Aborted Sheep with human face ???

[Rolfe]

Oh, I see. I'm having comprehension problems this afternoon. But you're right, I think I've got the spelling nailed.

Rolfe.

 

[ddt]

I don't think so.

Eidolon means a representation of an ideal form.
The sheeps face seen as a representation of an ideal human face.

Pareidolia includes seeing images of animals or faces in clouds etc

From ddt's link.

Noun

εἴδωλον (genitive εἰδώλου) n, second declension; (eidōlon)

1. shape, figure, image
2. image of the mind: idea, fancy
3. representation, statue, idol

Especially see definition 2. Looks likely to me.

Absolutely. My (ancient) Greek to Dutch dictionary mentions roughly the same meanings. In general "image", and specifically:
1. illusion (since Homer)
2. shade, shadow (since Homer)
3. statue (Herodotus), idol (New Testament)
4. image in the mind, impression, often a false impression (Attic, Koine)

ETA: ddt seems to think it's right. I always find understanding the origin of a word helps me remember the spelling. (That's one for the gadzillions of people who can't spell "thiomersal".)

Helps me too; often also helps in understanding & remembering the meaning of the word. I don't claim to be an expert in this, but this origin seems to me to be a no-brainer.

 

[ddt]

Why would one even assume that a hybrid would end up looking half-human/half-sheep in the first place much like a centaur or the god pan or some other mystical creature?

Are there any real hybrids that turn out that way?

http://www.messybeast.com/genetics/hybrid-equines.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1408717.stm

Zebra-Horse hybrids - it's not like only the rear half would have the black and white stripe design, is it?

The 2nd link talks about the different numbers of chromosomes, 64 for horses vs 44 for zebras, respectively: "The smaller number of chromosomes has to be on the male side,"

Does anyone have any explanation for the big difference in number of chromosomes between zebras and other equines? I can see a difference of 2 by means of a translocation - as with donkeys vs. horses, or humans vs. other apes - but 20 requires a lot of translocations. Or is that what happened?

And as to your second paragraph - while googling for the above, I also found this one, in the category "drop dead cute": meet Eclyse, the zebroid.

 

[godless dave]

Pravda is less reliable than the Daily Mail.

 

[Rolfe]

Does anyone have any explanation for the big difference in number of chromosomes between zebras and other equines? I can see a difference of 2 by means of a translocation - as with donkeys vs. horses, or humans vs. other apes - but 20 requires a lot of translocations. Or is that what happened?

And as to your second paragraph - while googling for the above, I also found this one, in the category "drop dead cute": meet Eclyse, the zebroid.

That's seriously gorgeous.

No, I don't know enough genetics or molecular biology to be able to explain those chromosome numbers.

I was just thinking. Some pony breeds do show a fair bit of striping. I wonder how far you'd get if you tried to breed the stripes back into Equus caballus?

The tiger-striped pony called Squirrel in Dreamsnake is genetically modified of course, but I wonder if you could do it by ordinary breeding? It would cost a fortune though.

Rolfe.

 

[marting]

I see this has generated considerable discussion. Hmm. Didn't one of Woody Allen's movies have a sheep dressed up in garters - in bed?

The widespread human sex with sheep meme may well increase the likelihood that deformities such as this get press. And it's more fun than, say, the "face" on Mars.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Still, I think that Pravda's article about the Jews secretly running the world was a fine piece of investigative journalism.

That, and their series on Elvis sightings.

I didn't say that there wasn't SOME truth within its pages!

Pravda is less reliable than the Daily Mail.

Yes, but Rolfe suggests that such a deformity isn't impossible, so I'm going with that...for now

 

[Skeptic Guy]

It's just a matter of time:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-444436/Now-scientists-create-sheep-thats-15-human.html

 

[Rolfe]

It's just a matter of time:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-444436/Now-scientists-create-sheep-thats-15-human.html

I'm not sure if that article says he wants to do it or is going to do it. The implication is he has done it, but then the article only refers to a liver. It's almost three years old anyway, and I'm not aware of any follow-up.

I'm not sure if Skeptigirl has understood the difference between this sort of work and the luducrous suggestion that sheep-shagging could produce a part-human lamb

Rolfe.

 

[Capsid]

Also, transgenic mice that have a human immune system have been around for a long time. The technology is not new.

 

[Rolfe]

Very true.

I see we got our first aborted lamb of the season in for examination on Monday. (It was toxoplasmosis.)

I may be very busy for the next four months.

If I see any of them looking a bit humanoid, I'll try to cash in anyway.

Rolfe.

 

[plindboe]

Perhaps the myth caused various beliefs or perhaps malformed animals caused various beliefs:

Centaurs appeared after copulation between humans and animals

There have been convictions, however, including one recently where a man had sex with a horse, so while it may be more rare than people believe, it is not a complete myth (not referring to the Scotsman part).

Are you seriously suggesting that centaurs might have existed, and that they were horse-human hybrids? I get the feeling I'm not understanding you correctly, but below I'll react as if you made that claim.

It would be absurd to think that a human-horse hybrid would result in a centaur, a part 100% human and another part 100% horse. Not only that, but centaurs have two pairs of front limps, one pair human, one pair horse.

We also know, as others have pointed out, that only closely related species can produce hybrids, but even these are normally sterile. As soon as speciation has occured there are strong selective pressures for each species to evolve barriers, to make interbreeding impossible, so as not to waste resources.

Your link is silly and insincere btw. Just note the last line "Alexander Guryev says that researchers have no whole centaur skeletons but lots of upper and lower parts of centaurs skeletons." Funny, yes. The kind of of link one should use to support a case, no.

I think you should have actually listened to what people told you and admitted quickly that ignorance and/or poor wording was the reason. That's what I would have expected from any self-proclaimed skeptic. We've all been there, making a fool of ourselves at one point. The correct thing to do is to admit it and learn from it. When you post ridiculous links to support your ridiculous claims, your behaviour appears woo-woo.

 

[Rolfe]

I find it a bit hypocritical when someone comes on all self-righteous in one thread about their qualifications and expertise, while at the same time deserting a thread where they themselves have shown a distressing ignorance of a closely-related subject.

I hadn't quite picked up on the implication that centaurs might be actual horse/human hybrids produced by unnatural relations beteen man and mare. Dearie, dearie me.

I'm quite curious about our little lamb now. I really think there probably wasn't even any deformity as such, just a combination of swelling and squashing. We'll never know now, though.

Rolfe.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
I'm not sure if Skeptigirl has understood the difference between this sort of work and the luducrous suggestion that sheep-shagging could produce a part-human lamb

Rolfe.

You really seem unusually stuck on your interpretation of what my position is in this thread. Pity it doesn't match my actual position but you can't seem to get that through your head.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Are you seriously suggesting that centaurs might have existed, and that they were horse-human hybrids? I get the feeling I'm not understanding you correctly, but below I'll react as if you made that claim.

It would be absurd to think that a human-horse hybrid would result in a centaur, a part 100% human and another part 100% horse. Not only that, but centaurs have two pairs of front limps, one pair human, one pair horse.

We also know, as others have pointed out, that only closely related species can produce hybrids, but even these are normally sterile. As soon as speciation has occured there are strong selective pressures for each species to evolve barriers, to make interbreeding impossible, so as not to waste resources.

Your link is silly and insincere btw. Just note the last line "Alexander Guryev says that researchers have no whole centaur skeletons but lots of upper and lower parts of centaurs skeletons." Funny, yes. The kind of of link one should use to support a case, no.

I think you should have actually listened to what people told you and admitted quickly that ignorance and/or poor wording was the reason. That's what I would have expected from any self-proclaimed skeptic. We've all been there, making a fool of ourselves at one point. The correct thing to do is to admit it and learn from it. When you post ridiculous links to support your ridiculous claims, your behaviour appears woo-woo.

You people are incessant. Of course I don't believe human horse hybrids ever really existed.

Perhaps I should start trolling for statements others have made that can be twisted into total distortions and then proceed to be appalled at their ignorance and beliefs.

 

[plindboe]

You people are incessant. Of course I don't believe human horse hybrids ever really existed.

Perhaps I should start trolling for statements others have made that can be twisted into total distortions and then proceed to be appalled at their ignorance and beliefs.

Considering that numerous people in this thread have expressed confusion as to what you've been saying, perhaps it could be worthwhile for you to consider what went wrong with your communication, instead of aggressively placing the blame on others.

 

[Rolfe]

Considering that numerous people in this thread have expressed confusion as to what you've been saying, perhaps it could be worthwhile for you to consider what went wrong with your communication, instead of aggressively placing the blame on others.

I think this was the problem post - and several subsequent ones along the same lines.

But I was serious.

Do I think the most likely explanation here is a hybrid? Of course not!!!!!!!!

But are we supposed to completely rule it out because it is so unlikely?

There are other hybrids known in nature. I don't believe it is a myth humans have ever got their jollies off in a sheep.

All I'm saying is, maybe it is worth looking at the DNA in this case.

Until then, posters thought she must be joking. However, this was followed up by a number of statements to the effect that there are legends of human-animal hybrids, hybridisation between other animals can occur sexually, human/animal hybrids can be produced by genetic engineering techniques, therefore the DNA of this lamb that looks as if it has a human face would be worth looking at.

Indeed, Skeptigirl has said several times that she thinks such hybridisation (as a result of sheep-shagging, as opposed to genetic engineering) is extremely unlikely. It's the vast, unbridgeable gulf between "very very unlikely" (i.e. possible) and "impossible" we're arguing about.

Skeptigirl seems to think it's possible, even if extremely unlikely. I'm pointing out that it's impossible.

Rolfe.

 

[plindboe]

I think this was the problem post - and several subsequent ones along the same lines.




Until then, posters thought she must be joking. However, this was followed up by a number of statements to the effect that there are legends of human-animal hybrids, hybridisation between other animals can occur sexually, human/animal hybrids can be produced by genetic engineering techniques, therefore the DNA of this lamb that looks as if it has a human face would be worth looking at.

Indeed, Skeptigirl has said several times that she thinks such hybridisation (as a result of sheep-shagging, as opposed to genetic engineering) is extremely unlikely. It's the vast, unbridgeable gulf between "very very unlikely" (i.e. possible) and "impossible" we're arguing about.

Skeptigirl seems to think it's possible, even if extremely unlikely. I'm pointing out that it's impossible.

Rolfe.

I don't really mind the words "extremely unlikely" as I'd use the same words about alot of absurd propositions. I'll only assign something the probability of 0 if it's logically impossible. All other ideas, from the Moon being made of green cheese, to gods, to human-sheep hybrids I assign probabilities above 0.

My issue was primarily with the word "worth". To say that something is worth investigating, is not just saying that it's possible, it's saying that the probability of it being true is so high, that we ought to allocate resources and time investigating it. To use the word "worth" and then later say that it's highly unlikely is just a recipe for confusion.

Most of her other posts in this thread has been ambigious as well, so I'm not surprised people are confused.

 

[Rolfe]

I think we must disagree then. I assign the occurrence of a productive mating between man and sheep a probability of zero. As I do to the suggestion that the moon is made of green cheese.

Rolfe.

 

[plindboe]

I think we must disagree then. I assign the occurrence of a productive mating between man and sheep a probability of zero. As I do to the suggestion that the moon is made of green cheese.

No matter how certain one feels about something, there's always the possibility that one's whole life is an illusion, or that one is insane and have seriously muddled up one's perception of reality, or perhaps we all live in the Matrix.

Of course 0.000000...a thousand more 0s....000001 is in all practical purposes the same as 0, so I might as well use the word impossible. I just don't feel an issue with people using words such as "extremely unlikely" concerning propositions that isn't logically impossible.