Show post
Eugene McCarthy #psychoceramics

Stabilization Theory

An alternative theory of evolution

The main claims of stabilization theory, which distinguish it from neo-Darwinian theory, can be summarized as follows:

1. The typical form treated as a species comes into being via certain well-known, well-documented genetic processes ("stabilization processes") that produce new stable forms in an extremely rapid manner;
2. These processes produce new forms that are, for genetic reasons, inherently stable from the time of their inception right up to the time of their extinction. A corollary of this claim is the theory's assertion that any given type of organism produced by such a process has a negligible tendency to change over time in response to environmental constraints.

These primary tenets of stabilization theory can be contrasted with the following salient claims of neo-Darwinian theory:

1. The typical new form treated as a distinct species comes into being gradually through the accumulation of certain characteristic traits within an evolving population over time;
2. The accumulation and spread of these traits is due to environmental influences favoring the survival and reproduction of individuals having such traits (natural selection).

Only a few words of difference, but the implications are huge. Consider how extensively Darwinian theory has influenced not only biology, but also society at large and you will see that the stakes here are incredibly high — what if the axioms of Darwin's theory actually are erroneous? — and subsequent discussion will provide excellent reasons for believing they actually are — Then the theory itself is wrong and the entire Weltanschauung based upon it is mistaken. For example, under stabilization theory we select and shape our environment. The neo-Darwinian outlook, of course, is just the opposite: Under that view, the environment selects and shapes us.

As we shall see, the relative merits of these two hypotheses can in fact be evaluated by considering which of the two is more consistent with available data. But first, let's look at some examples of stabilization processes.

Submitter’s note: I’ll just summarise the rest.

The Theory
1. Evolutionary change is sudden, not gradual (Saltationism)
2. Speciation generally occurs as a result of hybridisation between species that may not be closely related. Humans, for instance, are chimpanzee-pig hybrids and platypi are mammal-bird hybrids.
3. Convergent evolution is a fallacy born from the assumption of traditional taxonomy and Darwinian evolution, they are actually the result of hybridisation

The Evidence
1. Birth defects that vaguely resemble another type of animals, e.g. syrenomelia and Harlequin ichtyosis support human-fish hybridisation.
2. Similarities actually due to convergent evolution.
3. He has a doctorate in genetics and researches hybridisation. Unless you are a geneticist and hybridisation expert as well, you are not qualified to criticise his theory. Even if you’re a biologist specialised in another relevant field.

Show post
Eugene McCarthy #psychoceramics #conspiracy

Pig-human Hybrids

Can a primate cross with a pig to produce viable offspring? Many scientists would say no. And yet, truth to tell, ostensible hybrids of this type, in particular ones which seem to involve human beings, have been repeatedly reported. There are dozens of newspaper reports about pig-human hybrids on record, and many additional accounts in the older literature, as well. The reports vary somewhat, but basically, they all describe creatures with the body of an ordinary pig, except for the presence of hands and/or a human-like head, that is, the front end is similar to human, the rear end, to pig.

The reports differ with respect to the claimed degree of resemblance of the foreparts to those of humans. Some, however, do allege an exact similarity (see the transcripts of old newspaper reports). The most recent accounts of ostensible pig-human hybrids (for which photographic evidence is available) depict creatures with faces that are reminiscent of, but certainly not identical to, those of human beings. Indeed, several of these recent probable hybrids have a fleshy process like an elephant trunk attached to their foreheads, a structure known as a frontal proboscis. Frontal proboscides are also mentioned in some of the older reports.

imageStrange “piglet” born in China in 2008. Note the presence of what appears to be an undetached frontal proboscis.


By those who choose to deny the possibility of distant hybridization, the condition shown here is often described as holoprosencephaly, a term used to refer to various malformations of the brain and face. In humans, the symptoms range from mild (e.g., anosomia or the presence of a single central incisor without other facial defect) to severe, for example, convergent eyes (or even cyclopia), absence of a nose, and/or the presence of a frontal proboscis (a tubular appendage attached to the forehead). Holoprosencephaly is a rare condition and its causes are not understood. The etiology is, in general, specified only vaguely as the result of a “disruption” in development. To the student of hybridization, the question of interest here is whether the disruption in such cases might be due to the incompatibility of genomes forced into interaction by the mating of two highly disparate types of organisms.

Show post
Eugene McCarthy #psychoceramics

Okapi: A giraffe-zebra hybrid?

imageOn their rumps and legs, okapis have striping like that of a zebra.

imageThe okapi has a giraffe-like head.

The okapi (Okapia johnstoni), also known as the forest giraffe or zebra giraffe, is a good example of the way theory affects both perception and research activities. Okapis mix traits otherwise seen only separately either in the giraffe or in the zebra, and under ordinary circumstances this fact would constitute strong evidence that okapis are giraffe-zebra hybrids. Moreover, old news reports say that peoples native to the region where the okapi occurs believe it to be a giraffe-zebra hybrid.

And yet it seems no scientist has investigated this possibility. Why? Well, in trees representing accepted notions of evolutionary descent, giraffes and zebras are placed on widely separate branches. So any biologist worth his or her salt will tell you: The two are simply too far apart for giraffe-zebra hybrids to be possible. Thus, it is not surprising that there are no reports of attempts to produce giraffe-zebra hybrids. Experimentation does not occur because theory says it would be useless to try.

imageOkapi tongue

imageGiraffe tongue

The okapi and the giraffe were assigned to the same order (Artiodactyla) because they both have cloven hooves, and to the same family (Giraffidae) because they share certain distinctive features: Both have large eyes and ears, thin lips and a long, extensible tongue that allows them to lick their entire face (even the ears); their backs slope upward from rump to withers; they also share the same dental formula: (i 0/3, c 0/1, pm 3/3, m 3/3) × 2 = 32. Both, unlike any other mammal, have molars with rugose enamel and bony horns that remain covered with skin throughout life (Nowak 1999, vol. 2, p. 1085).

Yet the rump and legs of an okapi are covered with black-and-white stripes exactly like those of a zebra. Perhaps, then, if okapis had solid hooves instead of cloven ones, they would be classified as perissodactyls (Order Perissodactyla) and would be considered more closely related to zebras than to giraffes? An okapi is about the same size as a Burchell’s zebra.

The chromosome count of an okapi is also like that of a zebra, to which it is not supposed to be related, and unlike that of a giraffe. Giraffes have 30 chromosomes (Taylor et al. 1967; Hösli and Lang 1970; Koulisher et al. 1971), whereas okapis have a variable chromosome number of 44-46, depending on the animal in question; most seem to have 2n = 45 (Ulbrich and Schmitt 1969; Hösli and Lang 1970; Koulisher 1978). The chromosome number of Grevy’s zebra is 2n = 46 and plains zebras have 2n = 44 (Benirschke and Malouf 1967). Variation in chromosome count is itself unusual among mammals, but common in hybrids.

Okapis also produce high levels of abnormal sperm, which is consistent with the idea that they are the products of a distant hybrid cross. Thus, Penfold (2007) reports that 52% percent of the spermatozoa produced by these animals are morphologically abnormal. As those authors state, “okapi semen collected by electroejaculation routinely contain high numbers of non-motile and plasma membrane-damaged spermatozoa, apparently unrelated to season or the length of time since the male was housed with a breeding female.”

imageGiraffe and zebra drinking together Giraffe and zebra drinking together at Kruger Park.

It is, of course, well known that giraffes and zebras exist in mixed herds in various parts of Africa, and therefore are in potential breeding contact (these regions include those where okapis occur).

However, zebras are much smaller than giraffes, which might lead one to suppose that they would be physically unable to mate. And yet, hybrids sometimes occur between animals where the disparity in size is even greater. Male Steller sea-lions (Eumetopias jubatus) often mate, and sometimes even successfully hybridize with female California sea-lions. And yet the former average around 1100 lbs while the latter weigh only around 200 lbs., a ratio of 5.5:1 (the female often dies in such encounters) Such cases are nothing unusual in the literature on hybridization. Florio (1983) reports a case of a lion father who weighed 550 pounds (250 kg), while the leopard mother weighed a mere 84 pounds (38 kg), a ratio of 6.54:1.

In the case of a male giraffe 2,628 pounds (1,192 kg) with a female zebra, 770 pounds (350 kg),the weight ratio is only 3.4:1, that is, the difference is less disparate than in either of the two crosses just mentioned.

And this difference would be even smaller with the cross reversed, that is, with a female giraffe and a male zebra. Giraffe females weigh nearly a thousand pounds less than males, while zebra males weigh a bit more than females, which would yield a ratio closer to 2:1, not at all unusual in a hybrid cross. Moreover, giraffes do sometimes lie down, and a male zebra would, of course, have much better access to a recumbent female giraffe.

A final fact consistent with the idea that okapis might be giraffe-zebra hybrids is their rarity at the present day and their absence from the fossil record. Hamilton (1977) says that while giraffes are well-known as fossils, paleontologists have seen no trace of okapis. Zebras, too, are known from fossils (Eisenmann 1992). The IUCN rates the okapi as endangered, although it also states that “there is no reliable estimate of current population size.”

Show post
Eugene McCarthy #psychoceramics

Human-chicken Hybrids
Page 1: The Hühnermensch

Caution: Some readers may find this page disturbing.
Note: Although the report quoted on this page states that a woman gave birth to the specimen in question, all other allegations of human-chicken hybrids seem to refer to offspring hatched by chickens.
Note: 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.

Although some people may take lurid interest in gazing at pictures of deformed infants such as those shown on this page, this article was written for a different reason, that being to record information that will assist scientists in answering a single question: How different can two animals be if they are to produce a hybrid together? Of course, this question cannot be answered by simply reading this page. After all, 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.

In 1735, the German physician Gottlieb Friderici (1693-1742) attended the delivery of an infant in the small town of Taucha, a few kilometers northeast of Leipzig. His patient, 28-year-old Johanna Sophia Schmied, had previously given birth to three normal boys, and Friderici anticipated nothing unusual.

“But then,” he writes,

from this fourth pregnancy she brought forth this dreadful monster, which I propose to describe. [Translated by E. M. McCarthy. Original Latin: “Tandem quarta vice gravida, horrendum hoc, quod describendum iam mihi proposui, in lucem edidit monstrum.”]

Friderici’s “dreadful monster,” stillborn that day after an eight-month gestation, was indeed peculiar, so peculiar that he took the trouble to write up a detailed anatomical account, entitled Monstrum humanum rarissimum (i.e., An Exceedingly Rare Human Monster), which he published two years later (Friderici 1737). He also immediately hired an artist to prepare engravings of this strange birth, now known as the Hühnermensch (“chicken-human”). The resulting illustrations, reproduced here, accompanied Friderici’s account.

This remarkable specimen has been preserved in the collection of the Heimatmuseum und Naturalienkabinett Waldenburg, a museum in Saxony, and is therefore available for genetic testing. Either by coincidence or by heredity, it does seem to have enough characteristics in common with chickens to earn its name. Friderici repeatedly commented on the ostensible connection this babe makes between Class Mammalia and Class Aves. For example, during the course of his anatomical description, he says,

The upper extremities are not unlike those of a plucked chicken … and the digits, while normal in order and number, have claws exactly like those of a chicken. [Translated by E. M. McCarthy. Original Latin: “Extremitates superiores significat, brachia scilicet alis gallinarum, plumis privatarum, non absimilia. Cubito annexae manus oculis se exponunt, digitis quidem, si rationem numeri et ordinis habeas, legitimis, unguibus autem pullorum ungulis plane similibus.”]

“The deformed feet,” he says,
which are in an abnormal position and attached to chicken-like shanks, are, with the exception of their soles, of a wholly unwonted form, with the toes marvelously distorted and tipped with claws that are likewise exactly those of a domestic chicken. [Translated by E. M. McCarthy. Original Latin: “adjectos trunco pedes monstrat, utpote qui, inusitatum plane situm obtinentes, cum gallinarum cruribus aliqua ex parte convenire videntur, si a plantis pedum discesseris, quae ab humanis quidem non diversae sunt, at digiti tamen mire distorti apparent, ac ungues itidem pullorum gallinaceorum unguas referunt.”]

As do chickens, this literal Wunderkind has eye rings (periophthalmic rings) and a comb-like structure atop its head, both composed of red tissue, as in chickens. In addition, as in all birds, the ears are represented by only a small opening with no raised, external ears (pinnae), which are present in all mammals other than monotremes. Also as in birds, external genitalia are absent and the testes are internal.

It can also be seen in the illustrations that the skin is loosely attached to the underlying tissues, so loosely that it forms webbing at various regions of flexure (neck, elbow, knee, crotch). The skin of a bird, too, is more elastic and more loosely attached to the body than is that of the typical mammal, which is generally interpreted as giving birds the freedom of movement needed for flight (Stettenheim 2000).

Gottlieb Friderici was born in 1693 in the village of Taucha in Saxony (the same community where he later delivered the Hühnermensch). He completed his dissertation at the University of Leipzig around 1713 and became a doctor of philosophy and medicine. He was thereafter a general practitioner in Leipzig up to the time of his death in 1742. (Biographical details from Huppmann 2006.)

The heart, too, was larger than that of an ordinary human infant. And, according to a Kentucky University webpage on the avian circulatory system,
Birds tend to have larger hearts than mammals (relative to body size and mass). The relatively large hearts of birds may be necessary to meet the high metabolic demands of flight. Among birds, smaller birds have relatively larger hearts (again relative to body mass) than larger birds. Hummingbirds have the largest hearts (relative to body mass) of all birds, probably because hovering takes so much energy.

During the necropsy, Friderici found that the comb-like structure atop the head actually contained brain tissue, a situation reminiscent of that described by Purohit et al. (1977), who note that many hybrids produced by crossing pheasants with chickens are exencephalic (i.e., the brain is located outside the skull).

Among the anomalies exhibited by the Hühnermensch is a syndrome known as kleeblattschädel, a congenital anomaly in which there is intrauterine synostosis of multiple or all cranial sutures. This is another avian characteristic of the specimen, because in birds the cranial sutures also fuse at a very early stage of development (Brown 1915, p. 72).

If the Hühnermensch actually is a bird-mammal hybrid, then at this distance in time, one can only speculate about what might have happened back in Taucha all those many years ago. Did a rooster wander into a rustic bedroom and sit for a time on the lap of his naked mistress? Perhaps Johanna Sophia Schmied was a member of a coven that engaged in dark orgiastic rites that resulted in a weird creature seeing the light of day? Or possibly one day while gathering eggs she had her hands full and placed some rooster-semen-coated eggs in her underpants to carry them back to the house? Whatever happened, it seems the Hühnermensch took flight from there.

Why would such hybrids occasionally occur? In certain distant crosses only a small percentage of inseminations result in a viable hybrid. This fact has been experimentally verified in crosses of commercial interest, such as chicken × turkey, a cross in which about 1000 inseminations are required to produce a single adult hybrid. The vast majority of hybrids from such crosses die at various stages of development before reaching maturity. Among mammals, such distant hybrids often abort or are stillborn. Among birds, they usually die in the egg. But some, very few, survive. Even from the present, extremely distant cross (human × chicken), viable mature hybrids have been reported (however dubiously). So it seems that it is not that distant hybrids are entirely impossible, but rather that they do occur, but with hybrids that reach advanced stages of development being produced at only at very low frequencies. One can speculate that this experimental observation may reflect the existence of an unrecognized underlying rescue mechanism that activates/deactivates portions of the hybrid genome at random, so that different individuals have different developmental programs, a mechanism actuated, perhaps, via random heterochromatization of various portions of the composite genome.

Some very strange pairings can result from imprinting. When a newborn mammal or bird is exposed to some animal not of its own kind it may “imprint” on that animal, that is, later in life it may seek mates of that kind rather than its own, as a sexual partners. In connection with the present case, Hess (1959) reports that he imprinted a rooster on human beings by exposing him only to humans during the first month of life and keeping him strictly away from other chickens. As an adult, the rooster sought only human mates even when allowed access to hens. So one can think of various scenarios based on this knowledge: an accidentally imprinted rooster, an intoxicated or unconscious woman, and a very unusual mating.

At any rate, this specimen is a very interesting one and, given that it would no doubt be an F1 hybrid (if it is a hybrid at all), it would be very easy to detect its origins with genetic testing. One quick and easy method would be PCR amplification using human and chicken primers. As Cicero once said (De Officiis, I, 6),

We must not treat the unknown as known and too readily accept it. And he who wishes to avoid this error (as all should do) will devote both time and attention to the weighing of evidence.
Show post
Eugene McCarthy #psychoceramics

Long line of cartoon ostriches with their heads stuck into the sand labelled “Renowned Authority #(X)”: “There are no human hybrids!”
Medieval illustration of some human-headed boar-dog thing, its face replaced with a presumably self-drawn smiling face: “Hey!
I didn’t know that!”