Talk:Eugene M. McCarthy/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 24 August 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Creationism claim

Despite some criticism from individual [[creationists]], major creation ministries have not taken to using this as an example of an evolutionary failure.

Where has McCarthy been criticized by creationists? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 23:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Eugene returns

I took a look at the page and I see you've made quite a few changes so that it's now a lot more accurate. Thanks! I'll look at it more carefully later, but with the quick glance I took a minute ago I did see one mistake: For one sentence ("Biologist bloggers have resoundingly rejected this") the second citation that you give (https://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html) actually does not reject the theory. If you'll take the time to read it, you'll see that in fact it gives a fairly positive assessment of the theory. So you won't want to cite it for that sentence, I think, though I hope that wouldn't mean you'd drop all together any reference to that article. If you want to have a sentence about positive reviews in blogs, I can provide some others as well. Anyway, I can't spend too much time on this today. As I say, though, I'll get back to you with a more thorough assessment later. Thanks again.162.197.60.142 (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

Hey, here's a very positive blog post about my pig-ape theory (I assume you don't want to focus only on the negative?): http://saportareport.com/mccarthy_human_pig_chimp_evolution/ I can supply links to other positive posts if you wish. 162.197.60.142 (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

removed for now. Christopher (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment by a BoN clearly new to talk pages

Biases and factual errors in the version of the article reverted to by users Christopher and Love:

Here's a list of all the errors on this page (as reverted to by anonymous User:Christopher and by anonymous User:Love). Also, please note that, except with regard to the article currently under discussion, I have never been a visitor to rationalwiki, nor am I a member, nor do I plan to be. So I'm simply labelled here by my IP. But I would like to make it clear that I'm really Gene McCarthy, the subject of the page in question.

Intent. My purpose in writing this is three-fold, first to defend myself against an anonymous critic who has, in a very careless and perhaps malicious way, published numerous inaccurate statements about me and my work. Secondly, and this is a courtesy to those responsible for rationalwiki; as you say in a notice on your site, "Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed." This article has been very sloppy in that respect. Thirdly, I saw a message from rationalwiki user "Sciencerox" reading as follows: "Heyyy 'Gene== Perhaps if your edit has been rolled back by Christopher, you should take it to the talk page before going ahead with a major article rehaul like that without anyone else's input.]."

Method. My method in the following is to quote each problematic passage in the article (which amounts to nearly all of them) and then to follow each passage with an explanation of the relevant problem(s). I've also inserted bold headings to make the discussion easier to read. I might also mention that in what follows, given that the author of the article to which Christopher and Love have been reverting is faceless, he or she will be referred to as the "anonymous critic." I apologize for going on at such length, but the problems with this article are manifold and require a good bit of explanation. At any rate, here are all the errors and biases in that article that I've as yet had time to enumerate:

Error #1: "Perhaps best known for his controversial treatise on human origins, called On the Origins of New Life Forms: A New Theory"

Here the anonymous critic is in blatant, factual error. "On the Origins of New Life Forms: A New Theory" is not about that at all. It's a theory about evolution in general and scarcely mentions humans at all. My piece on human origins is called "The Hybrid Hypothesis: A new theory of human origins." This particular mistake certainly makes it look as if my anonymous critic has passed judgment without having ever read any of my arguments.

Error #2: "(or, as Pharyngula has called it, the "MFAP hypothesis" of human origins[1]), he is also notable for being one of very few pseudoscientists to have legitimate work published in the field he hopes to revolutionize."

That's because I'm an actual scientist who taught biology and genetics at the University of Georgia, and who worked in various research labs there, for years (1989-2007). During my time there in the department, my employers/advisers included two major geneticists, both National Academy members (Wyatt Anderson and Jeff Bennetzen). I spent several years in Anderson's lab and two in Bennetzen's. I also worked for many years in the lab of John F. McDonald, former Head of the Genetics Department at the University of Georgia, subsequently Head of the School of Biology at Georgia Tech, and currently Director of the Ovarian Cancer Institute at Georgia Tech. Another National Academy member John Avis, a world-renowned evolutionary biologist, served on my dissertation committee, as did McDonald. Anderson and McDonald both served on my master's committee. I also worked for a couple of years in the laboratory of another geneticist, Marjorie Asmussen (now deceased) there in the genetics department. All of these professors, with the exception of Bennetzen, who did not join the department until after I received my Ph.D., were aware early on of my pig-ape theory of human origins, even at the time that I was originally admitted to the department in 1989. Indeed, on more than one occasion, I presented lectures on that theory at our weekly departmental seminars. So these real scientists had an open mind about the topic. That is, they reserved judgment, even though my anonymous critic seems not to be able to do the same. As a measure of the bias involved here, it might be added that while my anonymous critic links to a Pharyngula article that lambasts both my character and my work, he or she fails to link to my own rebuttal of that article. This is obviously unfair.

Bias: "McCarthy's less unorthodox work includes a book on hybrid birds that he considers his magnum opus,"

This last statement refers to a sentence on my own website, which I quote here:

"My magnum opus, Handbook of Avian Hybrids of the World (Oxford University Press, 2006), a reference book for both birders and professional biologists, provides information on about 4,000 distinct types of hybrid crosses among birds and cites more than 5,000 publications."

So what's the problem? Why shouldn't I call that book, which is in fact my largest publication, my magnum opus? And why shouldn't my anonymous critic call that book by its name (Handbook of Avian Hybrids of the World, Oxford University Press, 2006) instead of referring to it as "a book on hybrid birds that he considers his magnum opus"? And why call it "less unorthodox"? Why not instead link to the many positive reviews of that book by real biologists?

Why? Well it seem obvious that my anonymous critic's intent is to discredit me rather than to admit that I have had a long career in biology and that I have been recognized as a scholar and achieved many scholarly accomplishments.

The book has had numerous positive reviews, but I'll quote from just one here. It's by ornithologist William S. Moore (source):

"There is a high level of accuracy for individual reports in addition to the extent of the overall survey; it seems to indeed come as close to a complete compilation as is humanly possible. I have not met Dr. McCarthy, but after reviewing innumerable cases, I have a vision of a monkish figure variously cloistered in the ancient stacks of academic libraries and hunched before a computer terminal, compiling case after case with detail and accuracy that would guarantee his deliverance to a state of (academic) grace! I am sure my vision is a bit exaggerated, but it is an amazing compilation."

Error #3: "and a novel loosely based on his experienced difficulty in getting his craziness published."

No. My novel, The Department, as it's title rather obviously indicates, is loosely based on on my experiences in the genetics department at the University of Georgia. There is nothing in it at all about my trying to get anything published, let alone getting my "craziness published." In fact, I do not even appear in the book as a character. So this is just another example of a misrepresentation on the part of my anonymous critic, who either never read my novel at all, or did read it, but chose to misrepresent it. As to "craziness," I think Mark Twain has the most amusingly way of expressing the situation: "The rule is perfect: In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane."

Bias: "MFAP theory of human origins"

Why list a critique of my theory as a bold heading without even linking to my rebuttal of that critique? Is this the kind of fairness rationalwiki seeks to enforce? Or is it simply kowtowing to one side of an intellectual debate?

Misrepresentation by omission: "The Hühnermensch (chicken-man) in question"

I did not name the pictured specimen "the Hühnermensch (chicken-man)." Hühnermensch, which is German for chicken-man, is the name generally used for that specimen, by anyone who refers to it, and not just by me. And I nowhere state that I believe it to be a chicken-human hybrid. Instead, I have merely collected all available reports about alleged chicken-human hybrids under a single heading, a method that I follow with reported crosses of all kinds, whether the type of hybrid in question is plausible or implausible. Indeed, I avoid expressing opinions on such issues (whether any given type of cross actually occurs) as a matter of policy, except in those cases where the occurrence of a cross has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. So the anonymous critic's placing this picture on the page makes it seem that I am expressing belief in something in which I do not express belief. In general, as a scientist, I attempt to limit myself to facts and hypotheses. In fact, personally, I see no place for belief in science. In the present case, I have recorded the fact that numerous different cases of alleged chicken-human hybrids have been reported, but I do not express any belief with regard to those reports.

Bias: "Despite the fact that McCarthy holds a Ph.D. in genetics, some of his theories regarding hybridization are so crank-ish that even an average person on the street would be able to poke holes in them."

Who's more likely to be better-informed about hybridization? Someone like me, who's been studying the phenomenon for 35 years? Or the average person on the street? Could it possibly be that the average person on the street has something to learn about what is, and what is not, possible with regard to the phenomenon of hybridization? Isn't it more likely that someone who wrote, for a major academic publisher (Oxford University Press), the largest and most detailed reference on hybridization in birds ever written, would know a few things about hybridization that the "average person on the street" does not? Doesn't it look as if my anonymous critic is likely just another misinformed person with no expertise in what is my own long-term field of study? Isn't this person simply being provided with a platform by rationalwiki, where he or she can express a lot of contentious and undocumented bias?

Error #4: "Most famously, McCarthy believes that human beings are descended from a fortuitous intermingling between pig and ape genes."

I nowhere express a belief that "human beings are descended from a fortuitous intermingling between pig and ape genes." As I say, I don't even think science is about belief. Instead, in my piece The Hybrid Hypothesis I discuss what I consistently describe as a hypothesis, not a belief.

But the error here does not merely lie in an attribution to me of a belief. To say, "human beings are descended from a fortuitous intermingling between pig and ape genes" is rather vague in comparison with what I actually hypothesize, which is that, anciently, sexual hybridization occurred between pigs and chimpanzees (or some type of ape very similar to a chimpanzee, such as a bonobo) followed by repeated backcrossing of the resulting hybrid(s) to chimpanzees. I originally set this hypothesis forward because it is consistent with both genetic and morphological data, whereas standard theory is consistent only with the former. I do not, however, say that I believe this hypothesis. I merely suggest that it be investigated further, and moreover point out that a lot of data that is consistent with my proposed hypothesis is inconsistent with the standard explanation of human origins (gradual divergence from the apes).

Misrepresentation by omission: "Rather than claiming that the genome supports this idea, McCarthy points to morphological similarities to make his case."

In fact, I point out that the human genome does not support the standard theory of human origins anymore than it does the hybrid hypothesis. In other words, genomic data seems not to provide any evidence that effectively discriminates between those two hypotheses. The reason why genetic data is not particularly useful for making such a distinction is that backcross hybrids, especially backcross hybrids of ancient origin, are very difficult to detect via genetic techniques. I explain the reasons for this at length on my website (here and here).

Error #5 (with an added dollop of ad hominem bias) "While there might be morphological similarities, more competent evolutionary biologists have long ago come to the conclusion that this does not necessarily imply a relational connection between two species (e.g., see convergent evolution)."

No, it does not necessarily imply it, but, as famed evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky put it,

"Examination of the structure of convergent features usually makes it possible to detect analogy because resemblance rarely extends into the fine details of complex traits." (Dobzhansky et al. 1977. Evolution. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, p. 270)

And in the case of humans and pigs, the resemblance does, in fact, extend to "the fine details of complex traits," and not to just a few such traits, but to many (see documentation of this statement here), which as Dobzhansky et al. point out, is consistent with the hypothesis that those features are not convergent, but rather homologous, that is, consistent with the hypothesis of an actual relationship. I might add that it's remarkable (and dismaying) that rationalwiki, which in its very name purports to be rational,should allow an anonymous, perhaps uncredentialed, critic to make ad hominem remarks about my competence as an evolutionary biologist when I am the one who holds a master's and a Ph.D. in population genetics and who has studied evolutionary biology for years under some of the leading figures in that field. To my mind, such behavior on the part of rationalwiki smacks of an irrational adherence to a herd mentality. In my opinion, one of the basic hallmarks of the rational, educated mind is the ability to entertain alternative hypotheses. The opposite is to do what every religious zealot does, that is, to close ranks and toe the line. But perhaps I'm wrong. It's at least my hope that the administrators of rationalwiki are better than that.

Error #6: "To his credit, McCarthy does follow this through to its logical conclusion in at least one other area, and believes that echidnas and platypuses are the descendants of a cross between birds and mammals."

Again, the anonymous critic puts words in my mouth. I nowhere express belief "that echidnas and platypuses are the descendants of a cross between birds and mammals." Instead I set forward (here and here) data relating to the evaluation of the hypothesis that "echidnas and platypuses [i.e., monotremes] are the descendants of a cross between birds and mammals." Again, proposing, and discussing the evidence relating to a hypothesis is a far cry from expressing a belief. So to his or her discredit, my anonymous critic has told another lie.

Error #7: "He even uncritically accepts an 18th-century account of a deformed fetus as a chicken-human hybrid."

Again, the anonymous critic tells a lie. I nowhere accept "an 18th-century account of a deformed fetus as a chicken-human hybrid," let alone uncritically. Indeed, on the page cited by the anonymous critic (which can be read here), I am at pains to point out, repeatedly, the fact that I withhold judgment on the case reported. As I say on my website, over and over again, I see my role as being that of a hypothesizer and a recorder of reports, not as a dogmatic adherent of a particular view.

Irrelevant: "Despite some criticism from individual creationists, major creation ministries have not taken to using this as an example of an evolutionary failure, possibly because even other pseudoscientists can see that McCarthy's views are far from mainstream."

Who really cares what creationists say about scientific topics? They are not scientists. And as for my views being "far from mainstream," I myself am well aware of that. Nevertheless, the various seminars on my theories of human origins that I gave while a member of the Genetics Department at the University of Georgia, were largely well received. Perhaps the real scientists, the members of that department, who attended those seminars, were more open to new ideas than is this anonymous critic?

In sum, it saddens me to see a site like rationalwiki, which purports to be a defender of science, being taken over, at least in the present case, by biased concealers and distorters of the truth, when seeking the truth is what science is supposed to be all about. It reminds me of the way Trump et al. have taken over with all their phony news. Or, more than anything, it reminds me of a passage in Nietzsche. "When I lay asleep, then did a sheep eat at the ivy-wreath on my head,—it ate, and said thereby: 'Zarathustra is no longer a scholar.'"

I request, then, that whoever it is that has administrative powers here will allow the corrected version of the article that I've just uploaded to stand. This you should do not only because it would be fair, but also because that version contains no falsehoods (at least not to my knowledge).^{— Unsigned, by: 162.197.60.142 / talk} 162.197.60.142 (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I've addressed some of your points, I'll get round to the rest at some point if someone else doesn't get there first.

Error number one: This has now been fixed.

Error number two: I'm not entirely sure why this is an error, it says you've published legitimate work and you have.

Bias: It mentions the name in the reference provided, I don't see how it implies it is or isn't your magnum opus. You have to admit your pig ape hypothesis is rather unorthodox, reffering to your bird book as less unorthodox is therefore accurate.

I wasn't concerned about calling it my magnum opus. What bothered me was calling it "less unorthodox" when in reality it isn't unorthodox at all. In fact, it's a standard text within its field. But the point is moot now, given that the "less orthodox" has been removed from the article as it now stands. By the way, in addition to Handbook of Avian Hybrids of the World, I have also had quite a few peer-reviewed papers published within the fields of genetics and hybridization. 162.197.60.142 (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

Error number 3: Removed.

Sorry about the ones I haven't addressed. Christopher (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

In all honesty, it's entirely plausible that the article was started by someone who exaggerates whatever they find to fit it into Rationalwiki's usual crank-busting narrative (going beyond simply doing the needful and delving into character assassination) because they don't quite care exactly where they get their sick kicks. Maybe we'll need to lasso up some folk from the saloon bar and get their input on the article.

There's something I couldn't help but notice, though...

(cur I prev) 17:45, 21 June 2017‎ 162.197.60.142 (Talk I block)‎ . . (-995)‎ . . (I've corrected all the various problems that I saw with the article as it stood. As requested by rationalwiki administrator Sciencerox, I have now explained those problems (in great detail) on the talk page for this article.) (undo)

Isn't that be something? Someone whose only two edits were to Eugene_M._McCarthy (and both had no edit summary), demoted to "administrator" not even a full two days after they created their account! ...Oh wait; if those're their only two edits, how did they tell you to take it to the talk page? (And why would they do so from their own talk page?) ~ ♥ 01:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Error #6 I changed the wording to "He proposes that echidnas and platypuses are the descendants of a cross between birds and mammals." Better?ClickerClock (talk) 05:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The word proposes is a bit strong here, "considers in detail the hypothesis that" would be more strictly accurate. "Proposes" seems to suggest that I'm the first to do this, but the idea is by no means new. For example, Compton's Encyclopedia, published a century ago, includes the following passage: "The Duckbill [platypus] is the queerest of all animals. It breaks all the rules. It has a beak and web feet like a duck, and it lays eggs. But it has hair and feeds its young on milk from the breast. That seems to make it a cross between bird and mammal." But I should add that this sentence, as you've changed it, is much better, even as it stands, than its predecessor, which was a total misrepresentation. So thanks! 162.197.60.142 (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

Error #7 I changed the wording to: "He even accepts an 18th-century account of a deformed fetus as a possible chicken-human hybrid."

This statement is still wrong. If you'll take the trouble to follow this link to the page in question, you'll see that I nowhere accept the account in question. True, I translated it from the original Latin. True, I have collected a lot of old reports about similar alleged hybrids, which can be accessed from the links at the top and bottom of that page. However, I nowhere say that I accept the report in question, nor any of the other, related reports. I don't even say that I think chicken-human hybrids are possible (except in the hypothetical sense of possible). In fact, I have a prominent notice at the top of the page that reads as follows: In listing reports of hybrids, it has been my policy to include all serious allegations, especially those of scholars, whether or not the hybrid alleged seems possible or likely to me. This policy, I think, helps to eliminate subjective judgment on my part, and therefore should remove at least one source of systematic bias from my work. It also helps to fulfill the ethical obligation of telling not just the truth, but the whole truth. If you want to know a little more about the method that I follow, it's to create a separate listing for each different type of reported cross that I find reported. I then append any subsequent reports that I find about that type of cross to that particular listing. For some crosses, I've only ever found a single report, for others many. Obviously crosses in the latter category are more reliable than those in the former, but I think it's always important to look on such information with a skeptical eye. So, if you want the sentence to be honest, instead of "even accepts" you should say "lists" or "has translated." Another problem with this sentence is the word possible. Within the context of hybridization, people often use this word when they mean "probable" or "likely." But saying "possible" doesn't really convey anything. Obviously, in any such case, it's possible, at least hypothetically, that a hybrid is in question, but the question should be whether it's likely that the specimen in question is truly of type alleged, not whether it's possible. About all that I think can be reliably said in the case of the specimen currently under consideration (i.e., the "Hühnermensch") is that it was the offspring of a human mother but exhibited various chicken-like traits, for example, red periopthalmic rings, a wattle and comb, chicken-like claws on the hands and feet, a spur-like appendage on the feet, absence of an external ear and a cloaca (see the page linked to above for details). Whether these traits actually indicate that this specimen had an avian sire, however, is a matter that could only be settled by genetic analysis. But given that I don't really "accept" that this specimen is a chicken-human hybrid, and that I don't even go so far as to say that I think it's probable, it seems to me that if you want to be honest, instead of merely deleting the word uncritically, you should delete the whole sentence (and the little picture of the "Hühnermensch that goes with it). True, deleting the word does make the misrepresentation less egregious, but the sentence remains a misrepresentation nonetheless. 162.197.60.142 (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

ClickerClock (talk) 05:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Error #4 I changed the wording to "His hypothesis alleges that human beings are descended from ape-pig hybrids."ClickerClock (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the "sources needed" tag from the page, since there are no longer unsourced statements on the page. Hertzy (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

A question for Eugene

Hello,
You propose Sus scrofa for the other parent. I thought that the Eurasian Wild Boar was, well from Eurasia. Exfter quite a bit of searching, I couldn't find any references to S. scrofa being present in Sub-Saharan Africa before introduction by humans.
Also, you pretty much only speak of homo sapiens (eg "...This line of reasoning, too, suggests that the chimpanzee might have produced Homo sapiens...") ie modern humans.
Consider how much weight you place on traits and features which are similar in S. scrofa and humans, but unique to modern humans amongst the primates. Would is not be more appropriate to compare traits and features between sympatric contemporaries? Daev (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Daev. I'll deal with your question in pieces.

First piece: "You propose Sus scrofa for the other parent. I thought that the Eurasian Wild Boar was, well from Eurasia. Exfter quite a bit of searching, I couldn't find any references to S. scrofa being present in Sub-Saharan Africa before introduction by humans."

Early on in my discussion of human origins (this page) I state that

"Much of my research on pigs has centered on the ordinary pig (Sus scrofa). Of course, ordinary pig is really a catchall term for a variety of breeds. 'There are currently some 87 breeds of domestic pigs in the world, most of them in Europe and North America,' according to Pond and Houpt, and 'another 225 or more groups of pigs not recognized as breeds but each having unique characteristics, appearance, or geographical location.' However, the focus here will be on traits that are generally characteristic of Sus scrofa."

What I mean by "the ordinary pig" is the domestic pig (which is often, but not always, called Sus scrofa domesticus), and I focus on this animal not because I somehow think that it it is identical to the animal participating in this ancient hypothetical cross, but because it is the only type of pig that's well studied and, in particular, for which large amounts of anatomical information is available. So, by Sus scrofa, I do not mean the Eurasian wild boar, which is also called Sus scrofa. I know. That's confusing. But I'm not the one who created the confusion. If you look at the literature, you'll see that the Eurasian wild boar and domestic pig are both called by that name even though, they have different chromosomes numbers (domestic 2n=38, and wild boar 2n=36). True, the usual idea is that the domestic pig was somehow derived from the wild boar. However, given the difference in chromosome numbers, this seems open to question. Also very much open to question is the prehistoric geographic distribution of the precursors of the domestic pig.

Second piece: "Also, you pretty much only speak of homo sapiens (eg "...This line of reasoning, too, suggests that the chimpanzee might have produced Homo sapiens...") ie modern humans."

Here you quote from a sentence that appears very early in the discussion of human origins that appears on my site, at which point I'm only raising the question that we (Homo sapiens) might be derived from some sort of cross involving a chimpanzee. When it comes to skeletal traits, the only traits preserved in fossils (see this page, for example), I do bring pre-modern humans into the discussion. I also bring them up when considering various hypothetical versions of how the hybridization might have occurred (here).

Third piece: "Consider how much weight you place on traits and features which are similar in S. scrofa and humans, but unique to modern humans amongst the primates. Would is not be more appropriate to compare traits and features between sympatric contemporaries?"

Yes, it would more appropriate if it were possible. But given that the vast majority of human anatomical traits are known only from modern humans and, as I say, pig traits are well known only from domestic pigs, the only basis of comparison is between modern humans and domestic pigs. Information about other types of extant pigs is so scanty as to be irrelevant. Moreover, even if we could somehow be certain that hybridization of this type (pig x ape) actually did occur at some time in the past and produce the human race, we would have no way of knowing exactly what type of pig was involved in that ancient event. The issue is highly speculative. Moreover, it is even conceivable that early humans arose more than once, in more than one locale, with different types of pigs participating in the different hybridization events, possibly producing different types of humans. But this is unknown. I should perhaps mention, however, that the various traits that are usually used to identify fossils as being those of human ancestors (as opposed to being apes), are nearly without exception found in pigs (this is documented here).

I hope this helps.162.197.60.142 (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

Heeey

Heeey, is this characterization really fair? "Despite having a PhD in genetics ... etc" Yes, in fact he also has a Post Doc (and Masters...) in genetics. Instead of saying anybody on the street could refute a guy who has spent decades studying the subject, why not look for actual peer reviewed refutation of his wonky ideas? Are there any? Is it because it's so "obviously wrong," or because the idea makes people uncomfortable and it's an unpopular topic? Evolution is not scientific LAW, it is THEORY - and yes I know that's the stupid shit Creationists say, but I point it out because that's supposed to mean the scientific community acknowledges that the ideas can still be refined and made more elegant. Just because a guy says there might be some things we need to change about how we look at evolution doesn't mean he's an "Intelligent Designer." Automatically dismissing a hypothesis without examination is not science, it's dogma. Atomfenrir (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, actually. It's harsh, but fair. While unexpected theories are sometimes shown to be true, McCarthy's proposal is so far from accepted science that it's on the order of questioning whether human beings might have actually developed in Nebraska rather than eastern Europe (bothof those are very deliberately places where no one seriously considers human beings might have developed). Anyone would know that something seems instinctively wrong about the idea of an ape producing viable offspring with a pig, and anyone who has completed high school biology can give a very basic explanation of why. Genetic and physiological differences make hybridization above the species level rare and hybridization at or above the level of the order impossible among animals. Pigs and apes have their closest relationship at the level of the unranked clade Boreoeutheria, which is significantly above the level of the order (for some perspective, a gorilla mating with a rabbit would have a closer genetic similarity than the human/chimp LCA mating with a wild boar). His other suggestions, like platypuses being the result of a breeding between a mammal and a bird, involve an even greater degree of physiological and genetic incompatibility. It implies interbreeding at the class level, and is literally the same as the idea of a hawk mating with a gopher. TudorGothicSerpent (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be interesting to have some level of explanation on why the high-level taxonomic distance necessarily makes hybridization impossible, rather than just common sense. By itself, the lineage distance doesn't mean anything, is just the first "common sense" step into a more deeper explanation, but a skeptical could argue that in very rare events perhaps such hybridizations could work ("happy accidents" is a significant element in evolution, basically how most islands were populated by terrestrial organisms), as we even have an universal genetic code, and a tremendous amount of genome shared with virtually anything, sometimes, oddly enough, more shared with more phylogenetically distant organisms (such as zebrafish or perhaps even sharks, versus dogs). I'm not defending the ideas at this level, though, even though considerably less-crankier but still far "from mainstream" ideas seemed to have a few real examples of supposedly real philogenetically distance hybridizations, "caterpillars evolved from onychophorans by hybridogenesis", which has been [formally debunked https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/controversial-caterpillar-evolution-study-formally-rebutted/]. "Far from mainstream" is quite a generous way of putting the whole chimp-pig hybrid "theory".

ah, u sure you have the right page for this? I haven't a clue where it suppose to belong. So it'll prolly be reverted sooner or later. 06:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

First, remember to sign your posts with four tildes. Second, the production of a viable offspring between sexual partners requires that their chromosomes almost exactly match, and the genes within those chromosomes almost exactly match. If they don't, then the random shuffling that happens in sexual reproduction aren't shuffling different gene alleles, but whole genes, and in something like a macroscopic multi-celled creature, there's almost 0 chance that the resulting shuffle will result in a viable organism, let alone a healthy one that the mother's body recognizes as something to be developed. The exact chance depends on how different the genomes and chromosomes are, but it's likely that beyond a certain point the chances are exactly 0. -- Onychoprion (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Addendum to the above: No sources cuz I didn't actually research, but that's how I, a programmer untrained in genetics beyond intro-level college courses, understand as the barrier to hybridization. Clearly there's nothing inherently bad about mixing genes, since GMOs are a thing, but without careful matching and inserting of proper genes, the organism's not going to be viable. -- Onychoprion (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Convergent Evolution

I notice that you've made a lot of progress in correcting the errors and misrepresentations in this article as it formerly stood (Thanks!). And I feel I should respond to some of your comments regarding your changes/corrections, which I plan to do as soon as I get some time. However, there are still many problems with the text even as it now stands, so many that if I tried to point them all out at once, it would probably be a bit overwhelming. So I'll begin with a single sentence which currently reads: "While there might be morphological similarities, more competent evolutionary biologists have long ago come to the conclusion that this does not necessarily imply a relational connection between two species (e.g., see convergent evolution)." I will leave aside the ad hominem innuendo of "more competent" and what amounts to a straw man, the implication that I say that morphological similarities necessarily imply relationship (I say this nowhere, so such a claim should not be attributed to me) and I will instead try to stick to the rational issues that this sentence raises. I would begin by pointing out that I know, as does virtually any biologist, that certain types of morphological similarities can be reasonably attributed to convergence. We are all familiar with the idea that similar traits can arise in unrelated animals as adaptations simply because they provide the same type of function. The most common example is probably that of wings, which for example are seen in both birds and insects. In this widely cited case, it is assumed that wings arose independently, in two separate evolutionary lineages, due to selective pressures that rewarded an ability to fly. The idea, then, is that this trait arose once in the ancestors of flying insects, and a second time in the ancestors of birds. Among evolutionary biologists, this kind of similarity is known as analogy, which refers to features that correspond due to a similarity of function, but that do not reflect a relationship by common descent. On the other hand, traits are called homologous when it is presumed that they are similar due to inheritance from a common ancestor. Convergent evolution, then, refers to traits that are analogous, not homologous. However, as Dobzhansky et al. (1977, p. 270) point out, "As a rule, similarities due to analogy, and in general to parallel or convergent evolution, lack the detailed correspondence of parts observed in cases of homology." For example, if one observed that birds had not just wings, but also wings that were featherless, clear and veined like those of insects, one would tend to assume that the wings of birds and flying insects were homologous and not merely analogous. This is because the shared, detailed anatomical similarity between their wing structures would suggest that they shared shared a common ancestor from whom they inherited those detailed similarities. Now when I was comparing pig and human anatomy, I found that they did indeed share detailed similarity with respect to certain of features. There are various traits that fall into this category, but one example is the similarity of pig and human kidneys. I had considered simply copying and pasting the entire, documented section on human kidneys from my website and pasting it in here, but to avoid the disruption entailed in that approach I include a link here. If you will follow that link, you'll see that there is a very high level of detailed similarity between the kidneys of pigs and humans (whereas the kidneys of pigs and humans are different from those of all other mammals, including those of non-human primates). So in the case of the kidneys of humans and pigs, you have a situation that suggests homology, not analogy. It's as if you were sorting through bird specimens at a museum and found one that had, not bird wings, but rather wings identical to those of a dragonfly. It's a very puzzling situation that begs explanation. The pig-chimp theory is one explanation. In fact, it's not easy to think of another explanation for our kidneys, because in cases of analogy, as Dobzhansky et al. (ibid) say, "resemblance rarely extends to the fine details of complex traits." I do not claim, however, that the pig-chimp theory is true. I merely suggest it as a hypothesis to be further investigated. It may well be that there is some other explanation, but analogy certainly doesn't strike me as a reasonable possibility. 162.197.60.142 (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

Work cited: Dobzhansky et al. 1977. Evolution, San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) is widely recognized as a central figure in the field of evolutionary biology.

Hi. I'm still waiting around for some kind of response to the long discussion on convergence that I posted immediately above. If no one does respond after a reasonable amount of time (say, by Tuesday), then I'll take it that there are no objections to my deleting that sentence as inaccurate? (I will of course, refer to my comments above when/if I do so.) So if there are contrary opinions, please let me know. 162.197.60.142 (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

It's Tuesday and no one objected. So I just deleted it. 162.197.60.142 (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

By the way, here's a link to another blog that has lots of positive things to say about my pig-ape theory: http://hplusmagazine.com/2013/09/01/between-chimp-pig-and-superman/?utm_content=buffer793f4&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer 162.197.60.142 (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

Sentence needs a citation

I'm not sure the sentence "However, he is more widely known for his theory that humans have evolved from an ape-pig hybrid" is correct. I'd say that it at least needs a citation. Actually, I think I'm probably better known for my book on bird hybrids (Handbook of Avian Hybrids of the World, 2006, Oxford University Press) than for my investigations into a possible hybrid origin for humans. I say this because my Handbook is very widely cited and has inspired a lot of subsequent research. For example, the following quotation is taken from Ottenburghs et al (2015, p. 892), which appeared in the well-known ornithology journal Ibis: "The documentation of numerous avian hybrids (McCarthy 2006) and hybrid zones (Price 2008) has stimulated the curiosity of many ornithologists and has led to an enormous amount of scientific papers." Handbook of Avian Hybrids of the World has received many other positive assessments, which I could go on and on citing if you like (see the Reviews and Awards section here). Here's another blurb from Journal of Field Ornithology: "Exhaustive...The bibliography is a mammoth 150 pages and lists over 5000 references! ... This book is an essential resource for banders, museum curators, and the serious birder. For researchers in conservation, ecology, and evolution, the book is a treasure trove of the occurrence and frequency of hybrids that could be used for preliminary comparative studies." (Actually, the bibliography is 160 pages long. But whatever. Their mistake!) 162.197.60.142 (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

Remember to add new stuff at the bottom. Also, can you verify that you've read the stuff on your user talk page? You haven't replied to any of it and I'm not sure whether IP editors get anything telling them they have new messages. I'll try and find a way to mention your monkey/pig stuff in the intro without saying you're more well known for it (we're mainly interested in that stuff due to the nature of the site). Christopher (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Christopher, yes I saw that stuff, although there there didn't seem to be much there. As I recall, it didn't seem like there was anything that I really needed to reply to. So why do you ask? And, just so you'll know, I've noticed new message notices now and then, though I'm not sure I've received all such messages. 162.197.60.142 (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

Also, Christopher, could you tell me please, what you mean by "we're mainly interested in that stuff due to the nature of the site"? Thanks. 162.197.60.142 (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

It was mostly because I wasn't sure if IPs got something that told them they had messages on their talk page, thanks. I meant we're mainly interested in your hypothesis that an ape and a pig mated (along with stuff about cows and dogs mating etc) because your bird hybridization book and your novel (along with anything else of note you may have done, I don't know that much about you) don't appear to be relevant to our mission. Christopher (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll respond first to your comment about "cows and dogs mating." It's a fact that dogs and cows do mate. It's documented with videos (for example, here). It's also true that over the years there have been many news reports about dog-cow hybrids (you can find many such reports quoted here). There are even photos of alleged dog-cows (which can be viewed here, here, and here). What's unknown is whether or not all these reports about and pictures of hybrids are hoaxes. The distance of the cross suggests they are. However, the large number of independent eyewitnesses from many different geographic locales is hard to account for and suggests such hybrids may actually occur, albeit only on very rare occasion. However, my goal is merely to collect all the reports and photos, as well as any other evidence relating to this cross, into a single place so that anyone who wishes can easily access all of the information relevant to this cross and judge whether it warrants further investigation. I myself, while I do try to keep an open mind, will not really believe that such hybrids occur until at least one such hybrid has been produced under controlled conditions and the specimen, whether alive or dead, has been preserved for thorough genetic testing. Until then, I withhold judgment.

Fuzzy has changed the sentence. Christopher (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

To 162.197.60.142: Can you please get an account?

It will make editing easier for you (no reCAPTCHA, no minimum waiting period between edits), make it easier for us to identify who you are when you edit the article, and allow you to see notifications when someone {{ping}}s your account. FuzzyCatPotato of the Joyful Rocks (talk/stalk) 17:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

No thanks. I don't see why it's a problem, since I'm scrupulously identifying myself in every edit. 162.197.60.142 (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

You'll be able to make edits straight after each other, amongst many other things. See WP:WP:Why create an account? (Wikipedia link, due to the differences between RW and WP and you only being here to deal with our article on you not all of it will apply). Christopher (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Christopher, do you ever think about what it means for me when you guys allow some anonymous critic to create a Eugene M. McCarthy page on your site? It means that all the various, mostly sloppy and inaccurate, rocks that my critic has tossed at me become associated with my name when someone searches for information about me on Google. It also takes a lot of my time. So it's damaging both in time and money. Just defending myself from the loose-canon comments on this page has already turned into a major time suck. I've got better things to do. Here I am, trying to work on the second edition of my avian hybrids book, which takes a tremendous amount of time; I have to collect up-to-date information on thousands of crosses. And yet, you are talking to me about saving time by getting an account? If you want to save my time, please just delete this whole highly biased and inaccurate page about me in its entirety. That way I won't have to come back pointing out all the many, many things that are wrong with it, both factually and ethically. So far as I can see, this page was just the creation of some narrow-minded person who doesn't like to see anyone considering a new idea. To me, science is all about new ideas, in other words, it's about thinking hypothetically. Without that, it's really just a boring kind of religion, a tedious mere repetition of accepted dogma. Is that really the sort of thing you want to assist? I certainly hope not. And even if my creating a chimp-pig hybrid theory of human origins were a bad thing (I, obviously, don't think it is), would it make sense, or be generous, to create a page about me that focused on that single thing when I have devoted my entire life to science and have many other accomplishments? What purpose does it really serve? Is it supposed to punish me for thinking creatively? I really don't get it. 162.197.60.142 (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

We focus on your pig/chimp stuff because nothing else you do appears to be relevant to our mission statement. Christopher (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

And why exactly is that particular topic relevant to your "mission statement"? Please be explicit. Is it something I've actually said? Or is it merely something that someone else falsely accused me of saying? (I get a lot of the latter on this page.) 162.197.60.142 (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

Our "mission" is:

1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;

Documenting the full range of crank ideas;

Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;

Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

Given how unorthodox your pig/ape stuff is, plus the fact you don't appear to have published any of it in a peer reviewed scientific journal (correct me if I'm wrong), it appears to fall under 1 and 2. Christopher (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

>>Response to Christopher (1): Christopher, I can see how an opinion or belief or doctrine might be unorthodox, but I really can't see how a hypothesis can be. Could you explain that please? After all, if such were the case, then whenever you were considering two mutually exclusive hypotheses, at least one of them would be unorthodox (given that at least one would be inconsistent with orthodox doctrine). It seems that if what you say is correct, then it would be impossible to consider or discuss anything hypothetically without being unorthodox and being ostracized by your colleagues. Science would grind to a halt. So if you want to say that my "pig/ape stuff" is unorthodox, it seems to me that to make that argument you would need to find some statement of mine where I express an unorthodox belief or claim in connection with that topic, and not merely refer to what other people say (usually incorrectly) about what I believe or claim. Right? 162.197.60.142 (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

>>Response to Christopher (2): As to the publication of a book-length manuscript in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, that's pretty much impossible for a treatise on any topic. This single manuscript, the one on human origins, was at one time combined with a separate manuscript, which is even longer, that offers a general theory of evolution. So that was even more unwieldy to publish in a journal. You might say, why not publish in parts? Well, I don't think that would make a lot of sense since each successive part builds on what went before. And, while I'm not saying that my book is of the same quality as the Darwin's Origin of Species, the material is of the same nature, that is, it's a lengthy treatise offering a novel theory of evolution. That being the case, I have always used Darwin as an example in connection with my manuscript, for example in the tone of my writing, in the sorts of topics I choose to cover, and in the way it was handled for editing and publication. And he published the Origin without peer review in the popular press. This is not to say that he didn't get scientist colleagues to look at his manuscript. He did. People like Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker read it and made suggestions. But I, too, had several colleagues go over my mansucript and it incorporates many of their suggestions and corrections. I also had the assistance of many different colleagues, as did Darwin, in the collection of relevant data and citations (actually I still get suggestions from time to time and, because its on the web, I can incorporate those suggestions). I, too, sat on my manuscript for about as long as Darwin did (more than two decades). So there are parallels, however, meager my own efforts may be in comparison with his. But what I suppose I'm getting at is that, on the basis of what seems to be your definition of cranky and unorthodox, Darwin himself would be cranky and unorthodox, because he published, without formal peer review (although he did pass it around to his colleague friends like I did), a theory that was radically contradictory to accepted doctrine. 162.197.60.142 (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

(Sorry for taking ages to respond) The unorthodox bit certainly was a bad definition of pseudoscience/crankery. I still think that peer review is necessary for modern science. How science worked in the 19th century isn't really relevant to the 21st. Christopher (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

>>>Ordinarily, Christopher, I'd agree with you. After all, I've undergone peer review myself with many of my publications. However, there are certain categories of knowledge where scientists do not behave in a rational manner and where, as a result, they are not honest. One such category is any sort of knowledge where a social taboo is involved. And in the present case that applies. There are surprisingly strong taboos when it comes to hybridization, especially when it comes to hybridization involving human beings. If you want to judge the strength of the taboo, just think about how people react to any mention of bestiality, humans having sex with animals, which of course would be a necessary prerequisite for the production of any kind of human-animal hybrid. Many people are "grossed out" even by such common barnyard events as, say, a dog having sex with a pig. Because there is such an aversion to these things, which grows stronger, the more that humans are involved, many people, including many scientists, simply don't want to talk about it. They find it embarrassing and repulsive, and they fear they will be condemned if they do discuss it or if they even suggest that such phenomena should be investigated. So it becomes very difficult to obtain fair and rational peer review. Taboos are irrational. This is why the professor who supervised my dissertation told me that he didn't think I would ever receive a fair review for this aspect of my work. It was he that suggested that I should simply "do an end run," as he put it, and make my manuscript publicly available on a website. So that's what I've done. But as he predicted, I've had to take a lot of flak for it, not because it says anything that's inaccurate, but because it's so taboo. 162.197.60.142 (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

He even accepts an 18th-century account of a deformed fetus as a possible chicken-human hybrid.

The sentence in the heading above is the subject of this new section. If you'll take a look at the page on my website cited to support this statement (here), you'll see that the statement isn't true. Thus, near the top of that page I state clearly that "the creature discussed here may not even be a hybrid (though genetic tests of the specimen would probably be able to resolve that issue). But the information documented here will help anyone who wishes to investigate the matter further." Moreover, if you'll read through that page, you'll see that I do not accept the specimen in question as being an actual chicken-human hybrid. For example, in a prominent blue box I state the following: "In listing reports of hybrids, it has been my policy to include all serious allegations, especially those of scholars, whether or not the hybrid alleged seems possible or likely to me. This policy, I think, helps to eliminate subjective judgment on my part, and therefore should remove at least one source of systematic bias from my work. It also helps to fulfill the ethical obligation of telling not just the truth, but the whole truth." In fact, take it from me: nowhere do I say that I think it actually is a chicken-human hybrid. So, clearly, it's false to say that I "accept" the specimen in question as a chicken-human hybrid. This is the big issue with this sentence, but it also strikes me that, strictly speaking, the sentence doesn't really even make sense, given that it says I accept a hybrid as possible. Hypothetically, you can imagine someone accepting that a given specimen is a hybrid. Also you can imagine someone accepting the claim that a given type of hybrid is possible to produce. But what does it really mean to accept a hybrid as possible? After all, unless you have certain dogmatic preconceptions, any specimen, prior to investigation, might be a hybrid of any kind. So in that sense it would be "possible." But I don't think that's what the creator of this sentence intended to convey. 162.197.60.142 (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

Now, perhaps I'm incorrect (if I'm wrong, please let me know), but it seems that the purpose of this page is to convey the idea that I have all sorts of ridiculous opinions and by that means to discredit me. If that is in fact the goal, then any contributor to this page should, if he or she wants to be honest, find in my writings passages where I actually say something ridiculous. Simply repeating a lot of false rumors falsely claiming that I've said something ridiculous is both lazy and dishonest. Nothing is easier than to fill a page with hearsay rubbish. In the meantime, I'd suggest that the sentence simply be deleted, since it isn't true (along with the little picture intended to illustrate it). If no one raises any objection to that course of action, I'll do that, say, on Tuesday. 162.197.60.142 (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

deleted. Christopher (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to remove the picture. Christopher (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

>>Hey Christopher! Thanks for those deletions. I'm beginning to think you're an honest man! :D 162.197.60.142 (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

I agree with Christopher's deletion. I have expanded the page, which while critical, I hope is at least fair. If you still have objections, let's hear them. Bongolian (talk) 05:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

McCarthy however admits that

>>>There's a new section that's been added to the page that starts with "McCarthy however admits that." This new section, adds to the misrepresentation on this page, because whoever wrote it (apparently, this was Bongolian) apparently doesn't understand the argument that I actually offer. So I will here try to phrase that argument in terms that even a non-geneticist can understand. First, what I'm doing overall with the pig-ape hypothesis is setting it opposition to the hypothesis that the human and ape lineages have gradually diverged from an ancient common ancestor. So, as with any other pair of mutually exclusive hypotheses, you want to find evidence that will reject one of them, or to put it another way that will be consistent with only one of them. Now the key fact, that whoever wrote this new section doesn't seem to understand is that the genetic evidence is consistent with both these hypotheses (where as the writer seems to think it's consistent only with the gradual-divergence scenario). The reason why the genetic evidence is consistent with the pig-ape hypothesis is explained in a fair amount of detail in the lengthy blue box with the heading "Why genetic analysis of this question is difficult" on this page. It's also explained in a dumbed-down way for non-geneticists on this page. I also talk about the genetic issues at length on this page. But in short, the point is that you can, hypothetically, produce a creature like a human, that is, a creature that 98% similar at the genetic level to a chimpanzee, in at least two different ways: 1) by slow divergence from a common ancestor (the standard hypothesis) or by 2) by crossing a chimpanzee with some other, distantly-related animal (say, a pig) and then backcrossing the resulting hybrid to a chimpanzee to produce a B1 hybrid, then backcrossing the B1 hybrid to chimp to get a B2 hybrid, then backcrossing the B2 hybrid to chimp to get a B3 hybrid, in which case you would expect the B3 hybrid to be about 98% similar to chimpanzees at the nucleotide sequence level (as are humans). So I'll say it again, either of these hypotheses is consistent with the genetic data available for humans. So I'm not "admitting" anything (as the writer of this new section suggests). I am saying, though, that whoever wrote this new, mistaken section either failed to absorb my argument or has chosen to misrepresent it. 162.197.60.142 (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy

McCarthy has made an extraordinary hypothesis, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and McCarthy admits that the genetic evidence is lacking.

>>>The sentence quoted in the heading of this section (which, I believe, was added by Bongolian?), is both a cliche and a misrepresentation. As I've explained, at length (see the section, entitled "McCarthy however admits that," immediately above on this same page), I do not admit that genetic evidence is lacking. I merely point out that the genetic evidence is equally consistent with either of the two hypotheses in question, that is, with the standard (divergence) hypothesis, or with the pig-chimp hypothesis. I also point out that there are other kinds of evidence, in particular morphological evidence, that is strongly consistent with the pig-chimp hypothesis, but not with the divergence hypothesis. So the emphasis should be on the category of evidence that does discriminate between the hypotheses (i.e., morphological evidence), not the type of evidence that does not (i.e., genetic evidence). And yet Bongolian wants to emphasize the latter. To better understand the situation, consider the following analogy: Genetic evidence is a powerful tool frequently used within the field of biology. In the same way, fingerprint evidence is a powerful tool used in the field of forensics. However, even though fingerprint evidence is extremely useful and convincing in a wide range of criminal cases, no rational person would say that evidence of that type will be available in every case. For example, when a perpetrator wears gloves while committing a crime, or when the crime scene is wiped clean, there will be no fingerprints. And yet, other lines of evidence (eyewitness accounts, fiber evidence, videos showing the presence of the perpetrator, motive, a murder weapon being found in the bedroom of the accused, etc., etc., etc.) may still be used to obtain a conviction. And, in the same way that you would expect fingerprint evidence to be absent in the case of a wiped crime scene, you would expect genetic evidence to be absent in the present case, or at best, hard to evaluate. You can however, build a very strong case with other lines of evidence, which is what I have done. So to reduce Bongolian's argument to an absurdity, it's like an attorney in a murder trial arguing that his client ought to be acquitted because there's no fingerprint evidence, even though multiple eyewitnesses watched the accused slit the victim's throat. That would be absurd. I hope this is now clear (but I'll be happy to field any questions related to this topic). And one more thing, this cliche stuff about extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence! As I have repeatedly said, I don't make any claims, I merely assemble and consider evidence relating to two mutually exclusive hypotheses. I also suggest that the issue be further evaluated. But no claims. So this is just another example of someone misrepresenting what I say. 162.197.60.142 (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Gene McCarthy