lae@pedsga.UUCP (04/30/88)
In article <2924@saturn.ucsc.edu> kevin@chromo.UUCP writes: >I can't fix cars, and I find this remark a slander against the >intelligence of people with the ability to do so. That doesn't mean you're not capable of learning how! And then again, What if the animals simply AREN'T INTERESTED in learning to do such things? >And there's no need to get melodramatic a' la Jeremy Rifkin. >Such an animal probably exists now. It's called a chimpanzee. >In fact, an even more perfect such creature could easily exist >without any fancy genetic manipulation at all. As someone above mentioned, >humans share 99% of our genetic material with chimps--we're >closer than sheep and goats, closer than horses and donkeys--and >you know what happens when you mate a horse with a donkey. >A mule is sterile, but it IS a real creature, and it's neither clearly >a horse nor clearly a donkey; it has characteristics of both. >Susan Nordmark Someone correct if I'm wrong, but I believe that humans have 46 chromosomes, vs. 48 in the chimpanzee. This may provide insurmountable problems as far as interbreeding, though some die-hards may continue to try. :-P I seem to recall from my Physical Anthropology course that speciation is defined as occuring when the parts of a population that become physically isolated from each other either: 1) Can no longer breed successfully, or 2) Produce sterile offspring. This means that the horse and donkey are separate species since the offspring (except that one in Wyoming or somewhere that someone mentioned in an earlier article) are sterile. Different breeds of dogs are, however, still the same species. The same with different races of humans, no matter what the <Put the name of your favorite White Supremist group here> says. I also read somewhere that the only known species on the planet sharing the human characteristic of having 46 chromosomes is... the privet hedge. Kind of makes sense, doesn't it? Leslie -- ******************************************************************* * Kent for President. The Stars are our Birthright! * * Join us at USEnet:news.talk.bizarre. * *******************************************************************
edwards@bgsuvax.UUCP (Bruce Edwards) (05/08/88)
In article <564@pedsga.UUCP>, lae@pedsga.UUCP writes: > In article <2924@saturn.ucsc.edu> kevin@chromo.UUCP writes: > > Someone correct if I'm wrong, but I believe that humans have > 46 chromosomes, vs. 48 in the chimpanzee. This may provide > insurmountable problems as far as interbreeding, though some > die-hards may continue to try. :-P And why aren't more people trying. It seems to me if you are consistent with an evolutionary model it might be the most compassionate thing to do for our 'little cousins'. It could help bring their whole species along to the exalted position man had to attain to by 'chance and time'. Here we are trying deparately to produce fruit flies with 4 wings and we could be givin' these poor little guys the chance to enjoy Mozart tisk, tisk. Consider the following from The Dragon's of Eden by Carl Sagan; [he recounts a visit to a large research facility] "I was powerfully reminded of those American motion pictures of the 1930' and 40's, set in some vast and dehumanizing state or federal penitentiary [I don't know why he has to go back that far KJ] in which the prisoners banged their eating utensils against the bars at the appearance of the tyrannical warden......But chimpanzees can abstract. Like other animals they are capable of strong emotions....Why, exactly, all over the civilized world, in virtually every major city, are apes in prison? For we all know, occasional viable crosses between humans and chimpanzees are possible. The natural experiment must have been tried very infrequently, at least recently. If such offspring are ever produced, what will their legal status be?" The Dragons of Eden, by Carl Sagan Ballantine Books : New York 1977 p127,128 The Scripture prohibits beastiality [Lev. 20:15,16, also 18:23, Exo. 22:19, Deu. 27:21]. Let me suggest however that the prohibition is not related to the sexual aspect primarily, nor are the prohibitions against incest. Most people find beastiality repulsive because of health reasons (although it seems to me that could be remedied) or because they have been 'in- doctrinated' with these Judeo-Christians prohibitions (in which case if you disgard these as 'unsophisticated' or whatever, the second barrier is effectively removed and they way is open to do some real evolutionary 'good' for our backward relatives). Now you might say this is ridiculous no one's going to go out and 'get it on with chimps' we could just do some gene tinkering, testtube fertilization, and DNA 'monkey business' (forgive me ;-). To that I say don't forget Carl's concern about the chimp's emotional needs. At what point, saying the gene tinkering works, would the chimps be sufficiently 'human' to allow for meaningful sex (assuming you accept the concept). The reason I believe Biblical prohibition against beastiality is related not to sex primarily but to the crime of violating God's design ('kind-ness' from GEN. 1). In other words had the techniques been available in O.T. times to do genetic 'monkey business' I think there would have been mention of it in Biblical law as well. Would it have prohibited the hybridization of corn too? This is a good question? My opinion is ,no (although you may wish to challenge me on my consistency at this point). The 'violation of divine design' is also an important aspect of the prohibition against homosexuality and the anti-Gay stance of Christians. You may say, "some Christians think homosexuality is acceptable." My response would be 'some Jews don't believe in God', my challenge is 'support the position'. > I also read somewhere that the only known species on the planet > sharing the human characteristic of having 46 chromosomes is... > the privet hedge. Kind of makes sense, doesn't it? Above applies to privet hedges too. ;-) > Leslie Save the whales, Free the chimps! Disclaimer: I am participating as a guest of Bruce Edwards. My name is Ken Jenkins. Bruce is generally amused with my ramblings but does not necessarily agree with them. 'These are only the shadowlands.' C.S. Lewis ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Jenkins as guest of edwards@bgsu CSNET: edwards@bgsu ARPANET: edwards%bgsu@csnet-relay UUCP: cbosgd!osu-cis!bgsuvax!edwards
rsd@sei.cmu.edu (Richard S D'Ippolito) (05/09/88)
In article <2087@bgsuvax.UUCP> Ken Jenkins writes: >Consider the following from The Dragon's of Eden by Carl Sagan; > > For we all know, occasional viable crosses between humans and >chimpanzees are possible. The natural experiment must have been >tried very infrequently, at least recently. If such offspring >are ever produced, what will their legal status be?" Hell, that's too easy: Same as Astronomers and SF writers! Rich
akkana@brain.ucsd.edu (Akkana) (05/12/88)
In article <564@pedsga.UUCP> lae@pedsga.UUCP (Leslie Ann Ellis) writes: >I seem to recall from my Physical Anthropology course that speciation >is defined as occuring when the parts of a population that become >physically isolated from each other either: >1) Can no longer breed successfully, >or >2) Produce sterile offspring. I've heard that, but it doesn't seem consistent with current taxonomy. What about dogs (Canis familiaris) and wolves (C. lupus) and coyotes (C. latrans or something like that)? Dogs interbreed with both wolves and coyotes, and I've met several canines whose owners claimed them to be 3/4 wolf, or 3/8 wolf, or whatever, which suggests that the offspring of a dog/wolf cross is fertile. Are dogs and wolves now considered to be the same species? (I was thinking that there were several other examples of this, but I can't seem to think of any. And I've never heard of a wolf-coyote cross, though that may also happen. Maybe C. familiaris is just a special case?) .. ...Akkana LaboratoryForBiologicalDynamicsAndTheoreticalMedicine, UCSD akkana%brain@ucsd.edu sun!brain.ucsd.edu!akkana "I think I'll take a walk. Hmm, wonder where this wire goes?"
lae@pedsga.UUCP (05/13/88)
In article <2087@bgsuvax.UUCP> edwards@bgsuvax.UUCP writes: >Most people find beastiality repulsive because of health reasons Hmmm, I would expect to have a better chance of catching diseases suited to my chemistry from members of my own species. > or because they have been 'in- >doctrinated' with these Judeo-Christians prohibitions This is the most likely reason. The bible is full of warnings against committing abominations with our less evolved cousins. >Now you might say this is ridiculous no one's going to go out and 'get >it on with chimps' I wouldn't make such a sweeping generalization; I can only speak for myself. > To that I >say don't forget Carl's concern about the chimp's emotional needs. Bravo, Bravo! Spoken as a true animal lover! >At what point, saying the gene tinkering works, would the chimps be >sufficiently 'human' to allow for meaningful sex (assuming you accept >the concept). The prime requisite for meaningful sex is to have similar mating rituals, meaning that the individuals involved are capable of recognizing that the other is, indeed, attracted to them. >Save the whales, Free the chimps! > > Ken Jenkins as guest of edwards@bgsu Leslie -- ******************************************************************* * Kent for President. The Stars are our Birthright! * * Join us at USEnet:news.talk.bizarre. * *******************************************************************
amlovell@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Anthony M Lovell) (05/16/88)
In article <580@pedsga.UUCP>, lae@pedsga.UUCP writes: > The bible is full of warnings against > committing abominations with our less evolved cousins. Did it really use the expression "less evolved?" -- amlovell@phoenix.princeton.edu ...since 1963. disclaimer: These are MY opinions. You only WISH they were yours.