Jump to content

Hybrid Hypothesis Dead, Done, Stick A Fork In It....


Recommended Posts

One possible cause might be sudden axial shift, perhaps initiated by meteor strike of considerable size coming in at a specific angle at a specific spot that would induce an axial offset. Or maybe a number of smaller meteors coming in at once over a larger field but of significant enough combined force to impact axial orientation. Yet even that would probably not effect flash freezing mid-bite. A comet perhaps? Being comprised largely of ice, but even this would have somewhat  localized effect. Though any of these factors might proffer cause for the northern regions mentioned above to not show signs of the instant chill....


Maybe there was a glacial phase characterized by, not just to be funny, bi-polar glacial flows with ADD to the extent that they couldn't remain focused enough to stay within the previously designated zones...


But the fresh summer greens is certainly a poser...perhaps a asteroid/comet impact in which the shock wave killed the critters during lunch, then the subsequent thermal shift from the comets ice put them "on ice" long enough for the axial shift to bring in the longer term freeze induced by a polar reorientation..just a thought, looking for pathways of causation....


I know! Mankind's early attempts at refrigeration got out of control and went horribly awry...."I told you! Put it on a low setting to begin with, but nooooo, you had to crank it up to ten from the get go! See what happened? Now we need to invent aluminium foil to prevent glacier burn on all this food. I hope you're happy with yourself!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a couple operations in play, and each of two operations depends on two other postulations.


Some here, including me, have a belief or lean toward these creatures being a sort of hybrid.


Some others have a belief, or lean toward these creatures being an evolutionary product.  Mainstream anthropology holds that our species - homo sapiens sapiens, is the sole survivor of an extended evolutionary product.  Some of us believe that's just not the case.


For an evolutionary product, however - one must absolutely require steady-state geology.  No other way around it.


For a hybridization product - one can have catastrophic geology, as hybridization among multiple species provides more and different offspring, better able to withstand catastrophic geology - ice ages and such.  


The fossil record is full of anomalies (things that deviate from what is standard, normal, or expected) and this is true of human fossil origins and variations.  Just a few years back, in Ethiopia, an Arizona State grad student found the oldest modern jawbone that dated at 2.8 million years ago, pushing back the allowable time per steady-state geology by 400,000 years.  This is right about the time homo broke away from Australopithicines like Lucy - and oddly, was found real close to where the Lucy fossils were found.  This could be a problem - two vastly different species occupying roughly the same area at roughly the same time.


So why I mention anomalies - impossible recent anomalies - in the fields of climatology, geology, and even biology - is that steady-state geology has some real problems.


Occam's Razor says that if there are two theories, the theory with the fewer assumptions should be the one taken.  Critics would say, accept neither until more variables come in sufficient to confidently indicate one or the other.


A variation of application would state, "if two theories are presented, the one with fewer impossibilities should be chosen."


Science hates anomalies.  Science hates anomalous artifacts.  Science hates clear evidence that contraindicates their previous assumptions.


I would suggest there are fewer impossibilities in looking at geology as catastrophic geology, and fewer problems in leaning toward hybridization - rather than steady-state geology and a strictly evolutionary product - resulting in homo sapiens sapiens - US.  Which disallows for the existence of these critters.


Which I know good and well exists today.

Edited by FarArcher
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cryptic Megafauna


So to expand on a more exact meaning.

The Y passed down through the male but expressed when the components of the Y are present in the female.

Perhaps the mechanism is recessive pairs or pairing.

So the Y is expressed in the X, a recessive pairs approximating Y occurring in X.

Perhaps 2 sets of recessive pairs matching between the X.

Since the math would be vanishingly small the other factor would be an isolated genome present in a persistent extended family grouping that remains fugitive from the matrix of modern man.

You could wonder if the females large amount of dominant non recessives is the masking factor that provides only occasional re-expression as a full "type".

When the type re-expresses it is a female, however.

So the X in the male would be dominant non recessives masking the Y.

I doubt it is very easy to describe accurately without a genetic sample over several generations to tune the maths.

Kind of like Mendel crossings for Neanderthals, but in reverse.

You start with a result and work backwards to explain it.

Edited by Cryptic Megafauna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...