8 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

They inserted a partial Dire wolf genes into a dire wolf, the exact estimate I am guessing is around 20/19,000 genes, it is technically a dire wolf genome since some genes were inserted, if they were significant or not is up to debate

I refer you to the item I quoted: “would a chimpanzee with 20 gene edits be human?”

11 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Feel free to get the out of here. Did anyone ask?

…

Let me let this penetrate into your skull,

…

Either roll with the punches and admit when you are wrong like I do, or get out of here

Attack ideas/arguments, not people. This crosses a line.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

I refer you to the item I quoted: “would a chimpanzee with 20 gene edits be human?”

Homo Chimpanzini

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Attack ideas/arguments, not people. This crosses a line.

My apologies, it will not happen again

3 hours ago, swansont said:

I refer you to the item I quoted: “would a chimpanzee with 20 gene edits be human?”

It would still contain Homo Sapien genes, it would be a human to some degree just not as we may identify one.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

I refer you to the item I quoted: “would a chimpanzee with 20 gene edits be human?”

It depends heavily on their function, especially when considering their importance and regulation.

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

It would still contain Homo Sapien genes, it would be a human to some degree just not as we may identify one.

There are species that could be genetically closer to Homo sapiens that are not classified as such. Any of our Homo predecessors, and perhaps even Australopithecines. They have human genes that chimpanzees lack.

Just now, swansont said:

There are species that could be genetically closer to Homo sapiens that are not classified as such. Any of our Homo predecessors, and perhaps even Australopithecines. They have human genes that chimpanzees lack.

But they are still under the branch homo, if the genes are placed well enough to have a decent amount of expression, it could be considered "Homo" to some extent.

8 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

But they are still under the branch homo, if the genes are placed well enough to have a decent amount of expression, it could be considered "Homo" to some extent.

That’s moving goal posts - nobody said a wolf with 20 dire wolf edits isn’t a wolf. It’s just not a dire wolf.

Homo habilis with 20 sapiens edits would still be Homo, but would an Australopithecine? We don’t know the genetics, but they seem closer to Homo than Pan does, and 20 edits certainly doesn’t get them to Homo sapiens.

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s moving goal posts - nobody said a wolf with 20 dire wolf edits isn’t a wolf. It’s just not a dire wolf.

Homo habilis with 20 sapiens edits would still be Homo, but would an Australopithecine? We don’t know the genetics, but they seem closer to Homo than Pan does, and 20 edits certainly doesn’t get them to Homo sapiens.

It depends heavily, as I stated, on gene expression. If the chimpanzee expresses enough human like phenotypes, it can be considered human to some extent