Can humans and apes engage in sexual intercourse?Has an ape ever been trained in such a manner?

they could do it. but i severely doubt there would be any offspring as a result. aalso a bit degrading to both parties involved.

It has been done. There is a common word for it, bestiality, and a more polite one, zoophilia.

 

For the perverted who want evidence, google "ape bestiality".

 

For sub-texts in popular fiction, consider planet of the apes, tarzan and King Kong. The lowest dregs of the porn industry exploit it.

 

I await a thread on the subject "bestiality...Is it normal human behaviour, like homosexuality?", and a battle royal between cruelty to animals activists and the "everything is O.K. between consenting animals". perverts.

Ethically speaking, not my cup of tea, but I suppose if both parties were consensual, and had in fact the capacity to consent, or perhaps if neither part had legal capacity, for example if the human was mentally challenged or insane. What is the age of consent amongst other members of the great apes? Perhaps a future question for the Great Ape project. My guess is that most of the Great Apes know this is just plain wrong, except maybe those Bonobos. I'm told they're like a bunch of wild animals.

 

http://www.greatapeproject.org/

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.paniscus.net/immag/HS_B03.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.paniscus.net/immag1.htm&h=425&w=640&sz=31&tbnid=M595KG58n5oJ:&tbnh=89&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbonobo%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D&start=3&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=3

You need a date!

However, two different species cannot create a fertile offspring.

hey, you may get some ideas from this thread which discusses the possibility of homo neanderthalis and sapiens interbreeding.

However, two different species cannot create a fertile offspring.

 

There are several definitions used for species, so it depends on which one you are using, but that's not exactly right. It's true that if two populations can't produce fertile offspring they are different species, but that's a very different statement.

 

What is needed is reproductive isolation, so that they do not normally interbreed, but if they do, you can get fertile offspring. There are some notable examples: wolves, coyotes and dogs. Mules, ligers, tigons, etc. are often infertile, but not always.

 

 

one reference

 

examples of hybrids

There are several definitions used for species' date=' so it depends on which one you are using, but that's not exactly right. It's true that if two populations can't produce fertile offspring they are different species, but that's a very different statement.

 

What is needed is reproductive isolation, so that they do not normally interbreed, but if they do, you can get fertile offspring. There are some notable examples: wolves, coyotes and dogs. Mules, ligers, tigons, etc. are often infertile, but not always.

 

 

one reference

 

examples of hybrids

Oh, interesting. I didn't know they could. Thanks for the update.

I guess you never heard about Oliver the Humanzee

Pfft, genetic tests show that Oli was all chimp, no matter how... atypical he was/is

Pfft, genetic tests show that Oli was all chimp, no matter how... atypical[/i'] he was/is

 

Boy, arent you a ray of sunshine (pfffts right back in her face )

The peon is about to experience natural selection first handed methinks.

The peon is about to experience natural selection first handed methinks.

 

 

You're right. Do you want her ribs or her legs? I'm not stingy.

You're right. Do you want her ribs or her legs? I'm not stingy.

It'd take more than a hairless yeti with a inferiority complex to barbecue me

It'd take more than a hairless yeti with a inferiority complex to barbecue me

 

 

It would take more than a taco loving 100 pound spider monkey to stop me (starts up his bar-b-que)

hey, you may get some ideas from this thread[/url'] which discusses the possibility of homo neanderthalis and sapiens interbreeding.

If homo-sapiens and homo-neanderthalis successfully interbred it simply means that they might have been one species after all, and not two. What's the big deal? Species boundaries are always somewhat arbitrary anyways. How can you say that the first human was a different species than their parents, and who did they breed with after that? Did it have to be a sibling or a cousin? Why? Other species or subspecies maybe? Why not? Ironically, creationists have the very same dilema. Where did Cain's wife come from? All generalizations ultimately fail, but are still useful.

 

Sex is nobodies business but the two or three species involved.

How can you say that the first human was a different species than their parents, and who did they breed with after that? Did it have to be a sibling or a cousin? Why? Other species or subspecies maybe? Why not? Ironically, creationists have the very same dilema. Where did Cain's wife come from?

Well, that's not really how it works.There was no "first human" because the evolutionary change would have been occuring slowly and gradually across the interbreeding populations. The interconnected organisms evolved together in a manner of speaking. Unless you've been reading too many Greg Bear novels, no creature jumps species in a single generation. A single trait miight pop up in one individual, but not enough to call it a new species, and if succesful that trait will spread through the population. Over time more and more of these traits might slowly build up and together show a notable difference from tha ancestral organisms being compared, often enough infuriatingly slowly. And because it's the population that's evolving, there is no need to interbreed or hybridize.