User Answers


Mr. R.G. shared this article, and I thought I would pass it along for its intrinsic interest. Geneticist Dr Eugene M. McCarthy is proposing a serious genetic model for humanity's hybrid organizations, via a kind of process of genetically "reverse engineering" the human genome. In this, he traces humanity back to the chimpanzee and "something else":

Human Origins The Hybrid Hypothesis

I have to admit that I was so intrigued when I read this article that I thought "it's almost too good to be true," and so did a quick search on Dr. McCarthy, and found this reference to a very academic tome on avian hybrids - work which he mentioned in the article linked above - published by Oxford University Press:

Handbook of Avian Hybrids of the World

McCarthy follows the standard line of evolutionary theory that at least one parent of humanity comes from the chimpanzee family, given that creature's very close genetic structure to humans. This is where it gets interesting. Writes McCarthy:

So in the specific case of humans, if the two assumptions made thus far are correct (i.e., (1) that humans actually are hybrids, and (2) that the chimpanzee actually is one of our two parents), then a list of traits distinguishing human beings from chimpanzees should describe the other parent involved in the cross. And by applying this sort of methodology, I did in fact succeed in narrowing things down to a particular candidate. That is, I looked up every human distinction that I could find and, so long as it was cited by an expert (physical anthropologist, anatomist, etc), I put it on a list. And that list, which includes many traits (see the lengthy table on next page), consistently describes a particular animal. Keep reading and I’ll explain.

Noting the usual infertility of hybrids, McCarthy comments:

The fact that even modern-day humans are relatively infertile may be significant in this connection. If a hybrid population does not die out altogether, it will tend to improve in fertility with each passing generation under the pressure of natural selection. Fossils indicate that we have had at least 200,000 years to recover our fertility since the time that the first modern humans (Homo sapiens) appeared. The earliest creatures generally recognized as human ancestors (Ardipithecus, Orrorin) date to about six million years ago. So our fertility has had a very long time to improve. If we have been recovering for thousands of generations and still show obvious symptoms of sterility (see previous section), then our earliest human ancestors, if they were hybrids, must have suffered from an infertility that was quite severe. This line of reasoning, too, suggests that the chimpanzee might have produced Homo sapiens by crossing with a genetically incompatible mate, possibly even one outside the primate order.

By listing an extensive set of species specific traits, Dr. McCarthy then goes on to question what other species might account for their presence in mankind via a species-cross,

The animal in question is quite a surprise, and prompts my usual "high octane" speculation:

What is this other animal that has all these traits? The answer is Sus scrofa, the ordinary pig. What are we to think of this fact? If we conclude that pigs did in fact cross with apes to produce the human race, then an avalanche of old ideas must crash to the earth. But, of course, the usual response to any new perspective is “That can’t be right, because I don’t already believe it.”

Like all scientific hypotheses, time and more research will tell, but I personally found this idea intriguing for the following reason, namely, the religious food-cleanliness prohibitions on pork common to certain religions, beginning with the ancient Hebrews. And that makes one wonder about the origins of the prohibitions. Was this, perhaps, a kind of legacy handed down from an earlier more scientifically advanced culture? Whatever one makes of Dr. McCarthy's hypothesis, time and more research will tell. The human genome is indeed a mystery, having signs of sequences from a variety of species. Perhaps, that too, is some sort of clue. The ancients viewed man as a "microcosm" of the world, including the living world, and viewed man as having descended from the mineral, vegetable, and animal words, as a kind of "recapitulation" of other life forms and thus as related to them all, a kind of cosmic "rags to riches" story, or in this case, a "star dust to intelligent life form" story.

Of course, it's wild high octane speculation, but worth, perhaps, tucking in the back of the mind, and watching the story as genetics attempts to unravel the history of our past.

See you on the flip side...


  1. WO2009002223A1
    Abstract: The invention relates to cell engineering and can be used for producing a human hybrid stem cell. The inventive method consists in producing a hybrid stem cell by carrying out the inter-species transplantation of a human somatic cell into an enucleated oocyte, wherein a mesenchyme stem cell is used as a donor somatic cell and a pig oocyte is used as an oocyte. The human hybrid stem cell produced by transplanting the nucleus of a human mesenchyme stem cell into the enucleated pig oocyte is also disclosed. Said invention makes it possible to develop a method for producing human hybrid stem cells, the genetic set of which is identical to the set of a patient and the use of which in restorative therapy excludes the probability of immune incompatibility.

    1. There are a number of issues with this patent based on physiological assumptions and the incomplete materialist paradigm in general of physiology and embryology.
      Transplanting any mesenchyme cell is fraught with risk, especially when the donor cell is used to its host environment electromagnetics and biochemical signatures of surrounding cells. The multiple pathways which regulate stem cell proliferation are barely understood in the context of wholism. Graded hormonal and chemical messengers are but a small aspect and assuming life can be tweaked, adapted and morphed using only the materials in combination will not only lead to general scientific failure but misses the point, that biological life is far more than the sum of its parts and any attempt to alter the sequencing of natural cellular processes without the full knowledge our ancient ancestors seemed to have will lead down a cul de sac of limited potential at best, abject failure and danger at worst.

  2. Oddly enough this isn’t the first time I have heard a variation of this story. The version of the story with which I am familiar says the hybridization occurs in the opposite direction–human DNA was used to modify another animal’s genetic code, to provide an omnivorous creature suitable for food and waste disposal. The story comes second hand and was not well referenced. In my mind this may be a story that cuts two ways–and may be another petard in which to explain an ancient hybridization program for the re-population of a planet within the fabric of an approved Darwinian model.

    In my mind, if we are going to look for hybridization candidates the ancient texts still offer the best model. The stories are too consistent to be dismissed and have the texture of a declined legacy of a very sophisticated past. If we are inclined to accept the Sumerian model as an abbreviated form, hybridization by genetic manipulation may have been involved more than one genome to create more than one manageable resource for exploitation. If the sirrush was a real creature and ancient stories of chimeras have a basis in reality, the pig could just as well represent that legacy, too.

  3. I seem to recall a lot of stories about how humans were related to pigs, hence the prohibitions.

    Also, when I was in Peru in 2002, I learned that at least one version of the Aymara creation myth has the “Woman in the Space Ship” who came down (Copacabana/Lake Titicaca) and “mated with the Tapir” to create humans.

    Of course, I think “mated” is a euphemism for blending of DNA but I found that fact fascinating when, shortly after and synchronicistally, an article about the GIANT Tapir appeared. They existed during that time when rats were the size of pigs and Giant Tapirs were quite a bit larger than that. Tapirs are rather “pig like,” are they not?

  4. The monkey/pig hybrid idea explains many things about us humans but certainly not all of the observable evidences are covered hereby.

    For example – we have opposable thumbs. Where did we get this from? We have flattened jaws, not protuberant ones as were still evident in Australopithecine times. We have human babies being born comparatively prematurely – both monkey and pig offspring are born at a stage of mobility that humans babies only reach after one year. So where did this one come from? And yes, the blood group puzzle. Continued interbreeding among contemporary humans leads to a convergence of blood groups with O-pos being the dominant one ultimately. So if they are now converging onto one group then how/why/when did they originally diverge?

    So there is much left unanswered by this new monkey/pig idea. It is not a sufficient hypothesis.

    My own belief is that humans were artificially created by gene splicing from various root stocks. originally to be slave labourers. Later others intervened to upgrade humans into being something more capable than mere slaves. Two groups of interventionists are suggested hereby, with different goals/intentions for us. An original bad-guy group and a later good-guy group.

    Into this animal body they (the current “managers” of this planet) recently implanted us, as spiritual consciousness units, and from this derives the huge upsurge in humans evident over the last 10 or 12000 years.

    Earth is a prison colony or dumping ground for unwanted lunatics and deviates, and is being maintained as such.

    The genetic history is interesting but ultimately not that important.

  5. I believe the film was Ravenous , the Native American Wendigo Legend has a prominent part in the movie , set in the Sierra Nevadans 1880’s

  6. decades go i started studying diet. and experimenting. from sad (standard american diet) i went to lacto ovo veg then a brief time vegan then back to lacto ovo. then heavy meat dairy grain. and on. did zone, atkins, pritikin, south beach,… lately sticking with modern cave man. mostly leafy veg meat and some dairy less fruit.

    all writings on diet and culture and survival point out a few likely facts. with a little thought, the logic seems obvious on most of these.

    for example, there’s never been a group of humans to survive past a generation vegan. the babies just fail to develop into adults.

    other points along the spectrum follow.

    for example, protein and fat quality and quantity intake determines height, strength and frame of humans. we have two japanese friends. one 6’0″ another 5’3″. they laugh that we did not know how they diverged in height. 6’0″ grew up on coast in fishing family. protein daily all his life. 5’3″ grew up inland on a farm. beans rice and veggies daily. protein twice a week. likewise dutch friends have known for generations too that kids grow taller in proportion to the meat and dairy protein they take in. weston price gave photographic evidence of a few remaining cultures who proved this out.

    another point is that no culture thrives well while eating cannibal. they probably survive longer than vegans but that genetic injury is gonna leave a mark for generations. it’s just too problematic immunologically. it leads to crazy allergies and auto immune disorders. not to mention the inevitably progressively increasing intake and formation of prions and increasing risks for cjd.

    ask jared diamond about his friends in papua new guinea about their ritual funeral rights eating brains of relatives. veganism and cannibalism are usually associated with some ritualistic religious decisions to do these things. bottom line is they’re probably end stage collapse survival strategies for dying cultures.

    another point comes around about eating pig. always curious about what experiences prompted tribal leaders to risk their credibility with the tribe and tell everyone they came off a mountain and the big kahoona wrote in stone “bury that luau pig and do not dig it up.” how many times did their kin suffer trichinosis before the elders said, “yah, that there tasty fatback is killing too many of us. and we don’t like them worms that grow out your momma’s eyes and ears.”? can you imagine the lord of the flies scene when the hungry commoners were confronted with that command?

    and then centuries later, the first modern day western cardio-thoracic surgeon decides to replace a faulty valve with what? well a pig valve of course. genetically it’s the least likely thang to be rejected by the human immune system. at least until they came up with human and/or artificial transplant parts.

    so yeh in all those decades of reading and eating new ideas, the one i’ve adhered to the most is abstention of ideas involving vegan cannibal and pig. mind now, i know how delicious salt and fat are. just the same this new mccarthyism lends new credence to the idea that not eating kosher is a form of cannibalism.

    along that same spectrum, i’ve never willingly eaten primates, horses nor sea mammals. they seem too closely related.

    more and more too now, it feels like darwin hoodwinked science as much as rockefeller did with big pharma and biotic petro. darwin was one of the last of the overt eugenicists. he openly stated his goal in forming a biological theory justifying the social theory his cousin galton was pushing about 57 races with brit and huns at the top and irish at the bottom needing a good genocidal purging.

    1. Zendogbreath: “…a pig valve of course. Genetically, it’s the least likely thang to be rejected by the human immune system.”

      Zdb, you may have come up with an answer to ‘motive’ in my answer to Roger below. If Anunnaki biological-parts-replacement ‘stock’ was running low, pigs with suitable DNA-addition might have made an adequate ‘substitution’. Why carve-up a valuable human-worker for replacement parts when you can dismember a pig?

      This way of looking at the situation – Roger’s human DNA inserted into pigs, not the other way around – brings up an interesting question:

      First, you (the Anunnaki) had already ‘hybridized’ humans with some of your DNA. Second, you wanted to put into (natural) pigs the DNA needed to make pig-parts compatible with your (Anunnaki) bodies. What DNA would you put in? Why, probably a considerable cross-set of what you had already-put-in into humans!

      So, in a nutshell, the DNA common to both (hybridized) humans and (hybridized) pigs theoretically-might-be PURE Anunnaki DNA!

  7. I don’t believe in the evolution theory , but a lot of things to think about with the comments , reminds me of the movie set out west where if u partook of the flesh of a man you gained his energy

  8. Now that’s just spooky. Only a few hours ago I was watching an old Christopher Hitchens debate on YouTube and he put forward the very theory that religious bans on the eating of pork are due to fear of cannibalism due to the alleged similarity in taste between human and pig flesh.

  9. I really like the methodology of geneticist Dr Eugene M. McCarthy: Remove the obviously-chimp ‘traits’, and see what is left. Refreshingly honest. However, McCarthy – like most mainstream scientists – narrows his ‘list’ by making the assumption that the ‘donor’ species must have been of this Earth. Uniformitarianism rears it’s ugly face, once again.

    I come down in the Catastrophism camp, in this instance. Genetic intervention. Whether a ‘pinch of pig’ was added as a soupçon to the mix could be argued as reasonable. Pigs do have some positive ‘survivor’ qualities; they have spread throughout the world. However…

    I would take McCarthy’s methodology a step further: Remove the obviously-pig ‘traits’, and see what is left. There might be some hint of another gene-presence. (Anunnaki?) Or, try to relax the ‘or’ assumption and see what traits might be common to the Anunnaki ‘and’ pigs. Seriously.

    The hybrid ‘sterility’ issue is most interesting. When reading through Egyptian or Sumerian (or Biblical) king-chronicles, I am always struck by the fact that a historical-figure is only noted to have one-or-two offspring over a time-period of many decades, centuries, or even thousands of years. This always seemed ‘off’ to me, even with the omission of female births by some misogynist cultures. The hybrid ‘sterility’ issue might explain this too-few-offspring record.

    (This topic reminds me of Sitchin’s last book, where he did archaeological detective-work and identified a grave that – by Sumerian records – contained a full-to-mixed-blood Anunnaki female. Sitchin pleaded with TPTB and the British Museum, where the body is held now, to do a detailed genetic analysis to see whether that body was truly ‘human’. As far as I know, that ‘project’ has never taken place – at least publicly…)

    1. If the Anunnaki created us to be inferior versions of themselves and with genetic traitors of other animals to dumb us down, make us a little weaker, and have vastly shorter lifespans so that we slaves would have a harder time challenging their dominance, perhaps they also tweaked the DNA of some pigs and other livestock in various ways and for various purposes. Perhaps human DNA was inserted into the ancestor of the pigs and not the other way around.

      1. Roger: “Perhaps human DNA was inserted into the ancestor of the pigs and not the other way around.”

        Excellent suggestion! I had not twisted my brain around in that direction. I read of goat genes being ‘tweaked’ with additions of the DNA for making spider silk. So, even WE can do it.

        If you were amoral and had a god-complex, what human traits would you ‘want’ to instill in pigs? And, to benefit your human labor-force, or to benefit yourselves? Hmmm.

        It sounds like McCarthy’s work might be turned-around, into isolating what DNA is common between humans and pigs. But, from a pig-DNA-addition point of view. Interesting!

        Also, it seems like there is a need to find out if there is a ‘remnant’ pig population without genetic tweaking. (They might not even look-to-the-eye as what we know as ‘pigs’.) If they exist, that would be another way of backing-out what DNA was inserted. And, in turn, that might suggest ‘motive’…

        Any biologists or geneticists up to the ‘challenge’?

      2. What was “human DNA” before pigs and monkeys were combined to make the first human? Really just monkey DNA. And the result of that (he says) was the first human.

        Though he reckons it happened as a result of normal recreational sex. I don’t think he’d go for the ET angle somehow.

  10. Since slaves are considered domestic stock. I’m more inclined to believe this is the elites way of telling the rest of us we are just animals to be domesticated for their benefit.
    I have never believed we descended from apes and I certainly don’t believe we’re descended from a pig either.
    Mankind considering he understands all the nuances of the genetic code is just brash stupidity and potentially dangerous to our continued existence. The original creator of that code has taken great offense at others altering it for whatever reason in the past and I don’t see that changing in the future. We seriously lack the maturity and knowledge as a species to contemplate making alterations to something we don’t fully understand. Given the current situation with “controlled for the benefit of the few science” we would seem to have lost our common sense.

    1. Careful with the words there…the theory is not that we are “descended” from apes but rather that humans and apes have a common ancestor. Maybe that is a subtle difference but it is a big difference.

      Having said that, the idea that humans are just domesticated animals does seem to be rather potent. But to what ends?

      If there is an “alien” species controlling us then what for? They don’t seem to be eating large numbers of us.

      Are we sex slaves? Anecdotally speaking, it seems that more of us are living sexless lives (more porn yes, but real sex? no so much).

      Clearly, many of us toil at jobs…but how does that benefit any master? Most of our “jobs” seem pretty superfluous in any real sense.

      I guess that that only leaves some kind of psycohological or emotional or maybe spiritual energy that they are harvesting?…I don’t know…

      1. kitona: “…some kind of psychological or emotional or maybe spiritual energy that they are harvesting…”

        Curious, because in the re-booting of the “Stargate” series as “Stargate SG1”, a new kind of über-villain was introduced:

        Previously, in “Stargate”, there were the Ancients, who were pre-human, humanoid beings who gradually-evolved out of matter-based existence and Ascended. They were ‘neutral’ in the sense that they kept out of human affairs and expected you to ‘earn’ your own way to personal Ascension.

        With “Stargate SG1”, a cousin of the Ancients had taken a different, darker path. (Think of the Vulcans and the Romulans, in the “Star Trek” universe.) They had also eventually Ascended, but ‘turned around’. They inspired humans with religions based on sending “psychological or emotional or maybe spiritual energy” to them. They developed into subtle ‘vampires’, so to speak. (Any threat to these religions was ruthlessly stamped-out.)

        The “Stargate” universe seemed to have many ‘insider’ clues and circumstances. I wonder if the second-camp Ascended beings were a ‘heads-up’ as to the situation in OUR world…

        As to “What For?”, there have been tales from many cultures as to ‘gold fever’, ‘gold madness’, etc. What if humans were somehow ‘engineered’ into unconscious ‘accumulators’ of gold? Let humans scramble into accumulating hordes of gold (and other precious metals), which would then be ‘taken’ – possibly off-planet. (Smaug of “Hobbit” fame is a familiar trope.) That might be a reasonable explanation as to why all the human gold stocks supposedly ‘exist’, but nobody ever actually ‘physically-sees’ them. Humans may be like a bacterium which concentrates elemental gold…

  11. Evolution is one of my favorite subjects and any way you slice it, we didn’t evolve from apes. Even the ancients didn’t believe we evolved from the animal world. So if we didn’t evolve from the animal world, and some guy in a book didn’t do it, then what’s the correct answer??
    The only solid theory in my opinion is the Sumerian version, YES the Annunaki, or as Joseph calls them our genetic cousins. The Darwinists and the church have been going at it, toe to toe for centuries and if either party could prove 100% that they were right, then there would be NO ARGUMENT, but they can’t. So here, in my opinion, is the greatest cover up of all time, and imagine what the truth would do to the entire world, or more to the point, it would rock the Vatican to it’s very foundations, and in their eyes, THAT CAN’T HAPPEN.

  12. I’ve heard some of the cells in our stomachs can gain plant DNA from eating plants, especially GMO’s. Perhaps there is more to the saying, “You are what you eat.” than we realize. If you think about it, what better way for a predator to better adapt to hunting a particular species than adapting some of its genetic strengths when consuming it. Such as a wolf gaining similar muscle and leg bone structure to match the speed and endurance of its fleet prey. It is interesting that wolves who hunt bigger prey animals get larger, perhaps this isn’t just due to the bigger and stronger wolves surviving because of natural selection but also due to the DNA of the larger buffalo and moose. Also notice how the more we eat dumbed down and domesticated livestock the more dumbed down and domesticated we as a species seem to become? Time for me to add more bear, wolf, tiger and dolphin to my diets perhaps.

  13. My guess is that the genome is like a computer program written by some intelligence. The engineer writes the program to run in a certain environment and takes already available and working sub-programs. Then he puts it to work in ‘real life’ and waits for the bugs to appear. Certain users are chosen for bug reporting…. and so on.

  14. Orwell would love this conjecture.
    All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
    Orwell fused the polit
    ical with the artistic into one whole.In the 1984 plot, the ending is literally rewritten[as per above].
    So was the DNA/ And it is still be rewritten.
    Also, there are memes appearing all over heel and back to inject this idea of mankind taken a hand in rewriting his own DNA[as well as the rest of nature; even using synthetic biology the write it from scratch.]

    So was this universe written to the symbolic/reality into
    Where everywhere you look is a masterpiece of the w/h ole.
    From nothing…
    Pulsating with life/death


  15. And there are rumors of biped five feet tall ground dwelling relatives of spider monkeys in South America. As well as biped apes a big as eight to nine feet tall around the World. So who are our true ancestors I have also read off Giantopithecus being in our ancestry so ancient alien tampering with our genetic makeup anyone.

  16. I will mention again that when people mention ideas like “chimpanzees and humans share 98% of our genetic material,” that this proves that there is WAY more than genetics involved in species differentiation, because the differences between chimps and humans is vastly more than 2%. Some would say that, in a very real sense, the difference approaches infinity: there is a great gulf between what a chimp is and what a human is.

    Genetics is not the whole story folks.

  17. Well, logic would seem to imply that there should be religious prohibitions regarding the eating of chimpanzees too. Are there? I have no idea.

    This also puts the recent allegations that British PM Camerian f***ked a dead pig into a new light too.

    All jokes aside, has Dr Farrell ever addressed the issue of various human blood types? I find it fascinating that certain combinations will result in dangerous pregnancy situations for women. But most of the internet info that I have found on the subject seems to be of questionable provenance.

    1. If there are not prohibitions on eating apes perhaps there should be if we do indeed become more like what we eat. Could explain a few features as eating unnaturally fattened farm hogs on top of the grains that fatten up farm hogs could be making Americans fatter and more hog like over time.

    1. Perhaps Judaism and Islam saw a relationship between eating hogs and becoming fatter and more hog like over time. Perhaps they also noted that lineages that didn’t eat hogs or quit eating hogs became leaner and less hog like. Perhaps in the old days people ate more long lived animals such as gull eggs and sea turtles and perhaps lived longer. Longer lifespan could be related to higher oxygen levels or maybe CO2 level rises are the real reasons we are beginning to live longer. Small amounts of carbon monoxide is extremely potent anti-inflammatory and possible cancer fighter according to some studies I read as well.

Comments are closed.