Since my comment on Deineke's Anthropology Blog the other day, I got a challenge from an anonymous (no profile details, no blog of its own) poster. And since it afforded me the opportunity to fine tune and clarify my "Theory of Human Origins Relative to the Principles of Mammalian Hybrid Theory" (which I've been working on since I discovered some interesting facts following my realization while being gangstalked, hacked, bullied, and harassed by Zionists on the Amazon Religion and Christianity forums), I would like to record it here on my own blog as well:
"terryt" said, quote - "Answer: the superior of the two species bred. A female of the inferior species mated, will usually miscarry; or if it should miraculously give live birth somehow, the offspring will almost undoubtedly be sterile"
Surely it depends on what you consider to be the 'superior of the two species'. I don't follow your logic tha horses are 'superior' to donkeys. They are simply two different species.
"I would assume the donkey sire to be the most taxonomically primitive of the three parties involved in procreating a hybrid mule"
Three parties? Surely just two: horse and donkey. The cross either way gives viable, but usually sterile, offspring. The haorse is usually used as the female side because it produces a larger foal. But it is the offspring of a male horse and a female donkey (a 'hinny') that is more often fertile than is the cross the other way. Sort of destroys your argument.
"Horses (superior taxonomically) didn't 'evolve' from the more primitive hybrid mules"
No. But it is more likely that the donkey is a more recent evolutionary product that is a horse. They and zebras moved further from America than did the horse.
"nor did Humans from hybrid subspecies of Homo Sapiens sapiens (like Neanderthal or Denisovans, etc.)".
There is no reason at all why Neanderthals and 'Denisovans'could not have left genes in the modern human population.
"The only way to evolve a horse from a mule, would be to backbreed mules with only purebred horses"
Unlikely to be possible because mules of either sex are almost always sterile.
It's a question of context: a practical matter, not one of aesthetics: ie mares & jacks are chosen for breeding mules, b/c otherwise (due to chromosomal differences between sp. E. asinus and sp. E. caballus) you'd have a hybrid hinny, instead of a hybrid mule - not that we hate or look down on donkeys.
The colloquialism, "superior", is commonly used by breeders or agriculturalists when comparing two species being considered for hybridization. It refers to the more biologically complex of the two compared, having nothing to do with politics.
I admit that for the sake of context, a better word used here might have been "dominant". "Superior" implies being above or over ~physically or ~spatially (see medical and biological definitions); whereas "dominant" (somewhat more abstractly) implies being above or over, ~taxonomically, in classification.
"Three parties? Surely just two: horse and donkey. The cross either way gives viable, but usually sterile, offspring. The haorse is usually used as the female side because it produces a larger foal. But it is the offspring of a male horse and a female donkey (a 'hinny') that is more often fertile than is the cross the other way. Sort of destroys your argument."
--Horses and donkeys are different species, with different numbers of chromosomes. Of the two F1 hybrids between these two species, a mule is easier to obtain than a hinny (the offspring of a male horse and a female donkey). All male mules and most female mules are infertile.--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule
--Since 1527 there have been more than sixty documented cases of foals born to female mules around the world. In contrast, according to the ADMS, there is only one known case of a female hinny doing so.--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinny#Fertility.2C_sterility.2C_and_rarity
Commonplace mules, easier to produce from mares+jacks than rare hinnys from jennets+stallions, always possess & produce offspring w/ the mtDNA of mares (ie horses, the 'dominant' of the two parent species).
Hinnys always have the mtDNA of jennets (female donkeys), but are virtually 100% sterile, both male & female; so don't reproduce at all compared to mules, which when bred w/ horses or donkeys do reproduce (although at lower rates of fecundity than either horses or donkeys).
That's why I consider the offspring 'party' to transactions of mammalian inter-species hybridization.
"No. But it is more likely that the donkey is a more recent evolutionary product that is a horse. They and zebras moved further from America than did the horse."
The question was, which came first, hybrid mules or pure species horses?
Interesting point however, about horses originating in the Americas. Without regard to intentional selective breeding by Human captors, why do you suppose wild horses became extinct there, along with mammoths & certain other large mammals (tigers, etc.) similar to ones still in existence today - yet in different forms - in the Eastern Hemisphere? I assume it had something to do with climate changes.
However, due to the differing numbers of chromosomes, & the fact that horses & donkeys co-exist as separate species, I don't see how the donkey could have evolved from horses.http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/browse.asp?id=14100002
"There is no reason at all why Neanderthals and 'Denisovans'could not have left genes in the modern human population."
They did obviously leave their genes w/ us, just as mares & jacks leave their genetic imprint on hybrid mule offspring; that was my point. And as with other hybrids or pure species mammals, we only inherit the mtDNA of our ~mothers.
That is why all ancient remains of Neanderthals tested, have had Human mitochondria (the 'dominant' of the two species bred to create them, according to the principles of Mammalian Hybrid Theory).
And I expect they have only ~particular clades of ancient Human mtDNA, (since the event(s) which bred them through inter-species hybridization, occured many ages ago).
If you BLAST your DNA against Neanderthals' mtDNA alone, you get the same results as when comparing against standard Human mtDNA: ~99% identities.
It's only when comparing the whole genomes of 'anatomically modern' Humans with that of Neanderthals, that we may see significant variances among the Human population: some people more closely match the Neanderthal hybrid's DNA than do others.
I expect those people who match, have deep ancestry in the same regions where the Neanderthal arose and dispersed. And in fact, they do so.
Yet there are other ancient hybrid types, such as the Denisovan, which have also left their genetic evidence in modern humans. We ought to be able to figure out which hybrids (if any) we are descended from - based on our DNA... perhaps even based simply on our blood chemistry.
Hybridization triggers genetic mutations, resulting in the astonishing arrays of different types of mtDNA and yDNA (& the other kinds: chromosomal, autosomal, etc., along with blood groups & types) present in the modern 'Human species'.
There is more quantitative genetic ~distance between male & female humans, OR between some human races or ethnic groups -- than is found between the entire Human species as a whole, when compared to Chimpanzees!
Because there were at some point(s) in ancient history, ~events or ~incidents of inter-species hybridization involving Human beings (Homo Sapiens sapiens). And I'm afraid it wasn't that they mated with 'fallen angels' or 'ET's.
In order to understand the true origin(s) of Human beings (including the many 'anatomically modern' varieties), you must familiarize yourself w/ the ~biological definitions of the terms "evolution" and "descent". It's important to know that they have different meanings in anthropology. Many people also confuse "descent" with "evolution", using the two terms interchangibly.
[L. e-, out + volvere, to roll]
All the changes that have transformed life on Earth from its earliest beginnings to the diversity that characterizes it today.
Understanding the origins of Humanity involves multiple disciplines of study. It's yet another area where "specialization" is not necessarily a 'good thing'.
All of my elaborate "horse talk" is for the purpose of an easily understandable ~example. The same basic principles of hybrid theory apply to virtually any two mammalian species close enough taxonomically to breed. It applies to hybrid hominids as well.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae