A leading geneticist (Dr. Eugene M. McCarthy), who specializes in genetic hybrids (such as mules--which are the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse), now claims that the first humans were also such genetic hydrids. (h.t. Gene Veith: Cranach)
McCarthy writes, "Here, I report certain facts, which seem to indicate that human origins can be traced to hybridization, specifically to hybridization involving the chimpanzee. (but not the kind of hybridization you might suppose!)" McCarthy goes on to contend, "so in the specific case of humans, if the two assumptions made thus far are correct (i.e., (1) that humans actually are hybrids, and (2) that the chimpanzee actually is one of our two parents), then a list of traits distinguishing human beings from chimpanzees should describe the other parent involved in the cross. And by applying this sort of methodology, I have in fact succeeded in narrowing things down to a particular candidate."
McCarthy muses, "What is this other animal that has all these traits? The answer is Sus scrofa, the ordinary pig. What are we to think of this fact? If we conclude that pigs did in fact cross with apes to produce the human race, then an avalanche of old ideas must crash to the earth." This "fact"? Really, Dr. McCarthy?
So then, on McCarthy's thesis, genetically speaking, humans are part chimp and part pig, because of the unique attributes of each animal being either present or absent in humans in critical anatomical ways. Here's the link to the original article, if you choose to read it. McCarthy on Human origins.
Maybe Kramer was right all along! Chimpanzee + pig = the first humans. We are all "pigmen" or "pigwomen"!
Cynic that I am, this raises a host of questions in my mind. The most obvious being this: "how could a monkey successfully mate with a pig, not once, but twice, so as to produce both a fertile human mommy and a daddy (are not animal hybrids usually sterile?), so the two "hybrids" could in turn breed, and then become the genetic parents of homo sapiens?"
Gene Veith lays waste to McCarthy's thesis by posing another rather obvious question; "Since science is not an ideology or a philosophy of what can exist but a methodology, you would think this would be a hypothesis that can be tested experimentally. Let’s see if a pig and a chimp could engender fertile offspring." Get the appropriate samples, get the test tubes, and we'll see what happens! Will we get a hairy baby pigman? I kinda doubt it.
It boggles the mind--doesn't it--that the more loopy the theory, the impressive people think it to be. And all the while, Christians, who for good reasons, believe that Adam and Eve are the unique image bearers of God, as well as the biological and federal ancestors of the human race, are the ones considered to be "anti-scientific."