Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MortalWombat · 04-03-2003, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BioBeing
This guy seems to suggest that, despite differences in chromosome number (24 in ape, 23 in humans), yes, it may be possible (althought the offspring may be sterile).

Chromosome number differences may not necessarily be a barrier to interbreeding. Note that the Przewalski horse has 66 chromosomes, while the domestic horse has 64, and they can interbreed to form a fertile hybrid with 65 chromosomes.

Eric H · 04-03-2003, 02:55 PM

Any thoughts of creating a human/ chimp hybrid must be stopped at all costs on moral grounds.

I have seen the evidence of the possible end results which where presented by the photographic evidence of Godless Dave,

I am struggling to find out who would have the worst deal, the chimp or the other fellow?

Kosh · 04-03-2003, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MortalWombat
Chromosome number differences may not necessarily be a barrier to interbreeding.

Agreed. The real problem is gonna be getting the hardon.

Nic Tamzek · 04-03-2003, 06:08 PM

While I have no particular problem with seeing if chimp and human gametes will combine and if a chuman zygote will go through a few cell divisions, I'm shocked (yes, shocked :-) ) that anyone would consider allowing that fetus to progress to baby stage. Even if it worked, at best you would intentionally be creating a baby with severe mental retardation and numerous other abnormalities (in that chimp intelligence, language skills, etc. would all be considered such for a human). At worst we could tack on developmental defects, sterility, etc.

You would also be violating about every informed consent rule there is as there is no way that a potential baby can give informed consent.

So, I vote no on the manpanzee project (chump? chimanzee? Homopan sapitrog?).

Nic Tamzek · 04-03-2003, 06:11 PM

Oh wait. I just re-read PZ's post and he did indeed say that he would be against bringing a manpanzee to term.

That's good, that means he's a rational guy like I thought!

I, on the other hand, am evidently a poor reader.

gcameron · 04-03-2003, 06:35 PM

I'm sorry, I misread you pz. I thought you meant bringing Manpanzees to term, which is what I was thinking of. I find the idea of a living manpanzee (i.e. one that has been brought to term) to be pretty horrifiying and Dr. Moreau-esque, sort of like intentionally creating a severely disabled child or something. Although I suppose it would make just as much sense to call it a "disabled chimp." Anyway, that is what I meant by "abomination." Not saying it's rational, it's just my immediate reaction. I suppose the result might be a unique primate that in its own way was perfectly happy, but my brain keeps parsing it as a human that has somehow been "wronged" or "damaged."

As far as the sanctity of embryos, well, I have no respect for the sanctity of zygotes, I'll certainly follow you that far. (Not sure what the strict definition of "embryo" is -- does it encompass the full 9 mos. of pregnancy or only an early part?) Anyway, no point in dragging this thread off into the 10-millionth abortion discussion...

BioBeing · 04-03-2003, 08:54 PM

Isn't the relative gestation time markedly different for chimps and humans? I remember (vaguely, so sorry if I got this all messed up) reading that human babies were born after a relatively short gestation cf chimps, meaning that human babies - their heads in particlular - are smaller, and develop rapidly once ex-utero, while baby chimps are more "complete". This may have been a key evolutionary change, allowing for bigger brains in humans. So, a hybrid would presumably follow either short or long gestation, and I can see that this would give many chances for things to get royally messed up.

[Another thought - would a hybrid, assuming it was viable, have a soul?

]

Doubting Didymus · 04-03-2003, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BioBeing
[Another thought - would a hybrid, assuming it was viable, have a soul? ]

Nope!

Ramen · 04-03-2003, 10:17 PM

Oliver the Chimp was thought to have been a
human-chimp hybrid, but he was later proven to be just a chimp.

Click here for an article on Oliver the chimp.

Ramen · 04-03-2003, 10:23 PM

The link doesn't seem to work so here's the article

Quote:

The Story of Oliver

Oliver was one of the most closely studied chimpanzees in history, in large part because of his odd appearance and behavior. His behavior was so humanlike, in fact, that it was suspected by some that he might actually be a human-chimp hybrid � the result of some secret genetic experiment.

Oliver was born in the African Congo where he was captured in the early 1970s and sold with a dozen other chimps to Frank and Janet Burger, animal trainers from South Africa. Immediately, they recognized that Oliver was quite different than the other chimps they worked with. He looked different, for one thing. Although young, he lacked hair on his chest and head. His ears and jawline were shaped somewhat differently than a normal chimp's. Most astonishingly, Oliver always walked upright with a decidedly human gait. He learned to use a toilet, liked to watch TV with the Burgers, drink coffee and beer with them, and even took on simple household chores like feeding the dog.

Oliver always walked upright and preferred the company of humans.

Oliver's remarkable intelligence brought him a modicum of fame, touring the world throughout the '70s and performing before an estimated 26 million people. He even made appearances on "The Ed Sullivan Show" and at New York's Radio City Music Hall.

Oliver preferred the company of humans to that of other chimps. The feeling on the part of other chimps was mutual; they tended to avoid him. Oliver's comfort with humans even crossed the boundaries of social propriety when he made sexual advances toward Janet Burger and other human females.

It was shortly after these incidents that Oliver was sold to a New York attorney and later to West Coast animal trainers who promoted him as "The Missing Link" and showcased him in a traveling act of trained chimps.

Was Oliver a human-chimp hybrid, a kind of mutant chimp or one of some new species? In the sensationalized publicity that surrounded Oliver, it was reported that he had 47 chromosomes � one less than an ordinary chimpanzee and one more than a human being. These reports were refuted in 1997, however, when genetic testing revealed that he had 48 chromosomes, just like any other chimp. This eliminates the human-chimp hybrid theory, but does not rule out the possibility that Oliver might be a mixture of common and pygmy chimps or part of a new, unknown species.

Oliver has since retired to Primarily Primates, a primate sanctuary in Texas where he settled down with a mate � a chimp mate. Whatever the ultimate findings are about Oliver, his peculiarities remain a mystery.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-03-2003, 02:55 PM	#12
Eric H Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Hampshire U.K. Posts: 1,027	Any thoughts of creating a human/ chimp hybrid must be stopped at all costs on moral grounds. I have seen the evidence of the possible end results which where presented by the photographic evidence of Godless Dave, I am struggling to find out who would have the worst deal, the chimp or the other fellow?

04-03-2003, 06:08 PM	#14
Nic Tamzek Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: California Posts: 646	While I have no particular problem with seeing if chimp and human gametes will combine and if a chuman zygote will go through a few cell divisions, I'm shocked (yes, shocked :-) ) that anyone would consider allowing that fetus to progress to baby stage. Even if it worked, at best you would intentionally be creating a baby with severe mental retardation and numerous other abnormalities (in that chimp intelligence, language skills, etc. would all be considered such for a human). At worst we could tack on developmental defects, sterility, etc. You would also be violating about every informed consent rule there is as there is no way that a potential baby can give informed consent. So, I vote no on the manpanzee project (chump? chimanzee? Homopan sapitrog?).

04-03-2003, 06:11 PM	#15
Nic Tamzek Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: California Posts: 646	Oh wait. I just re-read PZ's post and he did indeed say that he would be against bringing a manpanzee to term. That's good, that means he's a rational guy like I thought! I, on the other hand, am evidently a poor reader.

04-03-2003, 06:35 PM	#16
gcameron Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Western U.S.A. Posts: 293	I'm sorry, I misread you pz. I thought you meant bringing Manpanzees to term, which is what I was thinking of. I find the idea of a living manpanzee (i.e. one that has been brought to term) to be pretty horrifiying and Dr. Moreau-esque, sort of like intentionally creating a severely disabled child or something. Although I suppose it would make just as much sense to call it a "disabled chimp." Anyway, that is what I meant by "abomination." Not saying it's rational, it's just my immediate reaction. I suppose the result might be a unique primate that in its own way was perfectly happy, but my brain keeps parsing it as a human that has somehow been "wronged" or "damaged." As far as the sanctity of embryos, well, I have no respect for the sanctity of zygotes, I'll certainly follow you that far. (Not sure what the strict definition of "embryo" is -- does it encompass the full 9 mos. of pregnancy or only an early part?) Anyway, no point in dragging this thread off into the 10-millionth abortion discussion...

04-03-2003, 08:54 PM	#17
BioBeing Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 6,004	Isn't the relative gestation time markedly different for chimps and humans? I remember (vaguely, so sorry if I got this all messed up) reading that human babies were born after a relatively short gestation cf chimps, meaning that human babies - their heads in particlular - are smaller, and develop rapidly once ex-utero, while baby chimps are more "complete". This may have been a key evolutionary change, allowing for bigger brains in humans. So, a hybrid would presumably follow either short or long gestation, and I can see that this would give many chances for things to get royally messed up. [Another thought - would a hybrid, assuming it was viable, have a soul? ]

04-03-2003, 10:17 PM	#19
Ramen Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Uppa U.S. Posts: 1,153	Oliver the Chimp was thought to have been a human-chimp hybrid, but he was later proven to be just a chimp. Click here for an article on Oliver the chimp.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.