atd@allegra.UUCP (Anton Dahbura) (05/19/87)
ITALIAN SCIENTISTS CONFIRM APEMAN CAN BE CREATED
by Uli Schmetzer (Chicago Tribune, May 14, 1987)
ROME- The image of the mad scientist with the white
beard concocting an apeman in his laboratory is no longer a
science fiction fable but a 1987 possibility.
An Italian anthropologist said this week that
biogenetic scientists, using refined techniques of artifi-
cial fertilization, are capable of creating a new breed of
slave, an anthropoid with a chimpanzee mother and a human
father.
Brunetto Chiarelli, dean of anthropology at Florence
University, said the experiments on the new subhuman species
had been interrupted at the embryo stage because of "ethical
problems".
The professor said the experiments had been kept a
secret. He did not know the name of the laboratories but
thought that in the United States and other countries the
cross-breeding of a female chimpanzee, fertilized with human
male sperm, had resulted in the formation of an anthropoid
embryo.
"Scientific information is numerous but reserved.
Maybe at the end of the year we will have an idea of what
has been achieved," he said.
Chiarelli suggested that the new species could be used
"for labor chores that are repetitive and disagreeable... or
as a reservoir for transplant organs."
The professor also said that at Florence University,
researchers had successfully crossed two species of ape,
gibbon and siamang. "These two species are genetically more
diverse than man and ape," Chiarelli added.
The idea of an army of apeman slaves cleaning streets,
placing nuts and bolts on assembly line products, or waiting
in cages to have their vital organs cut out came as a shock
to clergy and scientists.
Though Italian scientists agreed that it was techni-
cally possible, they doubted that any such experiments had
been carried to their natural conclusion: the birth of an
apeman baby.
Church leaders recalled that the Vatican only a few
weeks ago had condemned genetic experimentation.
"The idea is bestial and repugnant," commented Rita
Levi Montalcini, winner of the 1986 Nobel Prize for Physics.
"Any such initiative must be blocked at once," said
Prof. Arturo Falaschi, director of the Genetic Institute at
Pavia University.
But other Italian scientists agreed that with modern
techniques, the idea is feasible. They also pointed out
that the first apeman experiments were carried out in Paris
in the mid 1930s with what one professor called "the most
crude methods".
"As far as I know, nothing has been published on the
subject, although one cannot exclude that some experiments
have not been made public," said Alberto Piazza, director of
the Institute of Genetics at Turin University.
"I ask myself, however, what would be the scope of such
experiments? To create an army of slaves?"
What worried many genetic researchers was that any
adverse publicity could slow experiments on the cure of
hereditary illnesses and genetic defects with new selective
fertilization methods.terryl@tekcrl.UUCP (05/21/87)
In article <6693@allegra.UUCP> atd@allegra.UUCP (Anton Dahbura) writes: > > ITALIAN SCIENTISTS CONFIRM APEMAN CAN BE CREATED > > by Uli Schmetzer (Chicago Tribune, May 14, 1987) > > > ROME- The image of the mad scientist with the white >beard concocting an apeman in his laboratory is no longer a >science fiction fable but a 1987 possibility. > > An Italian anthropologist said this week that >biogenetic scientists, using refined techniques of artifi- >cial fertilization, are capable of creating a new breed of >slave, an anthropoid with a chimpanzee mother and a human >father. > > Brunetto Chiarelli, dean of anthropology at Florence >University, said the experiments on the new subhuman species >had been interrupted at the embryo stage because of "ethical >problems". Boy, major deja vu here. It just so happens that some expert on chimps, apes and monkeys was on Johnny Carson's show last night. She had been doing research in Borneo for the last 15-20 years, and one of the things she said was that "Chimpanzees are the closest genetic cousins to humans on this planet, with humans and the chimps sharing about 99% of the same genetic material". She also went on to state that because of the close genetic matching, "If the blood tissues and types match, a human can get a blood transfusion from a chimpanzee, and there are quite a few humans out there with chimpanzee blood running through their bodies". So I think, "It sure sounds like just a matter of time before it would be possible for crossbreeding, and wondering why it hasn't happened before now." (Don't ask me, I'm just a software type, and that sure sounds like a hardware problem to me!!! (-:). Boy do I hate inews!! It sure is fascist!!
prs@oliveb.UUCP (Philip Stephens) (05/21/87)
In article <6693@allegra.UUCP> atd@allegra.UUCP (Anton Dahbura) writes:
->
-> ITALIAN SCIENTISTS CONFIRM APEMAN CAN BE CREATED
->
-> by Uli Schmetzer (Chicago Tribune, May 14, 1987)
[etc... other inclusions below may not be in original order, but unmodified]
-> Church leaders recalled that the Vatican only a few
->weeks ago had condemned genetic experimentation.
Could this be the reason for the timing of the announcement? And the
location? Not that I smell a rat or anything.... 8-)
Especially with the predictable reactions:
-> "I ask myself, however, what would be the scope of such
->experiments? To create an army of slaves?"
-> The idea of an army of apeman slaves cleaning streets,
->placing nuts and bolts on assembly line products, or waiting
->in cages to have their vital organs cut out came as a shock
->to clergy and scientists.
Expressed that way, I admit I find it repugnant. I don't have any
moral absolutes on this issue, but I think we'd (the world, not the
net) better hash out some compromise guidelines, since *some form*
of this is likely to become possible, whether it has been done already
as asserted or not.
As several (many?) SF books and stories have suggested, this might
be an attractive option, (in the sense that it appears to offer
"natural slaves" w/o any humans being the slaves); most such tales
that I remember tend to be cautionary tales. And rightly so.
But I am more afraid of over-reaction than of enthusiastic implementation.
If I thought the latter were likely, I would argue -possibly even "rail"-
against it. But the more likely result is enthusiastic legislation
against "tampering with God's plan" etc. How likely I don't know, but
more likely to actually pass the legislatures of various countries.
-> "The idea is bestial and repugnant," commented Rita
->Levi Montalcini, winner of the 1986 Nobel Prize for Physics.
->
-> "Any such initiative must be blocked at once," said
->Prof. Arturo Falaschi, director of the Genetic Institute at
->Pavia University.
-> "I ask myself, however, what would be the scope of such
->experiments? To create an army of slaves?"
-> What worried many genetic researchers was that any
->adverse publicity could slow experiments on the cure of
->hereditary illnesses and genetic defects with new selective
->fertilization methods.
I agree with these researchers. I'm not sure what restrictions
should be put on them -probably *some* kind of guidelines, anyway-
but surely we must not allow a stapede of excessive restrictions to
stop research that, in addition to what is mentioned here, may even
lead to methods for replacing defective genes *in living bodies*
(if this ever happens, it will be more revolutionary than pennicillin,
although possibly not as radical as the "gene parlors" of science
fiction).
Well, I've said more than enough. I open the floor to further debate
(no, I didn't mean the trap door, Igor! Help our guests back into
the room, and apologize nicely. And after you do that, get back in
your cage. Honestly, you just can't grow good help anymore!)
- Phil prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens)
or: (hplabs,ihnp4,sun,allegra)oliveb!oliven!prs
Mail welcome, but I usually can only E-mail *easily* via readnews, rn, vn etc.
so don't always expect a reply.ir489@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU (ir489) (05/21/87)
In article <6693@allegra.UUCP>, atd@allegra.UUCP (Anton Dahbura) writes: > Chiarelli suggested that the new species could be used > "for labor chores that are repetitive and disagreeable... or > as a reservoir for transplant organs." > The idea of an army of apeman slaves cleaning streets, > placing nuts and bolts on assembly line products, or waiting > in cages to have their vital organs cut out came as a shock > to clergy and scientists. Not to mention me!, a member of the general public. > "I ask myself, however, what would be the scope of such > experiments? To create an army of slaves?" And lets take a look at the "creature" that it would be. Half human, half chimp? What are the possibilities for it having a chimp body and a human brain? A chimp brain and a human body? A chimp set of instincts and a human set of intellectual capacities? Or vice versa? A soul? Considering the possibility for it having introspective intellectual capacities is it ethical to use half-humans as slaves? Is it ethical to use half-humans to be bred to be slaughtered for organs? Is it really worse to be doing this to half or whole-animals? Is it ethical to consider half-humans having offspring, say, that may be whole human! This and the nuclear threat are the definitive statements of science getting too far for a civilization as it is now, or possibly ever will be, considering human fallibility and potential for aggression, violence, being overwhelmed by fear, and accidents. Who are we?, what gives us these abilities to create lifeforms? What does this say about God's determination of life on this planet and elsewhere? What does this say about the existence of God? What lessons does this teach us? If we are so abhorred by the thought of half-humans being created and mistreated (slavery and slaughter) why do we allow animals to be treated the same way? What percentage must a creature be human for it to be considered unethical for it to be controlled by humans? 50%? 10%? 1%? .000001%? Or maybe we're saying that slavery and control are considered as real alternatives just as long as "it ain't me"? What a great opportunity for us to examine ourselves, our motives, our scientific techniques and purposes. What a time to be human! But I wouldn't want to be half-human under these circumstances! carol
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (05/22/87)
Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.41.4 of Mon Mar 23 1987 on bu-cs (berkeley-unix) How come, upon discovering this chimp/human possibility we assume the only purpose is to enslave the result? Gee, maybe we could get rid of those cannabilistic impulses and EAT them! And RAPE them, what the heck, they're not human, right? Gee, give them away as door prizes to our South American dictator friends so they can use them for working out their urges to put electrodes to someone's gonads! Or just set up amusement parks where it would be legal to MURDER them! What FUN! There's just no possibility that this resultant being would be interesting? Maybe it will be our superior and enslave us? How can you be sure? I've certainly never noticed higher cranial functions particularly selected for in our human society, except perhaps some very small and short-lived sub-societies (if that's what you think this beast would be lacking, based on the "(stupid+smart)/2 => SomwhatStupidEnslavable" theory of genetics (?!)) I begin to believe that normal reproduction of humans is what's "bestial and repugnant" if that's the best our researchers and religions can come up with as possibilities for this new species (religions on the assumption that they can only agree with the negative aspects and therefore condemn the research.) -Barry Shein, Boston University
prs@oliveb.UUCP (Philip Stephens) (05/22/87)
Oh, drat. I posted a nice followup, then I decided to cancel it and change the followup-to line. But my backup had been clobbered (and I did it) I don't suppose anyone happened to save a copy before I cancelled it? [It's recognizable by refering to souls, god, etc; my previous followup to the original posting didn't] If anyone miraculously happens to have a copy, please E-mail it to me so I can modify and repost. I haven't the motivation to type it all in again right now. Not my day. Mutter mutter, growl, mutter - Phil prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) or: (hplabs,ihnp4,sun,allegra)oliveb!oliven!prs Mail welcome, but I usually can only E-mail *easily* via readnews, rn, vn etc. so don't always expect a reply.
werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) (05/22/87)
In article <1664@tekcrl.TEK.COM>, terryl@tekcrl.TEK.COM writes: > In article <6693@allegra.UUCP> atd@allegra.UUCP (Anton Dahbura) writes: > > > > ITALIAN SCIENTISTS CONFIRM APEMAN CAN BE CREATED > > > > by Uli Schmetzer (Chicago Tribune, May 14, 1987) This ignores the fact that Apes have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46, and sounds more like somebody's idea of a hoax, or a typical article from the National Enquirer. -- Craig Werner (MD/PhD '91) !philabs!aecom!werner (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) "It's hard to argue with someone who knows what he's talking about."
nobody@scubed.UUCP (05/22/87)
In article <6693@allegra.UUCP> atd@allegra.UUCP (Anton Dahbura) writes: > > ITALIAN SCIENTISTS CONFIRM APEMAN CAN BE CREATED > There has been one experiment taken to its conclusion. The result was Danny DiVito.
prs@oliveb.UUCP (05/22/87)
In article <3145@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU> ir489@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU (ir489) writes: >> to clergy and scientists. > >Not to mention me!, a member of the general public. > Just a note to sci.research,sci.med,talk.rumors that I will be posting my followup (lost the first one, oops) to misc.headlines only. I think 4 newsgroups is too many, after the initial article or two. If this goes on, maybe move it to sci.philosophy.misc or whatever that group is called. We now return you to your regularly scheduled distractions.
novo@ihlpa.UUCP (05/22/87)
In article <1664@tekcrl.TEK.COM>, terryl@tekcrl.TEK.COM writes: > In article <6693@allegra.UUCP> atd@allegra.UUCP (Anton Dahbura) writes: > > > > ITALIAN SCIENTISTS CONFIRM APEMAN CAN BE CREATED > > with humans and the chimps sharing about 99% of the same genetic material". Does anybody know the details of other crossbred animals? Isn't a mule actually a crossbreed between a horse and a donkey? Haven't there been crossbreeds between a dog and a wolf or a horse and a zebra? I've heard of several species of animals that have been crossbred. The product is defined as a crossbreed and not a new species because it is sterile (one of the requirement for an animal to be declared a new species is that it must be able to reproduce). I would be interested in hearing about actual cases of crossbreeds from different species. -- Robert A. Novo AT&T Bell Laboratories ihnp4!ihlpa!novo Naperville, IL 60566
bverreau@mipos3.UUCP (Bernie Verreau ~) (05/23/87)
In article <1084@aecom.YU.EDU>, werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) writes: > In article <1664@tekcrl.TEK.COM>, terryl@tekcrl.TEK.COM writes: > > In article <6693@allegra.UUCP> atd@allegra.UUCP (Anton Dahbura) writes: > > > > > > ITALIAN SCIENTISTS CONFIRM APEMAN CAN BE CREATED > > > > > > by Uli Schmetzer (Chicago Tribune, May 14, 1987) > > This ignores the fact that Apes have 48 chromosomes and > humans have 46, and sounds more like somebody's idea of a hoax, > or a typical article from the National Enquirer. No, it's true. I can remember seeing a documentary on this subject once. Now what was it called, again? Oh yeah, "Planet of the Apes". -- # Bernie Verreau "Just pulling your tail." # # # # uucp: ..{hplabs|amdcad|qantel|pur-ee|scgvaxd|oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!bverreau # # csnet/arpanet: bverreau@mipos3.intel.com #
thoma@reed.UUCP (Ann Muir Thomas) (05/23/87)
In article <1084@aecom.YU.EDU> werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) writes: > This ignores the fact that Apes have 48 chromosomes and >humans have 46, and sounds more like somebody's idea of a hoax, >or a typical article from the National Enquirer. Well, hmmm... horses and donkeys have different numbers of chromosomes (i don't remember the exact number, and I may be wrong entirely... no quick reference books about horses available). When you breed a male donkey to a female horse, you get a sterile mule, and when you breed a male horse to a female donkey, you get a sterile hinny. -- This Reed woman has leapt her capital T(hesis) in a single bound! Ann Muir Thomas B.A. (Psychology), Reed College 1987 UUCP: ...tektronix!reed!thoma ARPA: soft21!reed!thoma@caf.MIT.EDU
turpin@ut-sally.UUCP (Russell Turpin) (05/23/87)
In article <1084@aecom.YU.EDU>, werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) writes: > In article <1664@tekcrl.TEK.COM>, terryl@tekcrl.TEK.COM writes: > > In article <6693@allegra.UUCP> atd@allegra.UUCP (Anton Dahbura) writes: > > > > > > ITALIAN SCIENTISTS CONFIRM APEMAN CAN BE CREATED > > > > > > by Uli Schmetzer (Chicago Tribune, May 14, 1987) > > This ignores the fact that Apes have 48 chromosomes and > humans have 46, and sounds more like somebody's idea of a hoax, > or a typical article from the National Enquirer. > -- > Craig Werner (MD/PhD '91) Horses and donkeys also have a different number of chromosomes, so should I conclude that mules are impossible? Russell food for post program . . . . . . . . . . . . . end food for post program
emigh@ncsugn.ncsu.edu (Ted H. Emigh) (05/25/87)
In article <1084@aecom.YU.EDU> werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) writes: >In article <1664@tekcrl.TEK.COM>, terryl@tekcrl.TEK.COM writes: >> In article <6693@allegra.UUCP> atd@allegra.UUCP (Anton Dahbura) writes: >> > >> > ITALIAN SCIENTISTS CONFIRM APEMAN CAN BE CREATED >> > >> > by Uli Schmetzer (Chicago Tribune, May 14, 1987) > > This ignores the fact that Apes have 48 chromosomes and >humans have 46, and sounds more like somebody's idea of a hoax, >or a typical article from the National Enquirer. Hybrids of this sort are fairly common -- mules, cotton, wheat, ... some are naturally occuring, others are manmade. Of course, this doesn't mean that a man/ape is possible. As Pnews filler: If you match up the chromosomes of humans and the great apes (chimps, gorillas,...) based on their banding patterns, you will notice two striking things: 1) Human chromosome #2 matches with 2 chromosomes for each of the great apes -- this is the difference in chromosome number, either a fission of chromosomes leading to man, or a fusion of chromosomes leading to the great apes. 2) In nearly each chromosome there is at least one inversion in one species as compared to the others. This leads one to speculate as to the importance of inversions (and other chromosomal mutations) to evolution. (Hope that satisfies the Pnews line counter!) -- Ted H. Emigh, Departments of Genetics & Statistics, NCSU, Raleigh, NC uucp: mcnc!ncsugn!emigh BITNET: NEMIGH@TUCC internet: emigh%ncsugn.ncsu.edu or @ncsuvx.ncsu.edu:emigh@ncsugn.ncsu.edu
pd@sics.UUCP (Per Danielsson) (05/25/87)
(GAAAAAHH! I *hate* inews. This might be the second posting of this article. I really don't know. inews doesn't obey my orders...) In article <4007@ihlpa.ATT.COM> novo@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Novo) writes: >In article <1664@tekcrl.TEK.COM>, terryl@tekcrl.TEK.COM writes: >> In article <6693@allegra.UUCP> atd@allegra.UUCP (Anton Dahbura) writes: >> > >> > ITALIAN SCIENTISTS CONFIRM APEMAN CAN BE CREATED >> >> with humans and the chimps sharing about 99% of the same genetic material". > >Does anybody know the details of other crossbred animals? Isn't a mule >actually a crossbreed between a horse and a donkey? Haven't there been >crossbreeds between a dog and a wolf or a horse and a zebra? A dog is genetically the same thing as a wolf, so the offspring shouldn't be called a crossbreed, I guess. (I'm just a poor hacker, so I could be wrong on this...Any zoologists around?) >Robert A. Novo AT&T Bell Laboratories >ihnp4!ihlpa!novo Naperville, IL 60566 Per Danielsson UUCP: {mcvax,decvax,seismo}!enea!sics!pd Swedish Institute of Computer Science PO Box 1263, S-163 13 SPANGA, SWEDEN "No wife, no horse, no moustache."
pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) (05/26/87)
>In article <1664@tekcrl.TEK.COM>, terryl@tekcrl.TEK.COM writes: >> In article <6693@allegra.UUCP> atd@allegra.UUCP (Anton Dahbura) writes: >> > >> > ITALIAN SCIENTISTS CONFIRM APEMAN CAN BE CREATED >> > >> > by Uli Schmetzer (Chicago Tribune, May 14, 1987) > (Craig Werner) writes: > This ignores the fact that Apes have 48 chromosomes and >humans have 46, and sounds more like somebody's idea of a hoax, >or a typical article from the National Enquirer. >-- > Craig Werner (MD/PhD '91) Craig, if you mean second year student, say second year student. Once again you show your passion for facts without any real understanding of what they mean. I do not for a moment suggest that the article about the chimp/human hybrid is necessarily true. I do, however, wish to point out that you reason for declaring it false is irrelevent. No doubt, someone has already pointed out to you that hybrids between two species with differing numbers of chromosomes do exist (have you heard of mules). In horses 2n (=2x)= 64; in donkeys, 2n=62. This has no bearing what-so-ever on the fitness of the hybrid offspring. In fact, due to heterosis, the hybrid is superior in many ways to either parent (don't ever tell my horse I said that :+). The important fact in survival of the hybrid is not chromosome number, but appropriate dosage of gene-products. Since estimates are that humans and chimps are more closely related at the gene-homology level than horses are to donkeys, a chimp/human hybrid might very well be viable. The fact that the animal is aneuploid does have a rather dramatic on meiosis. The chromosomes do not have homologues with which they can pair at meiosis 1. In the mule, pairing between the analogous chomosomes of each set does occur, albeit poorly. Depending on the segregation of the extra donkey chromosome as well as other factors, sometimes a viable gamete is produced (very rare, but it does happen). The rather cute trick that plants such as triticum aestivum (wheat) have used to produce fertile new species from a sterile hybrid is to undergo endo-reduplication to produce a 2n (6x, in the case of wheat) plant. I am told that, in mammals, polyploids are always aborted. So a similar approach, using colchicine to disrupt the mitotic spindle in the zygote, would probably not work on the putative chimp/human cross (imagine a 2n=94 fertile new primate species). A.J.P. (a few ultimately irrelevent "higher" degrees)
exodus@uop.UUCP (05/26/87)
> In article <1084@aecom.YU.EDU> werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) writes: > > This ignores the fact that Apes have 48 chromosomes and > >humans have 46, and sounds more like somebody's idea of a hoax, > >or a typical article from the National Enquirer. > > Well, hmmm... horses and donkeys have different numbers of chromosomes > (i don't remember the exact number, and I may be wrong entirely... no > quick reference books about horses available). When you breed a male > donkey to a female horse, you get a sterile mule, and when you breed a > male horse to a female donkey, you get a sterile hinny. > Is that to say that our 'Planet of the Apes' cannot multiply while they spend the night in each others' caves? -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | The secret to flying is jumping and missing the ground... | | -Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy | |..............................................................................| | Greg Onufer (EXODUS) | | Mail: University of the Pacific, Casa Jackson #311, Stockton, CA 95211 | | UUCP: ...ucdavis!uop!exodus GEnie: G.ONUFER | Voice: (209) 944-7484 | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
daver@felix.UUCP (05/26/87)
In article <1084@aecom.YU.EDU> werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) writes: >> > >> > ITALIAN SCIENTISTS CONFIRM APEMAN CAN BE CREATED > > This ignores the fact that Apes have 48 chromosomes and >humans have 46, and sounds more like somebody's idea of a hoax, That's funny. In biology I was taught that humans ARE apes. Maybe you mean "all OTHER apes have 48 chromosomes", but I don't know if that is true. Dave
gnome@oliveb.UUCP (05/27/87)
in article <6693@allegra.UUCP>, atd@allegra.UUCP (Anton Dahbura) says: > Xref: oliveb sci.research:85 sci.med:2002 talk.rumors:1157 misc.headlines:813 > Posted: Tue May 19 15:14:16 1987 > > ITALIAN SCIENTISTS CONFIRM APEMAN CAN BE CREATED > by Uli Schmetzer (Chicago Tribune, May 14, 1987) >... A few years ago, there was a movie called "Silent Earth" (I think), in which the main character is thrown into an empty parallel world when an experiment went wrong. The experiment was called "Project Flashlight" (?) and involved a large number of power transmitting stations linked together around the world that allow aircraft to remain airborne for long periods of time. Instead of carrying fuel, the aircraft would draw power from the "grid". Well, according to the May 7 MACHINE DESIGN, Lockheed-Georgia has entered a proposal to create a smaller version of "Project Flashlight". Their idea is to beam 2MW of power (as microwaves) at their unmanned planes in order to keep them in a figure-8 watchdog position over an area for 60 to 90 days. Gary
gnome@oliveb.UUCP (05/27/87)
in article <4007@ihlpa.ATT.COM>, novo@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Novo) says: > > Does anybody know the details of other crossbred animals? Isn't a mule > actually a crossbreed between a horse and a donkey? Haven't there been > crossbreeds between a dog and a wolf or a horse and a zebra? > > I've heard of several species of animals that have been crossbred. The > product is defined as a crossbreed and not a new species because it is > sterile (one of the requirement for an animal to be declared a new species > is that it must be able to reproduce). > > I would be interested in hearing about actual cases of crossbreeds from > different species. > > -- > Robert A. Novo AT&T Bell Laboratories > ihnp4!ihlpa!novo Naperville, IL 60566 Ditto. I've been told that there are now mules that are fertile and can reproduce. I have been looking for a hard-copy of this report for a while (I haven't looked very hard). An what of the Cabbit?? Gary (allegra,ihnp4,sun)oliveb!oliven!gnome
daver@sci.UUCP (05/27/87)
In article <4007@ihlpa.ATT.COM>, novo@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Novo) writes: > Does anybody know the details of other crossbred animals? Isn't a mule > actually a crossbreed between a horse and a donkey? Haven't there been > crossbreeds between a dog and a wolf or a horse and a zebra? I heard a rumor a while back about crosses between wild dogs and wolves terrorizing farms around Moscow. david rickel decwrl!sci!daver
ccs006@deneb.UUCP (05/27/87)
Dammit, I'se done it AGAIN! The address line included sci.med (and sci.research), and I didn't look and remove IT form my followup. SORRY! Eric Disclaimer:This is mine, not my employers'.
jbuck@epimass.UUCP (05/27/87)
In article <2816@felix.UUCP> daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) writes: >In article <1084@aecom.YU.EDU> werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) writes: >>> > >>> > ITALIAN SCIENTISTS CONFIRM APEMAN CAN BE CREATED >> >> This ignores the fact that Apes have 48 chromosomes and >>humans have 46, and sounds more like somebody's idea of a hoax, >That's funny. In biology I was taught that humans ARE apes. Maybe you mean >"all OTHER apes have 48 chromosomes", but I don't know if that is true. Someone told me that by comparing banding patterns on the chromosomes, there's a human chromosome pair that corresponds almost perfectly to two chromosome pairs in chimpanzees, so there was evidently a breaking or merging at some point. But I still think the apeman story is a hoax, since if it were real you'd find it reported somewhere else than in a signle tabloid (like: every network would spend half their newscast on it, and Ted Koppel would devote a Nightline to it, etc). -- - Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (in the brave new world of domains!) {seismo,ucbvax,sun,decwrl,<smart-site>}!epimass.epi.com!jbuck
00psdunn@bsu-cs.UUCP (Paul S. Dunn) (05/27/87)
> In article <2816@felix.UUCP> daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) writes: > > >That's funny. In biology I was taught that humans ARE apes. Maybe you mean > >"all OTHER apes have 48 chromosomes", but I don't know if that is true. > As I recall from my biology days, the scientists who believe in evolution hold that humans and apes evolved from common ancestors, but are NOT the same spe- cies. (Different branches on the evolutionary tree.) -- {ihpn4,seismo}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!00psdunn "I've ALWAYS been crazy, but it's kept me from going insane."
jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) (05/28/87)
In article <5438@sci.UUCP>, daver@sci.UUCP (Dave Rickel) writes: > In article <4007@ihlpa.ATT.COM>, novo@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Novo) writes: > > Does anybody know the details of other crossbred animals? Isn't a mule > > actually a crossbreed between a horse and a donkey? Haven't there been > > crossbreeds between a dog and a wolf or a horse and a zebra? > > I heard a rumor a while back about crosses between wild dogs and wolves > terrorizing farms around Moscow. Not a rumor. Not applicable. Wolves and dogs are the same beast - just a different color/size (race?). Dogs and wolves have interbred for millenia. -- These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer. John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, Data Management Group, San Diego ...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp jnp@calmasd.GE.COM
daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) (05/29/87)
In article <724@bsu-cs.UUCP> 00psdunn@bsu-cs.UUCP (Paul S. Dunn) writes: >> In article <2816@felix.UUCP> daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) writes: >> >> >That's funny. In biology I was taught that humans ARE apes. Maybe you mean >> >"all OTHER apes have 48 chromosomes", but I don't know if that is true. >> >As I recall from my biology days, the scientists who believe in evolution hold >that humans and apes evolved from common ancestors, but are NOT the same spe- >cies. (Different branches on the evolutionary tree.) Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that humans and apes were the same species. I said that humans are apes. In other words, that humans are in the same taxonomic category with other apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, etc.). I may have been premature. Upon checking I find that man and ape are both PRIMATES and HOMINOIDS, but the word "APE" seems to be used only for the Pongidae family. Since humans are the only existing members of the Hominid family, you could say that I was off by one level. If anyone is interested, here are the specific taxonomic categories for man and ape: MAN APE Kingdom: Animalia (animals) Animalia Phylum: Chordata (chordates) Chordata Subphylum: Vertebrata (vertebrates) Vertebrata Class: Mammalia (mammals) Mammalia Order: Primates Primates superfamily: Hominoidea (hominoids) Hominoidea --------------same---up---to---this---point------------------------------- Family: Hominidae (hominids) Pongidae ("apes") Genus: Homo (various types) Species: Homo Sapiens " " I believe that the quantitative physical difference between humans and other Hominoids is something pretty slight, like one more bone in the inner ear, or something. I don't have a biology book here, so this is information is compiled from the dictionary and memory. Someone who has better info. can correct me if this is wrong. Dave
daver@sci.UUCP (05/29/87)
In article <724@bsu-cs.UUCP>, 00psdunn@bsu-cs.UUCP (Paul S. Dunn) writes: > As I recall from my biology days, the scientists who believe in evolution hold > that humans and apes evolved from common ancestors, but are NOT the same spe- > cies. (Different branches on the evolutionary tree.) Should this really be going to all these newsgroups? Oh well. There is a popular article on molecular biology called "The Naked Chimp: Molecules and the Proof of Human Origins", by John Gribbin. The topic, of course, is rather controversial. It starts off by saying that humans share 99% of their genetic material with the African apes, and split off from chimpanzees four to five million years ago. Gorillas seem to have split off of that line five to six million years ago. The article goes on to say that it would make sense to change the human's classification from HOMO SAPIENS to PAN SAPIENS. It points out that humans are closely enough related to gorillas that it is virtually certain that there exist humans whose hemoglobin is identical to gorilla hemoglobin, and that at this level, at least, the differences between man and gorilla is no more significant than the difference between individual humans. Oops. I seem to have misread your article--sorry. Humans are not the same species as chimpanzees, as chimpanzees are not the same species as gorillas. However, we all seem to be apes. david rickel decwrl!sci!daver
gagen@bgsuvax.UUCP (05/29/87)
In article <1084@aecom.YU.EDU>, werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) writes: > In article <1664@tekcrl.TEK.COM>, terryl@tekcrl.TEK.COM writes: > > In article <6693@allegra.UUCP> atd@allegra.UUCP (Anton Dahbura) writes: > > > > > > ITALIAN SCIENTISTS CONFIRM APEMAN CAN BE CREATED > > This ignores the fact that Apes have 48 chromosomes and > humans have 46, and sounds more like somebody's idea of a hoax, > or a typical article from the National Enquirer. Although I have doubts about the possibillity (not to mention advabillity) of a humn-ape hybrid, I would like to point out that differences in chromosome number do not preclude the production of hybrids in mammals. I offer the following recollections as examples: (1) The horse and the donkey have different chromosome numbers. A cross between a female horse and a male donkey produces a mule. The sterillity of the mule is believed to be due to the inabillity of the mule to produce viable gametes because problems of chromosome pairing and disjunction in the first meiotic division. (2) Hybrids can be produced between different species of horse having different chromosome number. (3) In nature, there are species of sheep that differ in there chromosome number. Naturally occuring hybrids have been documented. I would like to point out that this past Sunday's Chicago Tribune admitted that the article had no foundation in fact. Kathi Gagen
carole@rosevax.UUCP (05/29/87)
In article <5438@sci.UUCP>, daver@sci.UUCP (Dave Rickel) writes: > In article <4007@ihlpa.ATT.COM>, novo@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Novo) writes: > > Does anybody know the details of other crossbred animals? Isn't a mule > > actually a crossbreed between a horse and a donkey? Haven't there been > > crossbreeds between a dog and a wolf or a horse and a zebra? > > I heard a rumor a while back about crosses between wild dogs and wolves > terrorizing farms around Moscow. > By the test of ability to have fertile offspring dogs and wolves are actually the same species, even though they are named canis lupis and canis domesticus. Horses and donkeys are not the same species, and while they are close enough to produce offspring, do not produce fertile offspring. Carole Ashmore
bob@chemstor.UUCP (Robert Weigel) (05/29/87)
It would seem that all of the articles on this topic have been written with the assumption that man and ape are both purely physical beings who's differences and liknesses can be fully measured by physical observations. This assumption is very boring. I say this because if this assumption were true, everything I am saying here is the result of history. (Before you prejudge, try thinking this through.) The processes of my mind, when viewed from this sense, are either completely predictable, (ie. Newtonian Physics), or a mixture of this and randomness. Either way, I'm not in control,.. right!! My Bible says God created the creatures out of the dirt, but he made man in his image. ( With a free will too!) Somehow, that seems to fit reality a little better in view of who I am. But keep on matching those Chromosomes!
hp@beta.UUCP (05/30/87)
(This seems to be going to an awful lot of groups ... well, it hasn't been a very high-volume discussion, so I won't worry about it.) In article <2255@calmasd.GE.COM>, jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: > In article <5438@sci.UUCP>, daver@sci.UUCP (Dave Rickel) writes: > > I heard a rumor a while back about crosses between wild dogs and wolves > > terrorizing farms around Moscow. > > Not a rumor. Not applicable. Wolves and dogs are the same beast - just a > different color/size (race?). Dogs and wolves have interbred for millenia. What's a "beast"? They're not the same species, last I checked -- Canis familiaris vs. C. lupus, right? Not to dispute that they're very closely related, or that they interbreed, both of which are true. (Dogs also interbreed with coyotes, C. latrans (or something like that), and dingoes, which I've seen listed both as C. familiaris dingo and as C. dingo, a species in its own right.) Evidently in the genus Canis, fertile interbreeding (I think all those crosses are fertile) isn't a criterion for defining a "species". I don't know why they're considered different species if they interbreed. Or are they no longer considered different species? (I admit that I haven't checked any recently published books on canine taxonomy.) Can anybody fill us in? .. ...Akkana Center for Nonlinear Studies, LANL akkana%cnls@lanl.gov hp@lanl.gov ihnp4!lanl!hp "I think I'll take a walk. Hmm, wonder where this wire goes?" -- Max Headroom
nobody@scubed.UUCP (Pseudo news poster) (05/31/87)
In article <225@chemstor.UUCP> bob@chemstor.UUCP (Bob Weigel) writes: >... but he made man in his image. ( With a free will too!) Somehow, that >seems to fit reality a little better in view of who I am. But keep on >matching those Chromosomes! I wonder what an Orcinus orca would think of that viewpoint.
cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Christopher Young) (06/03/87)
In article <225@chemstor.UUCP>, bob@chemstor.UUCP (Robert Weigel) writes: > > and randomness. Either way, I'm not in control,.. right!! My Bible says God > created the creatures out of the dirt, but he made man in his image. ( With a > free will too!) Somehow, that seems to fit reality a little better in view of > who I am. But keep on matching those Chromosomes! > These types eventually show up everywhere, don't they? Just like weeds. -- -- Chris. (cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu)
douglas@cxsea.UUCP (06/04/87)
In article <224@scubed.UUCP> warner@kelvin.UUCP (Ken Warner) writes: +In article <225@chemstor.UUCP> bob@chemstor.UUCP (Bob Weigel) writes: +>... but he made man in his image. ( With a free will too!) Somehow, that +>seems to fit reality a little better in view of who I am. But keep on +>matching those Chromosomes! +I wonder what an Orcinus orca would think of that viewpoint. How do you know that Orcinus orca can think? -- ========================================================================== || Douglas - "My doctor told me to stop having intimate dinners || || for four. Unless there are three other people." || || - Orson Welles - || ========================================================================== Bellophone: 206 - 251 - 6804 U.S.Snail: 19115 West Valley Hwy., Suite H-104, Kent, WA - 98032
nobody@scubed.UUCP (Pseudo news poster) (06/07/87)
In article <2096@cxsea.UUCP> douglas@cxsea.UUCP (Douglas Wells) writes: >In article <224@scubed.UUCP> warner@kelvin.UUCP (Ken Warner) writes: >+In article <225@chemstor.UUCP> bob@chemstor.UUCP (Bob Weigel) writes: >+>... but he made man in his image. ( With a free will too!) Somehow, that >+>seems to fit reality a little better in view of who I am. But keep on >+>matching those Chromosomes! >+I wonder what an Orcinus orca would think of that viewpoint. > >How do you know that Orcinus orca can think? Well, I wuz just talkin' to Shamu. We were sitting around tossing back a few anchovies and I asked him, "Whaddayathink God looks like?". He was basically non-committal and said, "My daddy tol' me never to discuss politics, religion or whether sealions taste better than cod." Then he sort of winked at me over the edge of his fish bucket and said, "I do wonder about the utility of being bi-pedal in a limitless void."
turpin@ut-sally.UUCP (06/08/87)
In article <227@scubed.UUCP>, nobody@scubed.UUCP (Pseudo news poster) writes: > In article <2096@cxsea.UUCP> douglas@cxsea.UUCP (Douglas Wells) writes: > >In article <224@scubed.UUCP> warner@kelvin.UUCP (Ken Warner) writes: > >+In article <225@chemstor.UUCP> bob@chemstor.UUCP (Bob Weigel) writes: > >+>... but he made man in his image. ( With a free will too!) Somehow, that > >+>seems to fit reality a little better in view of who I am. But keep on > >+>matching those Chromosomes! > >+I wonder what an Orcinus orca would think of that viewpoint. > > > >How do you know that Orcinus orca can think? > > Well, I wuz just talkin' to Shamu. We were sitting around tossing back > a few anchovies and I asked him, "Whaddayathink God looks like?". > He was basically non-committal and said, "My daddy tol' me never to discuss > politics, religion or whether sealions taste better than cod." > > Then he sort of winked at me over the edge of his fish bucket and said, "I do > wonder about the utility of being bi-pedal in a limitless void." There are those who can understand sea mammals, and those of us who always draw a blank when, devoutly and seriously, we beseech them. Of course, maybe its those extra senses. The funny-mentalists and animal talkers all tell me that listening with my ears is not enough, but that I must also listen with my heart. Try as I might, and despite the sounds it makes, my heart never hears a thing. Lately, I've heard of psychic surgeons. (Or was it sturgeons? I'll have to Shamu.) They have a very well developed sight. With their fingers of course. Some of the funny-mentalists claim to have an inner sight. Maybe this is from misplaced fingers. If I can ever get one to hold in one (philosophical) stance long enough, I'll perform a dissection, looking in particular for any digits protuding from the thalamus and tickling the mammilary bodies. This would explain a lot, especially why they don't want to restrict empirical discussion to the normal senses. I do not mean to denigrate the obvious intelligence of whales. Most have a lot of fun, and they do not hypothesize supernatural beings that they then take most seriously. (Just ask them!) Any gods who are offended can settle the score with me personally, as long as they continue to use only sensory channels I seem to lack. Russell