vac@cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) (06/15/91)
Michael T. Peterson: >There are a host of reasons why Humans and Chimps are >unable to cross-breed. [...] A host of reasons why Humans and Chimps *might not* be able to cross-breed. Unless you have put and egg and sperm together (if so please tell) I don't think you can say they are "unable". >By the way, one of the operational tests of speciation is >whether breeding can be successfully accomplished. Said another >way, if A can breed with B, then A and B belong to the same >species. If A can not, the A and B are of a different >species. No. If A and B can not cross, then they are not of the same species. However, if they can cross it does not mean that they are the same species. Look at dogs and wolves, or donkeys and horses. So just having two different species (names and all!!) does not mean that they can not cross. We name different species because the gene pools have been separated for some time (i.e. they have not been crossing (much) and have significant differences). Does anyone know where I could get a list of which common species can cross with other species? Also, is there anywhere that I can get a nice table of DNA correlations between these different species? Thanks for any info, -- Vince
larsenp@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Paul Larsen) (06/15/91)
In article <1991Jun14.195209.12987@cs.cmu.edu> vac@cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) writes: > >No. If A and B can not cross, then they are not of the same species. >However, if they can cross it does not mean that they are the same >species. Look at dogs and wolves, or donkeys and horses. So just >having two different species (names and all!!) does not mean >that they can not cross. We name different species because the >gene pools have been separated for some time (i.e. they have not >been crossing (much) and have significant differences). > Your understanding of speciation is faulty. A species is defined as a group of organisms which are able to VIABLY reproduce amongst themselves. Therefore, we have different species because the gene pools have diverged to the point where interspecific crosses do NOT produce viable offspring. If 2 separate types of organisms can produce viable offspring then I think that they are classified as subspecies Paul larsenp@mace.cc.purdue.edu
minsky@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) (06/15/91)
I'm amazed at the helpless sentiments of this discussion. Yes, it might be hard to make a chimp-human hybrid. But we can't know until it is tried. If it doesn't work the first time, perhaps there is a 1 in a 100 chance. Don't be discouraged. If "natural" hybridization fails, it could be because of those chromosomal differences -- e.g., the breakup of chromosome 3. Additionally, there may be some nearly homologous segments that have been badly transposed, and that could interfere with pairing. However, if our biologists are serious, then a well-funded modern research project could map these differences, and then artificial transpose such mismatched segments. This would reduce many problems and the resulting genome might well be viable. If some critical gemes get lost in these operations, we can further attempt to re-add them in with their nearby contexts. If that doesn't work, then more research. Is it worth it? Of course. It might be our best chance to ever meet intelligent aliens -- or semi-aliens, at least. These new creatures might have wonderful mental abilities in areas that we simply can't anticipate. So the project should be given a substantial and long-term research budget. Is it ethical? Bosh. Our society already tolerates -- and our powerful "right-to-disease-and-deformity" lobbies positively encourage -- the production of Millions of predictably retarded, handicapped, and marginally viable individuals. Furthermore, there is rather little chance that our hybrids themselves will be fertile, without further active intervention, so the social problems will be inherently limited. What problems? What fun! The problems include whether they'll be admitted to Blue Cross, Social Security, etc. Most important, of course: will they be permitted to take Bar exams. (Why is that important? Obviously, because if they pass those exams, that will be the end of the rest of us.) Yours, seriously.
niccum@cs.umn.edu (Thomas M. Niccum) (06/16/91)
In <1991Jun15.165619.9046@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes: [... much that is interesting deleted...] >What problems? What fun! The problems include whether they'll be >admitted to Blue Cross, Social Security, etc. Most important, of >course: will they be permitted to take Bar exams. (Why is that >important? Obviously, because if they pass those exams, that will be >the end of the rest of us.) Forget about the bar, Blue Cross, Social Security, etc. What about the BIG ONE - Heaven? Suppose the cross were successful, could the creature be "saved"? >Yours, seriously. Yours not so seriously... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas M. Niccum "The word 'logic' is sometimes used to refer niccum@cs.umn.edu to remedial thinking, but not by us." EE/CSci 6-196 - _A Mathematical Introduction to Logic_,
DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) (06/17/91)
In article <1991Jun15.165619.9046@news.media.mit.edu>, minsky@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) says: [...stuff deleted...] > Is it ethical? Bosh. Our society already tolerates -- and our > powerful "right-to-disease-and-deformity" lobbies positively encourage > -- the production of Millions of predictably retarded, handicapped, > and marginally viable individuals. That is an unusual argument: The fact that society tolerates some unethical behavior makes it nonsense to discuss the ethics of other behavior. Did you really intend to say this?
minsky@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) (06/17/91)
In article <91167.132142DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes: >In article <1991Jun15.165619.9046@news.media.mit.edu>, >minsky@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) says: > > [...stuff deleted...] > >> Is it ethical? Bosh. Our society already tolerates -- and our >> powerful "right-to-disease-and-deformity" lobbies positively encourage >> -- the production of Millions of predictably retarded, handicapped, >> and marginally viable individuals. > >That is an unusual argument: The fact that society tolerates some >unethical behavior makes it nonsense to discuss the ethics of other >behavior. Did you really intend to say this? I think so. In the sense that the most popular, ideological notions of ethic seem to depend on trying to ignore the tradeoffs always involved in choices. Generally, I find most ethical discussions disturbing in how they usually focus on short-term -- e.g., human-life-span -- time scales. Here we're discussing whether to suppress the possibility of a great new species because the experiment might produce some "wrongful birth" individuals.
bredy@alkp.serum.kodak.com (Dan Bredy (x37360)) (06/18/91)
I have a question about chimpanzees. I understand that they are an endangered species. Does anyone know why? Also does chimpanzee == ape? How large do full-grown chimpanzees get (weight and height please)? Also, since they are endangered are they used in animal research? Dan
JOANN@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jo Ann Malina) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun17.170043.4902@ssd.kodak.com>, bredy@alkp.serum.kodak.com (Dan Bredy (x37360)) says: > >I have a question about chimpanzees. I understand that they are an endangered >species. Does anyone know why? Poaching, capturing for research, and expanding human populations destroying their habitat. >Also does chimpanzee == ape? Apes are primates of family pongidae: gibbons, simiangs, orangutans, gorillas and chimpanzees. >How large do full-grown chimpanzees get (weight and height please)? I think an adult male chimp can approach 5 feet tall standing upright and weights of 100 pounds. The ones you see roller skating on television or following Tarzan around are babies and juveniles. >Also, since they are endangered are they used in animal research? Yup. AIDS testing for one. If you are curious about chimps, check out Jane Goodall's books. The older one is "In the Shadow of Man," came out about 20 years ago but is still interesting. She has published another one in the last year or two called (I think) something like "Through a Window." *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* Jo Ann Malina, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Neither Stanford nor the DOE would be caught dead with these opinions. Nor do I want to be flamed for theirs.