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.
Well, that is nonsense. Humans have been successfully evolving animals and plants for centuries and millenia. These were done to improve certain characteristics of the target organisms: speed, or load capacity in horses; milk production in cows; food yield in crops. These programs were never intended to evolve a new species, but to evolve those target features - that has been demonstrably successful.Thousands of "biologist" if not millions have attempted to "evolve" one species.
That would include anyone who ever did any selective breeding of any plant or animal.
None of the hybridization of one or between species has resulted, if fertile, in a stable progeny with the "evolution" intact.
That is a known biological fact in the breeding of animals, plants.
It is becoming a known fact in the genetically manipulated plants and animals that are being created.
Genetically modified organisms are infertile, die out or revert to the parent species within a few generations.
Selectively bred species also do exactly that, revert or die out after a few generations.
Darwin predicted that species would evolve.
However man, after at least 8,000 years has not created One evolution in any species.
Man has tried.
Farming primates is slow difficult and expensive... the current research on genetically modified pigs is much more practical.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."
Hybridized and genetically modified wheat does not breed true as wheat. It is not "evolved" through artificial selections.As an example wheat breeds true as wheat and does not revert to the grass from which is was evolved by artifical selection. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary. If you choose to simple reiterate the nonsense it will be treated with the disdain it deserves.
Perhaps I was unclear. Let me be more specific: support your presently unsubstantiated claims with reference to peer reviewed papers, published in respected journals that demonstrate the validity of your claims. Otherwise we are done.Hybridized and genetically modified wheat does not breed true as wheat. It is not "evolved" through artificial selections.
There is a group of plants in which to study the effects of hybridization
The F1 Hybrid Marigolds
For the study of chemically manipulated hybrids
Tetraploid Irises
Those will not "come true" from seed."
That is because the genetic manipulations render the plants sterile or unable to survive outside cultivation or the plants Revert to the original prototype. There aren't any stable manipulated hybrids and man has been manipulating for at least 10,000 years.
It would be simple matter to experiment and research the hybrids listed above
Grow a small garden plot to study the generational effect of hybridization on F1 Hybrids and subsequent generations.
If you choose to simply reiterate nonsense it will be treated with the disdain it deserves.
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.
There are words attached to selectively bred and chemically manipulated animals and plants:Perhaps I was unclear. Let me be more specific: support your presently unsubstantiated claims with reference to peer reviewed papers, published in respected journals that demonstrate the validity of your claims. Otherwise we are done.
Since you are incapable of providing a citation for the research you claim supports your contentions and you are now indulging in strawmen and shifting goal posts I think it best to leave you to your delusions, misunderstandings, misinterpretations, confusions, trolling, or whichever of these explanations is most apt.There are words attached to selectively bred and chemically manipulated animals and plants:
Will Not Come True From Seed
That is, according to you, an unsubstantiated claim with reference to peer reviewed papers published in respected journals?
If an artificially evolved organism cannot reproduce the modifications in the progeny, then "evolution" is this case is Not True.
If it can't "come true" then it is not true.
This thread does not have enough space for all the citations and research to support the Fact that hybrids do not come true from seed.Since you are incapable of providing a citation for the research you claim supports your contentions
You, and I do specifically mean you, have still chosen not to provide a proper citation to support your contention. That is an objective observation. I have offered possible explanations as to why you may have so chosen. The only potential insult within that list is the option of trolling. I do not know why you choose not to provide such a citation, so I have left the option to you to choose from the potential reasons I can think of.This is off topic .
As to the rest of your comments:
Personal insults, including the word "you" specifically rather than as a generic is against forum rules.
That article discusses , hybridization, man's "tinkering" but it does not address the fundamental fact I stated.FYI: A proper citation would look like this -
Doebley, J. F., Gaut, B. S., & Smith, B. D. (2006). The molecular genetics of crop domestication. Cell, 127(7), 1309-1321. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.12.006
And you are violating forum rules in addressing another poster rather than the arguments presented.
And I provided the citation from Texas A&Mthat asking for citations in a discussions
And I provided the citation from Texas A&M
The form of the citation does not have to be in the form that is demanded by the poster.
The fact that Hybrids do not come true from seed is printed on Seed Packages.
Is Texas A&M and Commercial Seed Hybridizers, because the simple fact is stated plainly, are not reliable sources or should they print their Facts in Latin to be more erudite and astute?
A what?No, I don't support the artificial (i.e. the excuse for a humanly rationalized) creation of a "humanzee" any more than I do the creation of Plut*-ne-*m.
Let's not become complete idiots by doing so.
A what?
I think Hans was referring to "Plut*-ne-*m"A "humanzee." Y'know, a cross between a chimpanzee and a human.
That wasn't a citation. That was a copy and paste job which none of us know where you got it from. You could have made it up wholesale. If you don't know how to provide a citation, or just look at the example Ophilate gave.
I think Hans was referring to "Plut*-ne-*m"
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?