Sheep gives birth to human-faced lamb in Turkey

[The Seeker of Good Songs]

A sheep gave birth to a dead lamb with a human-like face. The calf was born in a village not far from the city of Izmir, Turkey.
Erhan Elibol, a vet, performed Cesarean section on the animal to take the calf out, but was horrified to see that the features of the calf’s snout bore a striking resemblance to a human face.

“I’ve seen mutations with cows and sheep before. I’ve seen a one-eyed calf, a two-headed calf, a five-legged calf. But when I saw this youngster I could not believe my eyes. His mother could not deliver him so I had to help the animal,” the 29-year-old veterinary said.
The lamb’s head had human features on – the eyes, the nose and the mouth – only the ears were those of a sheep.
Veterinaries said that the rare mutation most likely occurred as a result of improper mutation since the fodder for the lamb’s mother was abundant with vitamin A, CNNTurk.com reports.
A goat from Zimbabwe gave birth to a similar youngster in September 2009. The mutant baby born with a human-like head stayed alive for several hours until the frightened village residents killed him.
The governor of the province where the ugly goat was born said that the little goat was the fruit of unnatural relationship between the female goat and a man.
"This incident is very shocking. It is my first time to see such an evil thing. It is really embarrassing," he reportedly said. "The head belongs to a man while the body is that of a goat. This is evident that an adult human being was responsible. Evil powers caused this person to lose self control. We often hear cases of human beings who commit bestiality but this is the first time for such an act to produce a product with human features," he added.
The mutant creature was hairless. Local residents said that even dogs were afraid to approach the bizarre animal.
The locals burnt the body of the little goat, and biologists had no chance to study the rare mutation.



from: http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/12-01-2010/111621-sheep_human_face-0

 

[Uncleskinny]

The SHEEP gave birth to a CALF? Something not right here.

Peter

 

[jamescagney]

The locals burnt the body of the little goat, and biologists had no chance to study the rare mutation.

BARBARIANS.

Gee, any chance their proximity to the Soviet nuclear reactor accident could be a factor? Or any toxic dumping or contamination going on there?

 

[lainey]

speechless

 

[Jukebox Jury]

A Welsh or Yorkshire (sorry Peter) tourist must have got fresh with the sheep on holiday last year

Jukebox Jury

 

[CharlieFairhead]

The mind boggles..but i do not want to understand.

 

[bored]

A Welsh or Yorkshire (sorry Peter) tourist must have got fresh with the sheep on holiday last year

Jukebox Jury

Yeah, this was my speculation. It seems more viable than something nuclear related.

 

[MindlessRuffian]

BARBARIANS.

It's more likely than not that the people who burned the goat in Zimbabwe were very superstitious. A lot of the indigenous religions of Africa involve warding off evil that others have imposed upon you. They probably thought someone had cursed them. They probably believed that burning it could rid the area of this curse or evil.

I don't know too much about it because although I am a cultural anthropology major, my focus is in Latin America. However, it is rather cruel to call people barbarians because their beliefs and practices are different than yours.

 

[LuvMozzy]

That is weird.

 

[jamescagney]

I don't know too much about it because although I am a cultural anthropology major, my focus is in Latin America. However, it is rather cruel to call people barbarians because their beliefs and practices are different than yours.

Well, I guess it depends on how exactly they killed the animal. I'm not condemning their beliefs and practices, but their needless and possibly inhumane killing of a defenseless baby animal. If one's beliefs were to include animal abuse, child abuse, human rights abuse, etc. then I think you could make a case for questioning or condemning those beliefs.

It's a shame, because the religion, superstition and lack of civilization in that very region of the world helped contribute to worldwide support for 9/11 and other terrorist acts... where children in poor provincial madrassah schools believe that dinosaurs exist and were created by Jews to eat Muslims, for example.

 

[Corrissey]

That is freaky, one for Ripley's. Is there any other explanation besides human goat f***ing? Is a face the most common thing to develop? Why not other body parts, like fingers or an arm? They should protect & study this one before the locals get to it.

 

[kimmy sticks]

Is it even possible for cross-species fertilization to have occurred? I feel like the scientist in me should know the answer to this. Then again, maybe it's good I haven't spent much time pondering the subject...

 

[I am a Ghost]

Could be the product of a liaison at a Furries Convention.

 

[Corrissey]

Could be the product of a liaison at a Furries Convention.

WIN!

 

[jamescagney]

Is it even possible for cross-species fertilization to have occurred? I feel like the scientist in me should know the answer to this. Then again, maybe it's good I haven't spent much time pondering the subject...

Not possible. Different animal species are only in some cases able to cross-breed successfully, if they're similar enough. Some successful hybrids are discussed below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_(biology)

 

[MindlessRuffian]

Well, I guess it depends on how exactly they killed the animal. I'm not condemning their beliefs and practices, but their needless and possibly inhumane killing of a defenseless baby animal. If one's beliefs were to include animal abuse, child abuse, human rights abuse, etc. then I think you could make a case for questioning or condemning those beliefs.

Just because something is unacceptable in Western culture, does not mean it should be seen as unacceptable in the context of another culture. Infanticide is seen as "evil" in Western culture, however it is important for survival in certain Inuit tribes and in suburbs of Bom Jesus, Brazil.

The first thing they teach you in your first anthropology class is that your job as an anthropologist is not to judge cultures through the eyes of an American; deeming practices inhumane because you were taught, culturally, that they were not ethical. You are to look at different rituals through the eyes of the natives to see WHY they do what they do.

Who are we to say that our worldview is the correct one? The idea seems like ethnocentricism to me.

 

[jamescagney]

Just because something is unacceptable in Western culture, does not mean it should be seen as unacceptable in the context of another culture. Infanticide is seen as "evil" in Western culture, however it is important for survival in certain Inuit tribes and in suburbs of Bom Jesus, Brazil.

The first thing they teach you in your first anthropology class is that your job as an anthropologist is not to judge cultures through the eyes of an American; deeming practices inhumane because you were taught, culturally, that they were not ethical. You are to look at different rituals through the eyes of the natives to see WHY they do what they do.

Who are we to say that our worldview is the correct one? The idea seems like ethnocentricism to me.

Don't let the Republicans hear this kind of talk. They generally see good and evil as being objective and unchanging, set down by God, and they strenuously reject "moral equivalence."

I think Brazil practicing euthenasia doesn't really make them that different from the western world. The western world does this too, and uses the same measuring stick: what level of care can feasibly be given at that location impacts the doctor's recommendation. But is it necessary to their tribe's survival to kill those handicapped infants by burying them alive? Surely all of us, Christians, Muslims, liberals, conservatives, etc. can join as a world to condemn the live burial part of this?

I definitely agree that all of our opinions, morals, preferences, etc. are untrustworthy by being relative to the time and place where we just happened to be born. We'd all be better off if more of us were able to challenge and question the influence our culture has over our thinking. But still I feel it must be possible and necessary for us to try to come up with a bare minimum common moral baseline in order to protect human rights (and animal rights) worldwide.

Interestingly, Wikipedia asserts that western anthropologists have been largely wrong until recently on the issue of Inuits supposedly practicing infanticide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit#Suicide.2C_murder.2C_and_death

 

[kissmyshadestoo]

I call BS

 

[MindlessRuffian]

Don't let the Republicans hear this kind of talk. They generally see good and evil as being objective and unchanging, set down by God, and they strenuously reject "moral equivalence."

I think Brazil practicing euthenasia doesn't really make them that different from the western world. The western world does this too, and uses the same measuring stick: what level of care can feasibly be given at that location impacts the doctor's recommendation. But is it necessary to their tribe's survival to kill those handicapped infants by burying them alive? Surely all of us, Christians, Muslims, liberals, conservatives, etc. can join as a world to condemn the live burial part of this?

I definitely agree that all of our opinions, morals, preferences, etc. are untrustworthy by being relative to the time and place where we just happened to be born. We'd all be better off if more of us were able to challenge and question the influence our culture has over our thinking. But still I feel it must be possible and necessary for us to try to come up with a bare minimum common moral baseline in order to protect human rights (and animal rights) worldwide.

Interestingly, Wikipedia asserts that western anthropologists have been largely wrong until recently on the issue of Inuits supposedly practicing infanticide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit#Suicide.2C_murder.2C_and_death

Just because I'm conservative about some things, doesn't make me a Republican .

I can agree that regardless, everyone should be held to some form of standard when it comes to human/animal rights. However, I wouldn't want to see more cultures lost to Westernizaton. Also, we can't enact a standard without compromising a bit, which would require understanding their cultures more deeply. As for Brazil, mothers leave the infants to die because they believe they are born with a "will to die" and do not want to waste their minimal resources on saving a child who is likely to die when they can use them on the healthier children. The burying alive could be their way of escaping watching the child die without being entirely held responsible for their death. They're Catholics, very afraid of sinning.

If you're interested in reading more, Nancy Scheper-Hughes wrote a great ethnography about it called "Death Without Weeping: The Violence of Everyday Life in Brazil"

Inuits, as a whole, did not practice infanticide for the same reason as those of Bom Jesus, but certain tribes have been known to kill children that they cannot support with their minimal resources. Unlike the children of the women of Bom Jesus, these children are usually born healthy. However, the Inuits do not want to make the older children suffer malnutrition because they have to feed the new infant.

 

[jamescagney]

I call BS

It's possible.

Man, those turks are suckers, they should have sold it on eBay! And the Brazilians could sell their handicapped infants too. I'm sure there's no shortage of German and American men who would love a helpless handicapped infant of their own to care for. I mean, hey, if Americans buy disposable live baby bunnies and chickens for their kids on Easter, then why not disposable human infants?