werner@aecom.UUCP (05/27/87)
I knew I should have stopped at saying that the posting looked
like it came right out of the National Enquirer. After all, the whole idea
of breeding slaves went out of style over a hundred years ago. However,
I added a possible biological objection, knowing full well about Donkeys
and Mules, Chick-Quail Hybrids, etc., but said it anyway. Well, I'm
happy to have provided catharsis to anyone who ever wanted to catch me
in a slip, not so much of fact, but of judgement. Now, then, don't you
all feel better?
Continue with the philosophical implications of this, including
the question: "Who would bear the hybrid child?" It probably would
have to be human, given the cranial constraints. Would you volunteer?
Or then again, maybe just drop it
--
Craig Werner (MD/PhD '91)
!philabs!aecom!werner
(1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517)
"I never knew there was anything wrong with me till I met Dr. Hackenbush."pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) (05/28/87)
(Craig Werner) writes: > > I knew I should have stopped at saying that the posting looked >like it came right out of the National Enquirer. After all, the whole idea >of breeding slaves went out of style over a hundred years ago. However, >I added a possible biological objection, knowing full well about Donkeys >and Mules, Chick-Quail Hybrids, etc., but said it anyway. >-- > Craig Werner (MD/PhD '91) I almost forgot (okay, I did forget--temporarily) to say that the chick-quail thing you mention (under the heading of "impress everyone with the examples I know") is a chimera, made by manipulating embyos. It is not a hybrid at all. Each cell has only chick or only quail DNA. Therefore it is an irrelevent example from the standpoint of pairing chromosomes (and hence, to the question of aneuploidy). You see Craig, it is not so much catching you in a mistake that is hard so much as it is to choose from among the mistakes and absurdities (or to remember them) in writing a response. A.J.P.(I've forgotten what degrees I've earned--and never count the ones I plan to earn) P.S. Craig tells us in soc.women that the reason he signs "MD/PhD '91" is that people are always interested in hearing when he graduates. I think I can speak for the rest of the group when I say the burning interest we all surely felt has been quelled. Since, as you say, that was your only reason for including it, you can now feel comfortable omitting it.
johnmill@mmintl.UUCP (06/10/87)
In article <1089@aecom.YU.EDU> werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) writes: >the question: "Who would bear the hybrid child?" It probably would >have to be human, given the cranial constraints. Would you volunteer? Nah. In this country, just do a C-section. :-) After all, wouldn't this be an example of a mixed-race marriage? Sort of? >Or then again, maybe just drop it Preferably on its head. I recently read that man and gorilla ought to be able to cross naturally, without the aid of artificial insemination. One wonders, however, what self- respecting gorilla would mate with a human. I myself wouldn't care to be involved in an attempted rape! As an aside, humans have a larger penis than any ape, including the gorilla. I wonder what this says about human evolution? --johnmill