient degree of genetic difference will prevent two individuals from producing fertile offspring together. But this is merely an assumption, not an explanation. It is not immediately clear why infertility should be produced by the combination of two genetically distinct individuals. After all, if any two individuals are not a pair of clones, they will differ genetically. So virtually all individuals that mate to produce fertile offspring do differ genetically. Since this is the case, why should we suppose additional randomly accumulated differences in genes would result in a pair producing sterile offspring? Neo-Darwinians fail to explain how these additional genetic differences would cause the production of sterile offspring with disrupted meiosis and few viable gametes. They also fail to explain why we should expect genetically distinct populations to produce infertile hybrids. Really, this seems to be little more than a vague, old idea that even predates any precise science of genetics. For example, according to Darwin (1872), the German botanist Max Ernst Wichura (1817-1866) maintained the "view of the sterility of hybrids being caused by two constitutions being compounded into one." This sounds well enough. But what exactly does it mean?

            Proponents of the D-M model seem to confuse cause with correlation. True, a hybrid between parents highly distinct at the genetic level is — all other things being equal — more likely to be sterile than one whose parents are genetically alike. But this is only correlation. Karyotypic differences, too, are usually greater when parents are more distinct at the genetic level (Ferguson-Smith et al. 1998; Ruvinsky and Graves 2005: 352). Under such circumstances, one needs to decide which of the two phenomena is causes hybrid infertility. Is it genetic difference? Or is it karyotypic difference? Night correlates with day because it always follows day. But day does not cause night. The rotation of the earth causes both day and night. In the case of karyotypic differences, the causative mechanism is clear, well known, and well documented: recombination of rearranged homologs during meiosis in structural heterozygotes disrupts the process that produces gametes (Grant 1985; Griffiths et al. 1999;White 1973a: 215–232). It therefore reduces the fertility of structurally heterozygous hybrids.

            On the other hand, while there may be adverse effects of purely genetic differences on fertility, there seem to be few, if any, well-documented cases. Studies purporting to demonstrate this phenomenon rarely control for the possibility that karyotypic differences are causing the sterility attributed to genetic differences. No one knows how genetic differences between the parents of hybrids might produce a disruption of meiosis in the hybrids themselves. Certainly, the idea that genetic difference in parents leads, in itself, to a disruption of meiosis in their hybrids has not been shown empirically to be a general phenomenon. Rather, the existence of such a general phenomenon is a mere inference drawn by neo-Darwinians on the basis of theory. How this happens, they cannot say. So there is no reason to suppose parental genetic differences should regularly cause sterility in hybrids. The D-M model therefore provides no real explanation of the fact that the typical hybrid is of reduced fertility.

            Nineteenth century naturalists used the term "physiological species" to refer to forms that were unable to interbreed due to physiological incompatibility. Darwin's inability to account for such forms was a point of concern even to his supporters. When Darwin first proposed his theory, Huxley adopted it only "subject to the production of proof that physiological species may be produced by selective breeding" Huxley (1898: 150; see also: Huxley 1901: 257). Three decades later he was still of the same opinion: In a letter dated May 17, 1891, Huxley writes,

            I insisted on the necessity of obtaining experimental proof of the possibility of obtaining virtually infertile breeds from a common stock in 1860 ... From the first I told Darwin this was the weak point of his case from the point of view of scientific logic. But, in this matter, we are just where we were thirty years ago" (Huxley 1901: vol. II, 309).

            Even today, this proof has not been forthcoming.

            Darwin himself concluded "after mature reflection" (Darwin 1872: 248) that natural selection could not account for the evolution of the "physiological species." Thus, in the sixth edition of the Origin (1872: 262) he states that "the sterility [characteristic] of first crosses and of their hybrid progeny has not been acquired through natural selection." Nor did he believe selection could cause forms to develop an inability to produce F₁ hybrids. Thus, in a letter to Alfred Wallace dated April 6, 1868, he writes:

            The difficulty of increasing the sterility through Natural Selection of two already sterile species seems to me best brought home by considering an actual case. The cowslip and primrose are moderately sterile, yet occasionally produce hybrids. Now these hybrids, two or three or a dozen in a whole parish, occupy ground which might have been occupied by either pure species, and no doubt the latter suffer to this small extent. But can you conceive that any individual plants of the primrose and cowslip which happened to be mutually rather more sterile (i.e., which, when crossed, yielded a few less seed) than usual, would profit to such a degree as to increase in number to the ultimate exclusion of the present primrose and cowslip? I cannot" (in More Letters of Charles Darwin, Darwin and Seward, eds., 1903: vol. I, 296).

            In response, Wallace wrote (ibid, p. 297) "I will say no more, but leave the problem as insoluble, only fearing that it will become a formidable weapon in the hands of the enemies of Natural Selection." And yet Darwin did, in fact, think the generality of the phenomenon indicated "the cause, whatever it may be, is the same or nearly the same in all cases" (Huxley 1901: vol. II, 14).² In this regard, even Darwin posited an unknown force. He also refers to this mystery factor in The Descent of Man (1871: vol. I, 222–223, footnote):

            the sterility of crossed species has not been acquired through natural selection: we can see that when two forms have already been rendered very sterile, it is scarcely possible that their sterility should be augmented by the preservation or survival of the more and more sterile individuals; for, as the sterility increases, fewer and fewer offspring will be produced from which to breed, and at last only single individuals will be produced at the rarest intervals. But there is even a higher grade of sterility than this. ... in genera of plants including numerous species, a series can be formed from species which, when crossed, yield fewer and fewer seeds, to species which never produce a single seed, but yet are affected by the pollen of the other species, as shewn by the swelling of the germen. It is here manifestly impossible to select the more sterile individuals, which have already ceased to yield seeds; so that the acme of sterility, when the germen alone is affected, cannot be gained through selection. This acme, and no doubt the other grades of sterility, are the incidental results of certain unknown differences in the constitution of the reproductive system of the species which are crossed.

            Thus, among those who think in terms of the neo-Darwinian paradigm, there has been longstanding controversy over the causative factors underlying the general phenomenon of hybrid sterility. Neo-Darwinian explanations of this phenomenon are convoluted, logically flawed, and disputed. To those biologists weary of the intricacies of this debate, stabilization theory offers a clear, brief explanation of the general phenomenon of hybrid infertility:Populations treated as distinct species often belong to distinct chromosets. When individuals with different karyotypes mate, the resulting hybrids are structurally heterozygous. As we have seen, structural heterozygositycommonly has an adverse effect on fertility. It is for this reason that populations tend to break up spatially intokaryotypically pure chromosets. Being like other members of the population pays a large reproductive dividend (any immigrant or mutant individual with an aberrant karyotype will not find a mate of its own kind and so will produce structurally heterozygous progeny of low fertility).

            Karyotypic differences, then, can be used to explain why hybrid infertility is such a widely observed phenomenon — so long as it is assumed new forms commonly come into being via stabilization processes involving chromosomal mutations. The evidence presented thus far in this book strongly suggests that the origin of new forms by this means is indeed typical.

            Origin of Karyotypic differences. And why do such karyotypic differences between populations arise in the first place? It is because the karyotype of each population comes into being independently of the karyotypes of other populations. Within a given sexual chromoset there is selection for a single uniform karyotype because variation of karyotypes results in the production of structural heterozygotes of low fertility. However, within a second chromoset there can be selection for uniformity with respect to some other karyotype. Thus, the karyotype of one population can evolve independently of the karyotype of another. As a result, natural selection for uniformitywithin each group stabilizes two different karyotypes. So there is nothing to coordinate the structures of the two resulting karyotypes, and they will likely differ in some, or many, respects.

            Hybrids between such populations, then, are typically structural heterozygotes. Therefore, their fertility is expected to be reduced. Their sterility is not selected for in any direct way; rather it is incidental to the selection for the fertility associated with karyotypic uniformity within populations. Since populations treated as distinct species often have distinct karyotypes, matings between such populations often produce relatively infertile hybrids. It is unknown how many hybridizing taxa differ in this way. But there are certainly more than enough cases for sterility of this type to be perceived as a general phenomenon. Thus, the basis of the general phenomenon of hybrid sterility is clear under stabilization theory, but nebulous under orthodox theory. It can be stated concisely: Many, though by no means all, sexual somasets treated as separate species are distinctchromosets, so hybrids between such somasets are often structural heterozygotes of reduced fertility. Their sterility is an incidental result of selection for fertility (karyotypic uniformity) within populations.

             

            In biology and specifically, genetics, the term hybrid has several meanings, all referring to the offspring of sexual reproduction.[1]

            1. In general usage, hybrid is synonymous with heterozygous: any offspring resulting from the mating of two genetically distinct individuals
            2. a genetic hybrid carries two different alleles of the same gene
            3. a structural hybrid results from the fusion of gametes that have differing structure in at least one chromosome, as a result of structural abnormalities
            4. a numerical hybrid results from the fusion of gametes having different haploid numbers of chromosomes
            5. a permanent hybrid is a situation where only the heterozygous genotype occurs, because all homozygous combinations are lethal.

            From a taxonomic perspective, hybrid refers to:

            1. Offspring resulting from the interbreeding between two animals or plants of different species.[2] See also hybrid speciation.
            2. Hybrids between different subspecies within a species (such as between the Bengal tiger and Siberian tiger) are known as intra-specific hybrids. Hybrids between different species within the same genus (such as between lions and 
              (Message over 64 KB, truncated)
          • Anna
            The theory assumes that wild male pigs bred with female chimpanzees, not hominids. Breeding with Hominids came later. And the offspring could not be a
            Message 5 of 16 , Jul 26, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              The theory assumes that wild male pigs bred with female chimpanzees, not hominids. Breeding with Hominids  came later. And  the offspring  could not be a hominid in a first generation.  It took many more to fix the genes, breeding back and forth plus friendly mutations. This is how you also develop new breeds within the same species.
              Anna
               
              Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 4:53 PM
              Subject: [evol-psych] Re: News: Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence
               

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: hibbsa
              Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 11:40 PM
              Subject: Re: News: Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence

              The theory is almost certainly going to prove correct. Whereas standard
              theory relies on processes that have never actually been observed, the
              hybrid theory relies on two processes that are well documented:
              hybridization followed by stabilization processes via backcrossing. So
              just from an empirical perspective the way the theory is constructed is
              profoundly more scientific and robust.

              And robustness in the scientific sense feeds directly through into a
              capacity for hard evidence to be physically obtainable. No general
              theory of speciation  has anything like the solid footing that his
              general theory has. As a worked-through example of his general theory,
              no theory of human origins solves all the most difficult problems - at
              all - the way his theory solves all of them most elegantly.

              No theory of human origins expects of itself a hard-science standard of
              evidence and argument, the way this theory does. The argument is
              extremely detailed, throwing up a catalogue of evidence that can only
              realistically be explained bya hybrid origin with pigs.

              From any reasonable, objective, scientific standpoint, the hybrid theory
              with pigs should far and away be the leading theory of human origins.
              Don't miss out on history through a simple failure to go read his
              argument and evidence rather than dismiss an idea based on what will
              likely be a largely misconceived set of assumptions about hybridization.

              As a further point, the article yesterday for a mathematical theory that
              small single celled life does not speciate, presents yet another layer
              of evidence in the form of the idea of speciation as an emergent
              phenomenon of complex life.  Hyrbidization would clearly be a strong
              candidate for an emergent property of this sort.
              RKS:
              The theory assumes that male pigs bred with female hominids.  This is the unlikely part of the theory.  Whilst males will readily use farm animals for sex, females doing the same is extremely rare and I have never heard of pigs being able to mate with human females.
               
              Robert
            • Michael Edward McNeil
              Love the hyperbole here. Want to bet? Michael McNeil Sent from my iPhone
              Message 6 of 16 , Jul 27, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Love the hyperbole here. Want to bet?

                Michael McNeil

                Sent from my iPhone


                On Jul 26, 2013, at 6:40, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@...> wrote:

                > The theory is almost certainly going to prove correct.
              • james kohl
                Indeed, especially if no evidence of biological cause is considered. I ll bet that the theory is considered to be proved without any evidence from biology,
                Message 7 of 16 , Jul 27, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Indeed, especially if no evidence of biological cause is considered. I'll bet that the theory is considered to be proved without any evidence from biology, since that's what's happened since Darwin's day. Proof was established via statistical analyses. In theory, the fact that pheromones are species specific and their association with immune system function is so clearly why human hybrids are unlikely need not be considered.

                   
                  James V. Kohl
                  Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
                  Independent researcher
                  Kohl, J.V. (2013) Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 3: 20553.
                  Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.


                  From: Michael Edward McNeil <memcneil00@...>
                  To: "evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com" <evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 7:47 AM
                  Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: News: Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence

                   
                  Love the hyperbole here. Want to bet?

                  Michael McNeil

                  Sent from my iPhone

                  On Jul 26, 2013, at 6:40, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@...> wrote:

                  > The theory is almost certainly going to prove correct.


                • hibbsa
                  ... Yes, if you first read the theory (it isn t long) and comment on it properly. This way you ll know what terms you want to bet along.
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jul 27, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > Love the hyperbole here. Want to bet?
                    >
                    > Michael McNeil

                    Yes, if you first read the theory (it isn't long) and comment on it properly. This way you'll know what terms you want to bet along.




                    --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Michael Edward McNeil <memcneil00@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Love the hyperbole here. Want to bet?
                    >
                    > Michael McNeil
                    >
                    > Sent from my iPhone
                    >
                    >
                    > On Jul 26, 2013, at 6:40, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > > The theory is almost certainly going to prove correct.
                    >
                  • Leif Ekblad
                    James, You should look into this a lot more if you aim at providing a new theory of evolution. One thing it solves is sudden change in genetics, and if it is
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jul 28, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      
                      James,
                       
                      You should look into this a lot more if you aim at providing a new theory of evolution. One thing it solves is sudden change in genetics, and if it is common enough, it can be much more important than gradual accumulation of mutation. In essence, it can disprove the "random mutation" theory that you dislike so much.
                       
                      In humans, it solves the dual nature of human behaviors.
                       
                      Leif Ekblad
                       
                       
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 3:42 PM
                      Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: News: Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence

                      Indeed, especially if no evidence of biological cause is considered. I'll bet that the theory is considered to be proved without any evidence from biology, since that's what's happened since Darwin's day. Proof was established via statistical analyses. In theory, the fact that pheromones are species specific and their association with immune system function is so clearly why human hybrids are unlikely need not be considered.

                       
                      James V. Kohl
                      Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
                      Independent researcher
                      Kohl, J.V. (2013) Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 3: 20553.
                      Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.


                      From: Michael Edward McNeil <memcneil00@...>
                      To: "evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com" <evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 7:47 AM
                      Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: News: Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence

                       
                      Love the hyperbole here. Want to bet?

                      Michael McNeil

                      Sent from my iPhone

                      On Jul 26, 2013, at 6:40, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@...> wrote:

                      > The theory is almost certainly going to prove correct.


                    • james kohl
                      Leif, Is there a reason you think I have not already addressed this in the context of what might be a new theory -- and dismissed it because adaptive evolution
                      Message 10 of 16 , Jul 28, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Leif,

                        Is there a reason you think I have not already addressed this in the context of what might be a new theory -- and dismissed it because adaptive evolution is obviously nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in species from microbes to man?  Denis Noble brings up the concept of hybrids in his presentation, but as I recall this occurs at the genomic level, not via selection for phenotype. I could be wrong, however, as could the president of the IUPS. Why not watch his video and tell us what you think we're wrong about, instead of advising me to look at another theoretical approach? Are you thinking in terms of pig-human hybrids because the pig pheromone-androstenone has been advertized to elicit an aphrodisiac effect in women?  

                        The introduction to this lecture starts at approximately 50 minutes.
                        Companion publication: Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology Full text is free.



                         
                        James V. Kohl
                        Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
                        Independent researcher
                        Kohl, J.V. (2013) Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 3: 20553.
                        Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.


                        From: Leif Ekblad <leif@...>
                        To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 3:33 AM
                        Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: News: Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence

                         
                        
                        James,
                         
                        You should look into this a lot more if you aim at providing a new theory of evolution. One thing it solves is sudden change in genetics, and if it is common enough, it can be much more important than gradual accumulation of mutation. In essence, it can disprove the "random mutation" theory that you dislike so much.
                         
                        In humans, it solves the dual nature of human behaviors.
                         
                        Leif Ekblad
                         
                         
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 3:42 PM
                        Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: News: Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence

                        Indeed, especially if no evidence of biological cause is considered. I'll bet that the theory is considered to be proved without any evidence from biology, since that's what's happened since Darwin's day. Proof was established via statistical analyses. In theory, the fact that pheromones are species specific and their association with immune system function is so clearly why human hybrids are unlikely need not be considered.

                         
                        James V. Kohl
                        Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
                        Independent researcher
                        Kohl, J.V. (2013) Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 3: 20553.
                        Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.


                        From: Michael Edward McNeil <memcneil00@...>
                        To: "evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com" <evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 7:47 AM
                        Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: News: Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence

                         
                        Love the hyperbole here. Want to bet?

                        Michael McNeil

                        Sent from my iPhone

                        On Jul 26, 2013, at 6:40, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@...> wrote:

                        > The theory is almost certainly going to prove correct.




                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.