A chimera is not a hybrid. It's nothing like a hybrid. Your equating hybridism to just mashing shit together. True hybrids just... oh Im just gonna stop, this guy probably actually agrees with me fully and just wants to waste my time. I'm done.
Not wasting anyone's time. I'm excited that anyone wants to actually talk about this stuff. I've listened to a phd geneticist on the subject and respected his views, looked at his website in depth, and I agree with his theory. I don't think it's crazy. The chimera was just another random post to throw in here. I know that is different. The truth is humans have an unbelievable amount of common genetic characteristics with pigs that nobody has ever explained to any real skeptic of the subject's satisfaction. It defies reason. Why do pig hearts work in humans? Why do pig skin grafts work when monkey skin grafts never would because of the completely different structure of the skin? Why do we have identical kidney structure to the pig to the exclusion of every other mammal? There is only really one good answer to these and other numerous questions in genetics when you look at them objectively. We are very closely genetically related to the pig somehow? How do you explain it?
Chimera is just really another name for a hybrid now that I look at the post. It's an animal made of at least two other animals crossed. Why is that not a hybrid? It's like saying an AWD car isn't 4wd.
You don't want to know. There is some lonely farmers out there. Jokes aside originally it was a kind of ape. If you haven't heard they are pretty rapey. Orangutans are known to rape people sometimes.
I know it's not impossible, but I'm let'n everybody know right now, it ain't gonna be easy tap'n this shit right here!
I was meaning to get back to this thread. https://phys.org/news/2013-07-human-hybrids-closer-theory-evidence.html "There was considerable fallout, both positive and negative, from our first story covering the radical pig-chimp hybrid theory put forth by Dr. Eugene McCarthy, a geneticist who's proposing that humans first arose from an ancient hybrid cross between pigs and chimpanzees. Despite the large number of comments, here at Phys.org, on macroevolution.net, and on several other discussion forums, little in the way of a scientific consensus has emerged. By and large, those coming out against the theory had surprisingly little science to offer in their sometimes personal attacks against McCarthy. We decided it would be worthwhile to take a closer look at the objections that were most commonly offered against the hybrid hypothesis. Chief among them was that the chromosome differences here are just too large to support a viable hybrid. One of the previous examples we gave, the zedonk (zebra parent, 2n=44, donkey parent, 2n=62), can and does result in female hybrid offspring that have been reported to produce offspring in backcrosses. The same is true for the geep (sheep, 2n=54, and goat 2n=60). While the reduction in fertility associated with large differences of this sort is often severe, the existence of fertile hybrids, particularly in backcrosses, invalidates this objection. Another argument was that the morphological distance, or genetic differences besides chromosome number, are just too great. Most of us are familiar with the platypus. A paper published in Nature a few years ago demonstrated that the platypus genome contains both bird and mammal chromosomes, and therefore that the vastly different bird and mammal sex chromosome systems have been successfully bridged by this creature. This example is not offered as any kind of proof. But it does suggest that sometime, long ago, a cross occurred that would have been even more distant than that between a chimpanzee and a pig – one between a otter-like mammal and a duck-like bird. And if such was the case, the hybrids from the cross must have been able to produce offspring (otherwise they would have died out, and the platypus would not exist today) The objection that mating between such different animals is just too strange has been addressed at length on McCarthy's website. Ample counterexamples have been given there and elsewhere, including the evidence for matings, without issue, between such strange pairings as a buck rabbit with female cat (or even with a domestic hen), or a dog with a monkey, or with a swan goose. In general, as McCarthy points out, it has long been known that many organisms, as adults, prefer to mate with whatever animal they are exposed to at the critical early stage in their lives when sexual imprinting occurs. He also notes that it is not as if his hypothesis that humans are pig-chimp hybrids has not been tested. Under the alternative hypothesis (humans are not pig-chimp hybrids), the assumption is that humans and chimpanzees are equally distant from pigs. You would therefore expect chimp traits not seen in humans to be present in pigs at about the same rate as are human traits not found in chimps. However, when he searched the literature for traits that distinguish humans and chimps, and compiled a lengthy list of such traits, he found that it was always humans who were similar to pigs with respect to these traits. This finding is inconsistent with the possibility that humans are not pig-chimp hybrids, that is, it rejects that hypothesis."