>>17414577definitely a possibility, both suids and primates are quite intelligent, and it's certainly not out of the question that they could have developed such a relationship
in the same vein we could surmise the opposite to be possible too, perhaps a male chimpanzee fed a female boar some delicious fruit from high up in the trees that she otherwise wouldn't have been able to access, and got to plow her like the slampig she was
but I believe McCarthy mentions some reasons why he thought the original coupling would have been a male boar and a female chimpanzee, but it's been some time since I read his work in great detail
>>17414578>To be 100% sure of this sounds very believe the experts(tm) scientism bullshit.it's not, it's very basic and fundamental biology and genetics
>Farmers and breeders for millennia have believed that purebreds bred from mothers that have never mated with other males are superior. There must be a reason for that.could be numerous reasons for that, exactly none of which entail what you're suggesting, which is not even remotely possible
>Plus kings and such valuing virginity as one of the most precious things for wives.for obvious reasons that again have absolutely nothing to do with what you're suggesting
>Both of these strongly imply consensus that offspring were at least somewhat affected by the mothers previous partners.wrong
it could denote that they had a false belief that this was the case, on top of all the good reasons they had for it, but that belief still remains false
the moment the sperm cell is dead, there's zero chance of it fertilizing an egg, and new eggs can only be fertilized by actual sperm cells
egg cells cannot absorb the DNA from the dead sperm, because they're buried deep in the fallopian tubes
now, what you could argue is that the absorbed DNA could alter the genetic expression of the mother, and that this could impact any subsequent fetus and infant, but it would still not have any of that previous DNA itself
