Jump to content

Who would like to see Human/Chimpanzee crossbreeding done?  

1 member has voted

  1. 1. Who would like to see Human/Chimpanzee crossbreeding done?

    • Yes, let give it a go!
      6
    • Yes, but abort fetus before the 3rd month for ethical reasons
      0
    • No, this is an abomination
      8
    • Undecided
      1
    • This thread is Perverted!
      102


Recommended Posts

Why does everyone assume that a human/chimp hybrid would be a dumb human? Hybrid vigor could very well produce a being better than either of it's parents. When you breed a donkey and a horse you don't get a dumb horse. Mules are very smart and spirited animals, often they are smarter and stronger than either parent. It's an old wives tale that mules are stupid, I've worked with both mules and horses. Mules can be very smart even superior to the best horses. Mules are also not always sterile, it's rare but since most if not all male mules are neutered breeding seldom takes place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There is some information that this may be possible using some simple IVF techniques to remove human or ape antibodies from the semen sample before implantation in the host. There is one chromosome differance between humans and chimpanzees, and has been rumored that this has been achived by Russian scientists, and a Chinese scientist. Anyone else have any info on the subject?

 

I just saw a documentary on the History channel entitled "Clash of the cavemen." No, it wasn't produced by Steven Spielberg, it was considered a "factual" account of "pre-history". It was the story of a neanderthal woman who was abducted. :eek: Now how anyone knew she was abducted is anybody's guess, but since the imagination is considered evidence in the scientific world, then of course, that would include all fairy tales.

 

In this 'documentary, the statement was also made that there is no evidence of neanderthal DNA in human DNA. Now that fact is obvious to anyone with common sense and a basic understanding of the birds and the bees. But not to scientists because they seem to be the last group of people who are not capable of understanding why ape, or any animal DNA, especially the DNA of fictitious animals can't get into the DNA of humans.:rolleyes:

 

Nevertheless, since again, the imagination is considered evidence in the scientific world, the scientists on that documentary kept insisting that apes or some form of ape bred with some form of modern day human (which is actually bestiality) so that humans could claim our ancestors were apes, or some form of ape. :eek:

 

So even though the facts don't verify the theory of evolution, do scientists care? Not in the least because they know they can use the letters after their names to dupe the public. And that they can. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just saw a documentary on the History channel entitled "Clash of the cavemen." No, it wasn't produced by Steven Spielberg, it was considered a "factual" account of "pre-history". It was the story of a neanderthal woman who was abducted. :eek: Now how anyone knew she was abducted is anybody's guess, but since the imagination is considered evidence in the scientific world, then of course, that would include all fairy tales.

 

In this 'documentary, the statement was also made that there is no evidence of neanderthal DNA in human DNA. Now that fact is obvious to anyone with common sense and a basic understanding of the birds and the bees. But not to scientists because they seem to be the last group of people who are not capable of understanding why ape, or any animal DNA, especially the DNA of fictitious animals can't get into the DNA of humans.:rolleyes:

 

Nevertheless, since again, the imagination is considered evidence in the scientific world, the scientists on that documentary kept insisting that apes or some form of ape bred with some form of modern day human (which is actually bestiality) so that humans could claim our ancestors were apes, or some form of ape. :eek:

 

So even though the facts don't verify the theory of evolution, do scientists care? Not in the least because they know they can use the letters after their names to dupe the public. And that they can. ;)

 

Knupfer, so you think Neanderthals were apes? They were stronger than us, had bigger brains, talked, made the same tools, and buried their dead. Not to mention they were enough like us that if a Neanderthal was dressed in modern clothes he could walk down the street and no one would give him a second glance. You are the worst kind of troll Knupfer, a ignorant close minded troll.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Knupfer, so you think Neanderthals were apes? They were stronger than us, had bigger brains, talked, made the same tools, and buried their dead. Not to mention they were enough like us that if a Neanderthal was dressed in modern clothes he could walk down the street and no one would give him a second glance. You are the worst kind of troll Knupfer, a ignorant close minded troll.

 

Moonman - While I appreciate the sentiment, and agree that Knupfers posting behavior here is not aligned with a desire to have an accurate understanding of the universe (more aligned with a desire to lie and misrepresent), but I must point out... we ARE apes and so were Neanderthals. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonman - While I appreciate the sentiment, and agree that Knupfers posting behavior here is not aligned with a desire to have an accurate understanding of the universe (more aligned with a desire to lie and misrepresent), but I must point out... we ARE apes and so were Neanderthals. ;)

 

Inow we both know humans are apes but not in the context that knupfer was using, yes we are apes, hominids to be exact but in knupfers mind there is only room for us and them and them is chimps and gorillas although I'm betting he doesn't know the difference between monkeys and apes either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Clearly any success would eventually inevitably lead to more crossbreeding and the species gap would be weakened.

 

Not necessarily. The hybrid would most likely be infertile. Also, "hybrid vigor" is rare when you are talking about hybrids between species separated from each other by many speciation events, which is what we are talking about here.

 

I just saw a documentary on the History channel entitled "Clash of the cavemen."

 

I also saw the show. It wasn't a "documentary" and the appropriate caveats were given. For instance, it was stated that we do not know of any particular abductions.

 

In this 'documentary, the statement was also made that there is no evidence of neanderthal DNA in human DNA. Now that fact is obvious to anyone with common sense and a basic understanding of the birds and the bees. But not to scientists because they seem to be the last group of people who are not capable of understanding why ape, or any animal DNA, especially the DNA of fictitious animals can't get into the DNA of humans.

 

1. Neandertals are not "fictitious. We know they existed. There are now hundreds of neandertal fossils discovered. Also, they are sibling species with humans. We both evolved from H. erectus. We have the transitional individuals connecting H. erectus to H. neandertals

2. As the show explained, there has been a scientific theory called "Multiregional" (Milford Wolpoff is the most ardent supporter of this). This theory says that H. sapiens evolved by the interbreeding of H. erectus, H. neandertals, and other Homo species across Eurasia and Africa. The ultimate result of this mixing was H. sapiens. Another theory is Out of Africa which says H. sapiens evolved from H. erectus in Africa then migrated out of Africa and replaced all other Homo species over the globe. The DNA evidence supports Out of Africa.

 

Nevertheless, since again, the imagination is considered evidence in the scientific world, the scientists on that documentary kept insisting that apes or some form of ape bred with some form of modern day human (which is actually bestiality) so that humans could claim our ancestors were apes, or some form of ape.

 

As others have pointed out, H. sapiens (humans) are apes. "Ape" is the name for a Family that about a dozen species in several genera. The genus Homo is one genus within the Ape Family. But notice that Homo neandertals is also in the Homo genus. That means that H. neandertals and H. sapiens are close in appearance, physiology, and relationship. Therefore it is possible to consider that the two species of Homo could interbreed, much like the species of the genus Drosophila interbreed or the species of Equus, E. caballus and E. asinus, interbreed to produce mules. The mitochondrial and Y-chromosome data, however, indicate that H. sapiens and H. neandertals did not interbreed.

 

So even though the facts don't verify the theory of evolution,

 

But the facts do strongly support evolution. There are all those transitional individuals that link H. sapiens to H. erectus, H. erectus to H. habilis, and then H. habilis to A. afarensis. Lots of "missing links" found. All that evidence that God left us shouting "I did it by evolution!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.