Edit: I have also asked the question on skeptics.stackexchange.com and it has been answered there. Here is the link.

There is a person called Dr. Eugene McCarthy who has a theory that the origin of humans come from pig-chimp hybridization (online article about his theory). How acceptable is his theory in comparison to the other common theories?


closed as off-topic by Remi.b, rg255, kmm, MattDMo, James Jun 14 '16 at 14:18

  • This question does not appear to be about biology within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Welcome to Biology.SE. This question would be better on-topic on skeptics.SE. $\endgroup$ – Remi.b Jun 13 '16 at 12:37
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ As an evolutionary geneticist, I have never heard of such hypothesis and it sounds like a non-sense, silly joke! Note that the article you link is NOT a peer-reviewed paper and therefore does not make any contribution to our knowledge (but it is good that you linked it). If you ask your question on skeptics, they will likely trace back the origin of this (a priori) myth and debunk fake evidence (if any). $\endgroup$ – Remi.b Jun 13 '16 at 12:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The word "theory" here hurts my eyes... please change it for "hypothesis" or, even better, "baloney". $\endgroup$ – user24284 Jun 13 '16 at 12:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ To further @GerardoFurtado, theory in science means a hypothesis (or a set of hypotheses) that is very highly supported by tons of evidence. In popular language however, theory is often used as a synonyme of hypothesis. $\endgroup$ – Remi.b Jun 13 '16 at 12:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Note that this so-called Dr. Eugene McCarthy does not seem to have ever published anything on the subject and is not associated to any university or other recognized institution. It is possible that this person does not even exist! $\endgroup$ – Remi.b Jun 13 '16 at 13:00

Briefly, the "theory" makes no genetic sense. Pig and human genomes have both been sequenced, and their sequences are completely incompatible with this model.

The "theory" is completely idiotic in many other ways -- debunking it almost becomes difficult because there are so many ways it fails to make sense -- but the genetics alone make it impossible.


It is not always easy to say this with full force in natural sciences, but: NO, this theory is NOT true, probably not even by any means. Extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence. But wow, there is NO evidence AT ALL for this claim.

Before tackling the main point, I give a side note that would actually be sufficient to not be concerned with the argument itself: Extraordinary evidence is rarely (if ever) presented (i) by single people's research (rather then by a really large body of evidence provided by several independet reseearch groups, different lines of arguments, ...) and (ii) outside of peer-review high-quality journals. For example, you do not report major findings on your dubious website relating to a reference like this:

To cite this publication
McCarthy, E. M. 2013. Mammalian Hybrids. www.macroevolution.net/mammalian-hybrids.html (Add access date).

However, I would also adress one actual issue. For the sake of argument, I consider the claims to be just as valid as any other claim I ever heard based on morphological features (and with that I do not say that anatomical comparsions in general are nonsense. Au contraire, I believe that these comparisons are important to reconstruct evolutionary histories, especially but not only in extinct organisms where DNA comparison is not an option).
In extant animals (like humans), however, anatomical and genetic comparisons tend to converge and/or the anatomical evidence is adjusted to insights gained from genetic comparisons (meaning that anatomical similarities supporting the findings of genetic comparisons are found really often. Do I provide a citation for this? No, there are thousands or even millions. This is SO well-known that any journal probably accepts this as common textbook knowledge and does not even ask for one).

Long story short: There is NO genetic evidence AT ALL that indicates a mixed descendence of humans from chimpanzees and pigs (wow, I would never had thought, I would write a sentence like this, ever in my life). Additionally, there is NO anatomical evidence for that mixed descendence AT ALL apart from McCarthy (2013) - haha.

PS: I posted a corresponding answer to the skeptics.SE question as well.


both Suidae and Primates like every creature on earth have a common ancestor in history , but they are simply too different to breed together .

Therefore the theory makes no sense , unless it uses pig and chimp in a metaphoric sense .


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.