Interbreeding with Animals

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by lixluke, Feb 1, 2007.

  1. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    What's with the ears? And are his legs crossed like a country clubber?

    If he had on a jacket, he could have his "hand" in there like Napolean.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    It's oliver. People thought he was a hybrid. But it turned out he wasn't.

    There was a Russian guy attempting to make a hybrid in the early 1900s. No success.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Did they ever say what Oliver's medical condition may have been?
     
  8. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,414
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2007
  9. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,414
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee

    weird link annyway this paragraphe sounded intersting enough
     
  10. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    Homo sapiens are not able to interbreed successfully with any other primates because they have diverged so far away from other species that their chromosome can no longer match up. this is not a "bold" call.

    In the wiki article cited above, do not confuse the term "proto-humans" with humans. The prefix "proto" simply means that they are referring to the ancestral species: not today's Homo sapien. Sure, back then, at some point in time, the ancestral species of Homo sapiens could interbreed with the ancestral chimpanzee species because back then the ancestral species were one and the same. They were a different ancestral species than today's human and chimp. The rate of divergence has progressed over too long of a time period for interbreeding to produce any hybrid. This is common in most species, but not all, as has been pointed out above.
     
  11. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Is that your story and you're stickin' to it?
     
  12. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    Could you explain the haploid-diploid mechanisms involved here please?

    So is there a difference between pre-humans and proto-humans in this context?

    Are these assertions reflected in the human and pre-human phylogeny and genome?
     
  13. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Wow zenbab, you sound like a school marm.
     
  14. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    No...I sound like a scientist...this is after all a forum on Biology and Genetics.

    It may appear school marmy to you but I am more than happy to accept such ridicule from the likes of you in order that science become transparent.

    Going off the OP again IAC?
     
  15. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,414
    wait the point was that those 2 species could interbreed

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Okay neather of them is human but their still somewhat closer to humans then cats. Like previously mentioned.
     
  16. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    Mammal chromosomes are all diploid except for the X - Y sex cells, which are haploid. Plants evolved a different method of reproduction whereby the diploid generation first forms sporophytes. The sporophytes generate the haploid generation (spores) via meiosis. The spores undergo mitosis prior to the occurrence of fertilization, which is different than in humans. The origin of the haploid sex cells is a completely different subject and arose from a mutation in unicellular gametes over 2 billion years ago.

    C:\Documents and Settings\Kodi\My Documents\Plant Reproduction - Alt of Gen, Gymnosperms, Angiosperms.pdf

    Origin of sex/haploid gametes - isogamy to oogamy:

    Composite (left) and reconstructed (right) skeletons of D. szalayi, the oldest known ancestor of primates:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    They made the rare discovery of the nearly complete skeletons of two plesiadapiform species (above), now named Ignacius clarkforkensis and Dryomomys szalayi, embedded in limestone outside Yellowstone National Park. "The branches of that tree which includes humans, chimps, gorillas, baboons, and lemurs, can all be traced back 55 million years ago, when the first undisputed primates appear in the fossil record....Primates must have acquired their traits gradually, because plesiadapiforms have some, but not all, of the characteristics of primates"
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17010079/


    Archaeologists in Italy have discovered a couple buried in eternal embrace: still hugging 5,000 years ago:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17011786/
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2007
  17. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    That makes soo much sense.
     
  18. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    Well, it's unsupported at least.
    You could certainly be right, but how can you be sure?

    Google says that Chimps and Humans split maybe 7 million years ago... but horses and donkeys split maybe 3 million years ago (I had thought it would be longer than that). This is suggestive, but is it definitive?

    I know nothing about genetic biology, so as far as I know there could be some definitive evidence of incompatibility in the human and chimp genomes (is there?)... but otherwise, I'd have thought that in-vitro attempts at making a hybrid zygote would be the only definitive test.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2007
  19. GiZzY Registered Member

    Messages:
    4
    would it be possible to edit the number of chromosomes in one animal to match another then breed them to form a new species?
     
  20. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    Hi Gizzy - Would it be (scientifically) ethical to do this? If it could be argued that it was: How do you propose to edit the chromosomes?
     
  21. GiZzY Registered Member

    Messages:
    4
    Well I'm no scientist. I'm just pondering the idea.
    Is it possible at all? Is what I mean. Can it be done?
     
  22. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
  23. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    No, it is not "unsupported." It is a widely accepted fact within the advanced academic biological community. I just know this from studying so much biology, and you pick up a lot from other people that you won't find in textbooks. And if you've read enough about the history of man - and what I mean by the history of man is not the biological record, but man since the dawn of written history - then you'd know that men have already copulated with just about all, if not all, every known species that they have been able to put there ... into. Even in the Bible it says that the closest thing to a female human vagina is a lamb or a female sheep (ewes) and there are many accounts in the Bible where men did this. There are also many accounts of guys having sex with dead animals (narcissism or just sick?). We had a seminar last year where the visiting prof told us that one of her colleagues got bored at night in the lab and decided to look at his own sperm under the microscope (hmmm. Wonder how he got it there? In the lab?). The reason she brought it up was purely for scientific reasons because she was pointing out the high percentage of mutant sperm he found with three flagella. But from studying genetics and paleontology so much, you can easily calculate these divergent rates. The chromosomes can no longer match up with any other species'.

    FYI: The reason I posted the fossil comparison above was not to support any argument, but to share new discoveries with you guys. I should have stated this in the post. The discovery of the plesiadapiform primate species Dryomomys szalayi is ground-breaking news. This is an entirely new fossil that now pushes the entire primate lineage back 10 million years to 55 mya. This news just came out yesterday. It's exciting!
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2007

Share This Page