Log in

View Full Version : Is a Humanzee possible?



Pyotr Tchaikovsky
17th December 2009, 16:37
I read one of Dawkins' essay sometime back, and he says humans and chimps are closely related and a hybrid might well be possible. Can someone explain all this in layman's terms? Is it true that a Soviet scientist attempted this in the 20s?

Revy
17th December 2009, 17:10
I think the question is not if it can be done, but why it would be done.

scarletghoul
17th December 2009, 17:16
Is it true that a Soviet scientist attempted this in the 20s?
That's an interesting rumour. I've never heard it before but it sounds a lot like bullshit propaganda, to highlight the immorral nature of those crazy russians and their godless ideology

Revy
17th December 2009, 17:43
That's an interesting rumour. I've never heard it before but it sounds a lot like bullshit propaganda, to highlight the immorral nature of those crazy russians and their godless ideology

There's also a theory that it was done in Orange Park, Florida and the hybrid was killed soon after. I watched a documentary on the subject centering around the fake humanzee Oliver. It's listed (along with the Soviet claims) in this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee).

Dimentio
17th December 2009, 19:52
There have been some experiments on-going. Was a Russian scientist during the tsarist era who tried to inseminate women with ape sperms. He continued with those experiments during the 1920's, until decision-makers saw what was going on and terminated his funding.

The same happened with the Soviet scientist in the 1960's who transplanted the head of a small dog to the body of a large dog. He was apparently forced to quit from the institution and was then given a new job as a janitor. In the USA during the same time, an American professor succeeded in transplanting the brain from an ape to another ape.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor
17th December 2009, 20:16
I don't know about a live-birth being possible. However, it's probably theoretically possible with scientific advancement. The identities "human" and "chimpanzee" are on a continuum. If you alter humans enough, someone might eventually say you've created a Humanzee.

On a side note, this concept is probably very supported by furries.

Dimentio
17th December 2009, 20:19
I wouldn't really look forward to creating a "humanzee". What would be the point? What would be the result except for a child who most likely would be very lonely?

Dr Mindbender
18th December 2009, 00:07
Must.Resist.To.Make.George.Bush.Joke.

Coggeh
18th December 2009, 00:21
Absolutely not. The whole definition of a species is a an organism that can only reproduce with each other. Humans cannot produce a hybrid with any member of the ape family. I don't know why Dawkins suggested such a thing: maybe as a gimmick to show how closely related we are to the ape? but its simply untrue as far as i can see.

Luisrah
18th December 2009, 21:16
The whole definition of a species is a an organism that can only reproduce with each other.

Actually it's two organisms that can reproduce and create a fertile organism.

A horse and a donkey can mate, and a a viable mule is born. And horses and donkeys aren't of the same species. The thing is that the mule isn't fertile.

Coggeh
19th December 2009, 03:23
Actually it's two organisms that can reproduce and create a fertile organism.

A horse and a donkey can mate, and a a viable mule is born. And horses and donkeys aren't of the same species. The thing is that the mule isn't fertile.
Really ? Interesting.Fair point.

New Tet
19th December 2009, 03:39
I read one of Dawkins' essay sometime back, and he says humans and chimps are closely related and a hybrid might well be possible. Can someone explain all this in layman's terms? Is it true that a Soviet scientist attempted this in the 20s?

Aside from it being a monstrous crime against nature, it would be an ethical disaster and an unnecessary distraction from the class struggle. Keep it in the supermarket tabloids, where it belongs.

Monkey men jumping from treetops don't frighten me as much as soulless capitalists running around, doing whatever harm delights their putrid senses and getting away with it.

New Tet
19th December 2009, 03:57
There have been some experiments on-going. Was a Russian scientist during the tsarist era who tried to inseminate women with ape sperms. He continued with those experiments during the 1920's, until decision-makers saw what was going on and terminated his funding.

The same happened with the Soviet scientist in the 1960's who transplanted the head of a small dog to the body of a large dog. He was apparently forced to quit from the institution and was then given a new job as a janitor. In the USA during the same time, an American professor succeeded in transplanting the brain from an ape to another ape.

More urban myth, I'm afraid.

Microsurgery had not be perfected enough in the 1960's to enable even the best neurosurgeon to connect synaptic nerve tissue. Even now, such a medical accomplishment is barely out of the experimental stage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsurgery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurosurgery

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCoauwI5vkQ

Lord Testicles
19th December 2009, 04:34
More urban myth, I'm afraid.

Microsurgery had not be perfected enough in the 1960's to enable even the best neurosurgeon to connect synaptic nerve tissue. Even now, such a medical accomplishment is barely out of the experimental stage.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,891156,00.html

Axle
19th December 2009, 06:46
I read one of Dawkins' essay sometime back, and he says humans and chimps are closely related and a hybrid might well be possible. Can someone explain all this in layman's terms? Is it true that a Soviet scientist attempted this in the 20s?

I don't see how a human/chimpanzee hybrid would have any real scientific value at all. Mating two species isn't a new concept...mules have been around for centuries.

And that's ignoring the fact that creating a Humanzee is a sick damn idea. Anyone who seriously suggests that we try for one has the ethics of a rock.

Devrim
19th December 2009, 08:14
The whole definition of a species is a an organism that can only reproduce with each other.Actually it's two organisms that can reproduce and create a fertile organism.

A species is usually defined by Mayr's definition as "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups".

This is relevant to this example as Lions and Tigers, which we correctly refer to as different species, have fertile offspring. However, they don't interbreed in the wild, not least because they live in different places, but nor do they meet the criterion of 'potentially interbreeding' not least because a 'Liger' has to be born by cesarian section as it is bigger than both its parents and couldn't get through the birth canal.

Devrim

Dimentio
19th December 2009, 10:58
More urban myth, I'm afraid.

Microsurgery had not be perfected enough in the 1960's to enable even the best neurosurgeon to connect synaptic nerve tissue. Even now, such a medical accomplishment is barely out of the experimental stage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsurgery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurosurgery

TCoauwI5vkQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJC5-G7KnKY

RED DAVE
20th December 2009, 15:41
More urban myth, I'm afraid.

Microsurgery had not be perfected enough in the 1960's to enable even the best neurosurgeon to connect synaptic nerve tissue. Even now, such a medical accomplishment is barely out of the experimental stage.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,891156,00.htmlYeah. I remember pictures of the two-headed dog in Life Magazine, when I was a kid. It was morbidly fascinating.

RED DAVE