An alternative theory of evolution

[Peterski]

A weird but still interesting theory:

http://www.macroevolution.net/table-of-contents.html


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z-JjqVj9y8

[Lazio]

"Stabilization theory provides an intellectual basis for Charlie Chaplin's dream"

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/486/903/571.gif

[Peterski]

Some of his examples of hybrids between distinct species:

http://www.macroevolution.net/mammalian-hybrids-articles.html

[Ayetooey]

Was this written by Dr Bosniensis?

[Peterski]

^^^ By doctor Eugene McCarthy. :)

"Cat-rabbit Hybrids (Cabbits), Fact or Fiction?":

http://www.macroevolution.net/cat-rabbit-hybrids.html

Rabbit mating with a cat (which may lead to a baby cabbit):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0964yWy414Y

"Chicken-pigeon hybrids":

http://www.macroevolution.net/chicken-pigeon-hybrids.html

http://www.macroevolution.net/images/chicken-pigeon-hybrid-cropped.gif

^^^
"A Caveat:

Most scientists do not believe that crosses as distant as those listed below can actually occur. That is, the idea that intergeneric crosses occur is widely accepted, but not the notion that interfamilial crosses do. And most scientists consider the occurrence of interordinal and interclass crosses as far-fetched, or even impossible, especially ones involving human beings. However, extensive review of the literature reveals there is a great deal of evidence that such distant crosses do, at least on rare occasion, take place. It has been my policy in listing reports of hybrids 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."

[Bellbeaking]

Cabbits are fiction untill proven otherwise, would be incredibly easy to prove too with dna testing. I think this guys is a troll.

[Peterski]

Cabbits are fiction untill proven otherwise, would be incredibly easy to prove too with dna testing. I think this guys is a troll.

He posted examples of many other crosses.

Also:

"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. (...)"

Fish-bird hybrids:

http://www.macroevolution.net/carp-wagtail-hybrids.html

[Bellbeaking]

With 0 genetic evidence for any of them though. Scientists would be all over a 1/2 cat 1/2 dog and would easily be able to prove its truly mixed with genetic evidence, same for all his hybrids.

He thinks this might be a cow-human hybrid:
http://www.macroevolution.net/images/cow-human-hybrid-water-buffalo-cropped.gif
It probably just has a genetic disorder.

[Dorian]

http://web.archive.org/web/20150901025337/http://www.koanicsoul.com/blog/2015/08/31/boar-raped-bonobo-first-human-the-horrifying-implications/

[Peterski]

With 0 genetic evidence for any of them though.

Not so long ago it was believed that modern human populations as physically different from each other as Australians, East Asians, Europeans, West Africans, etc. all simply "evolved" their traits in the last 100,000 years. But now it turns out that each of these groups has archaic admixtures from different types of much older hominins (Neanderthals, Denisovans and some "ghost species" which have not yet been identified).

"Humans Interbred With At Least Five [and still counting!] Archaic Human Groups As They Moved Out Of Africa [add to this at least a few more archaic groups that interbred with Sub-Saharan Africans within Africa, which is already confirmed as well]":

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190715094918.htm

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/archaic-human-0012313

^^^
So are "racial differences" the result of "classical" adaptive evolution after the Out of Africa migration, or at least to a large extent of hybridization events?

And before you say that Europeans "evolved" light skin recently - well... kind of, but in fact a light-skinned population existed in Ukraine and Russia already in Upper Paleolithic times. And darker people in Mesolithic West Europe did not really evolve lighter all by themselves, but as we know they mixed with (and largely got replaced by) lighter-pigmented Eastern immigrants.

Anyway skin pigmentation is just one trait, which can change as the result of micro-evolution, but morphology of skulls in Europe was Caucasoid already in Paleolithic times - and this Caucasoid "race" has remained relatively stable in West Eurasia since then:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6213/1113.abstract

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/11/european-genetic-identity-may-stretch-back-36000-years

And also:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1

All those population mixtures between WHG, CHG, ENF etc. were between different branches but descended mostly from the same "Caucasoid root".

=====

It turns out many traits defining morphological differences in physical appearance between populations could be inherited during hybridization events with archaic hominins.

"Modern Asians acquired rare dental trait from Denisovans":

http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/three-rooted-lower-molar-modern-asians-denisovans-07374.html

Quote:

"A 3-rooted lower molar, a rare trait primarily found in modern Asian lineages, was previously thought to have evolved after Homo sapiens dispersed from Africa. A new analysis of the so-called Xiahe mandible, a 160,000-year-old fossilized Denisovan jawbone from Baishiya Karst Cave, the Tibetan Plateau, China, points to a different evolutionary path."

^^^
So no longer "evolved", but rather "acquired" (through hybridization)!