Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The main use for the hybrids is to have a source of organ transplants.In short, dirty deeds done dirt cheap.
I'm not talking about people who disagree with this, I'm talking about emotional responses.
It's one thing to disagree, but it's something different to have a massive *emotional* response by large numbers of people.
Where does imaginative thinking fall into place? Under scientific validity, or emotional reaction?Well since you've not given any actually scientifically valid reason for it to be done, an emotional response is what you're going to get.
Where does imaginative thinking fall into place? Under scientific validity, or emotional reaction?
The answer is neither.
There is a third way to think.
No. It is an informed response based on my reasoned assessment of the risks and consequences of such an experiment which clearly point in an unacceptable direction on my moral compass. Of course, if you think moral compasses are essentially emotionally determined that would make you doubly wrong.This is an emotional response.
I don't believe God would allow this to happen.Scientifically speaking, creating a humanzee would be no different from how we've created Ligers and Mules. So why haven't we created a humanzee yet, knowing it's entirely possible and super easy?
Many say it's an issue of morality. But why would it be, considering a humanzee would be neither human, nor chimp. What would be a worst or best case scenario in this situation? Being the eternal optimist that I am, I envision a friendly pet-like companion, like a dog, but much smarter. It's not like it would be in a constant state of pain, like some kind of groaning Frankenstein - nature doesn’t allow animals to live in perpetual pain. Perhaps they could even be trained to do our work for us? Like picking fruit in the fields? Or factory work, or other jobs humans don't particularly like doing? For thousands of years we've been using horses in similar ways - I don't see how a humanzee would be any different.
I don't think that. I think a lot of our morals are genetically passed on, as natural instincts, and others through learning. Much in the same way as our free-will, to act and behave, are based on a combination of our biology in combination with 'learned' experiences:No. It is an informed response based on my reasoned assessment of the risks and consequences of such an experiment which clearly point in an unacceptable direction on my moral compass. Of course, if you think moral compasses are essentially emotionally determined that would make you doubly wrong.
Great point! I believe in God, and I also believe that nothing is an accident. There is clearly a reason why this hasn't happened already.I don't believe God would allow this to happen.
Makes sense to me.Great point! I believe in God, and I also believe that nothing is an accident. There is clearly a reason why this hasn't happened. Right?
I broadly agree. I think different cultures interpret the tendicies imposed by our instincts in different ways, hence the clash between cultures; a great problem because instinct tells us "different is dangerous". Reason can counteract this, but there is shortage of reason in most humans.I don't think that. I think a lot of our morals are genetically passed on, as natural instincts, and others through learning. Much in the same way as our free-will, to act and behave, are based on a combination of our biology in combination with 'learned' experiences:
hey buddy!Scientifically speaking, creating a humanzee would be no different from how we've created Ligers and Mules. So why haven't we created a humanzee yet, knowing it's entirely possible and super easy?
Many say it's an issue of morality. But why would it be, considering a humanzee would be neither human, nor chimp. What would be a worst or best case scenario in this situation? Being the eternal optimist that I am, I envision a friendly pet-like companion, like a dog, but much smarter. It's not like it would be in a constant state of pain, like some kind of groaning Frankenstein - nature doesn’t allow animals to live in perpetual pain. Perhaps they could even be trained to do our work for us? Like picking fruit in the fields? Or factory work, or other jobs humans don't particularly like doing? For thousands of years we've been using horses in similar ways - I don't see how a humanzee would be any different.
hey buddy!
The idea of human eyes ,with all due respect are a abominable concept(not directed at you at all;the concept only). humans and apes may share characteristics and traits but we and apes are completely different species.
Its not like breeding two different species of chickens, where you’ll get a healthy, unique crossbreed. On the other hand cross breeding two completely different species will either cause death or severe malformation in the result, a good example is like trying to crossbreed a Dog and Raccoon.
A human-chimpanzee crossbreed is just immoral,
first of all,how can you actually breed a chimp and a human? Chimps have expressed very violent and aggressive tendencies whether they’re male or female,two the idea of a human and animal conception is bestiality,regardless of actual sexual contact is engaged.
Three, the creature would be in pain and would indeed have a whole variety of health issues,including physical,chronic; possibly terminal diseases and disabilities
Four,I hope you’ve seen planet of the apes,because we all know what happened when the apes understood the concept of slavery
Are any of those family group level hybrids fertile? If fertile are the hybrids stable in that progeny are replicas of the crossbred? Do the hybrids die out after a few generations?Crossbreeding has been achieved at the family group level with some bird and fish species without significant issue. Even in species that diverged 50+ million years ago. These seem to have been successful.
What percentage of biologists do you think have actually attempted to "evolve" one species? Do you actually believe that experiments in hybridisation were intended to "evolve" a new species? If so, that would explain some of the errors in your thinking.Man has not been able to "evolve" one species which is basically what artificially manipulating human and chimp genes would be.
Darwin made a number of predictioncs. Which one did you have in mind?What Darwin predicted man cannot duplicate.
Nothing you have said here in any way overturns any aspect of Darwinian theory, or of the Modern Synthesis, or of any of the amendments to that version of evolutionary theory currently under review. If you wish to reject evolutionary theory you will need to come up with a better strategy than attacking strawmen, obsessing with Darwin and making unsupported assertions.That makes evolution, at least Darwinian evolution a failed theory.
Thousands of "biologist" if not millions have attempted to "evolve" one species.What percentage of biologists do you think have actually attempted to "evolve" one species?
Are any of those family group level hybrids fertile?
If fertile are the hybrids stable in that progeny are replicas of the crossbred? Do the hybrids die out after a few generations?
From what I have read, none of the crossbreds, even in very close family groups has proved stable.
In the plant world hybrids, even chemically altered genomes, tend to be sterile or die out after a few generations.
Some may revert to something that closely resembles one or the other parent but even those tend to die out.
Man has not been able to "evolve" one species which is basically what artificially manipulating human and chimp genes would be.
What Darwin predicted man cannot duplicate. That makes evolution, at least Darwinian evolution a failed theory.
The domesticated animals and plants are not stable. Even changes that are easily achieved with selective breeding do not hold without the continued manipulation by man. The changes in expressed and inherited allele frequencies are not maintained in progeny.Sure we have. We’ve changed the expressed and inherited allele frequencies in lots of species. That's what evolution is.
And, we've done it in everything from basic bacteria and fruit flies all the way up to vertebrates like our domesticated animals.
The domesticated animals and plants are not stable. Even changes that are easily achieved with selective breeding do not hold without the continued manipulation by man. The changes in expressed and inherited allele frequencies are not maintained in progeny
This is off topic but it is unlikely that chimps and humans can be bred even in a test tube.
What is intended is to grow organs for transplants
And it is a not very clever ploy to get around the laws against growing pure humans parts reducing the "human" to a subhuman by inserting monkey parts, therefore...
It is a very clever scheme to make money from spare parts.
That, given the various incentives is the most likely outcome of the "humanzee."
It must be fun to just say stuff and pretend it's just "true" without providing any kind of evidence or citations whatsoever.The domesticated animals and plants are not stable. Even changes that are easily achieved with selective breeding do not hold without the continued manipulation by man. The changes in expressed and inherited allele frequencies are not maintained in progeny.
This is off topic but it is unlikely that chimps and humans can be bred even in a test tube.
Took a hard right there didn't we?What is intended is to grow organs for transplants
And it is a not very clever ploy to get around the laws against growing pure humans parts reducing the "human" to a subhuman by inserting monkey parts, therefore...
It is a very clever scheme to make money from spare parts.
That, given the various incentives is the most likely outcome of the "humanzee."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?