Creating a Humanzee

[Foamhead]

It is not possible to make such a hybrid because the DNA and genomes are too dissimilar. The kind of gene splicing you see on TV is all science fiction.

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

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.

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.

The only way you can, with integrity, assert that no species has evolved is to have consciously decided to avoid reading any of the evidence that documents the evolution within species and the evolution of new species. And that decision to avoid the facts is a decision of questionable integrity. Now, if you wish this discussion to continue please drop the empty claims and deliver some evidence for your position.

Note: I can substantiate each point made above, but the onus is upon you when challenging accepted science to provide contrary evidence. Let me see some effort in that regard and I'll reciprocate.

 

[dzheremi]

First solve problems like climate change, food distribution, and clean water access, then worry about recreating Harry & the Hendersons.

 

[Shemjaza]

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."

Farming primates is slow difficult and expensive... the current research on genetically modified pigs is much more practical.

 

[QvQ]

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.

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
Polyploid 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.

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

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.

Re: your last sentence. At least try to be original.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

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.

 

[QvQ]

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.

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.

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

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.

 

[QvQ]

Since you are incapable of providing a citation for the research you claim supports your contentions

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.
There are thousands of articles explaining the fact and the possible reasons why.
One simple quote from Texas A&M
"You shouldn't save seed from hybrid vegetables because they won't produce true in the next generation. This is indeed a fact."

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.

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

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.
I have no wish, and no need, to insult you. I wish you to provide a citation to support your claims (which as noted have evolved through our exchange). You appear to be finding our discussion unpleasant. I certainly am. Thank you and goodnight.

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
Additionally you might wish to refer to a specific page number and paragraph.

 

[QvQ]

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

That article discusses , hybridization, man's "tinkering" but it does not address the fundamental fact I stated.
The genetic manipulations or "tinkering" does not come true from seed.

It does not address a Fact that the Texas Longhorn Cattle who were absolutely without human manipulation for generations, are almost exact replicas of Polish Aurochs.

That suggests some questions about the underlying assumptions:
1) Genetic changes due to natural or artificial selection will stabilize and come true from seed (False)
2) Environment determines the form (False)
Polish Aurochs and Texas Longhorns are in the most diametrically opposite environments yet the basic form of the Long Horn Type reverted to the Polish Aurochs Type.
Poland and Texas would be predicted to produce (evolve) two different types of cattle, naturally. However only one form of Cattle emerges, a reverted prototype, if you will.
What does come true from seed, in animals and plants, is basically prototypical ancestors, not "evolved" species.


The article you posted discusses hybridization, not the stabilization of that tinkering
The stabilization, "come true from seed" is a major research field as the problem with hybrid seed not coming true from seed and domesticated animals not exhibiting the selected traits in subsequent generations is a concern in Agri-Busine$$.

This Fact that is expressed by Texas A&M is so widely known it is as simple as a statement on a seed packet and as complex as Why.

A fact does not need a lengthy article or a research paper when it can be stated simply as an Absolute Fact
Or is Texas A&M not an accepted source of scientific research and citation?

And you are violating forum rules in addressing another poster rather than the arguments presented.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And you are violating forum rules in addressing another poster rather than the arguments presented.

I would like to point out that asking for citations in a discussions and debates forum is addressing the poster AND the argument presented, since you are not providing adequate facts and citations to back up your claims when asked, which is just rude in of itself.

And I have just checked the forum's guidelines, and just using the word 'you' is not violation of the forums rules.

 

[QvQ]

that 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.
Because the simple fact is stated plainly, does that mean Texas A&M and Commercial Seed Hybridizers are not reliable sources or should they print their Facts in Latin to be more credible?

And using the personal "you" especially to denigrate another posters arguments is against forum rules.
Anything that resembles "You, personally, are such and such" is flaming.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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?

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.

And also, the way you did it goes against the forum's statement of purpose, which reads:
"Remember to quote sources if applicable. When copying a portion of an article or informational piece, remember the copyright limits outlined by CF as well as the copyright stipulations of the article publisher."
Even what I did, copying and pasting the comment and providing the link to the source counts as a citation.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

A what?

Let's not become complete idiots by doing so.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A what?

A "humanzee." Y'know, a cross between a chimpanzee and a human.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

A "humanzee." Y'know, a cross between a chimpanzee and a human.

I think Hans was referring to "Plut*-ne-*m"

 

[QvQ]

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.

Google Search

See the Top Quote? Texas A&M, exact copy. quoted and cited properly.
The rest of the Pages are for your edification.
I did warn that there are thousands of years and millions of pages of research about hybrids not coming true from seed.
Enjoy!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think Hans was referring to "Plut*-ne-*m"

Lol! I think he knows what I meant. I'm not going to spell it out.