Creating a Humanzee

AV1611VET said:

In short, dirty deeds done dirt cheap.

Click to expand...

The main use for the hybrids is to have a source of organ transplants.
And some researchers are serious as there is money in organ harvesting.
What if the humanzee was born with an IQ of a retarded person and could learn to speak.
What a horror show that would be.

The issue with creating a human/[something else] hybrid is the possibility of intentionally creating something that has a level of human self-awareness that could ask the question, "why was I created" and ponder the very unsatisfying answer, "because we could" and then be left to deal with all that entails. Would it be ethical to intentionally breed fully human people with Trisomy 21 to study that genetic mutation and its effects?

Landon Caeli said:

I'm not talking about people who disagree with this, I'm talking about emotional responses.

It's one thing to disagree, but it's something different to have a massive *emotional* response by large numbers of people.

Click to expand...

Well since you've not given any actually scientifically valid reason for it to be done, an emotional response is what you're going to get.

Landon Caeli said:

Where does imaginative thinking fall into place? Under scientific validity, or emotional reaction?

The answer is neither.

There is a third way to think.

Click to expand...

... no, that is true.

Landon Caeli said:

This is an emotional response.

Click to expand...

No. It is an informed response based on my reasoned assessment of the risks and consequences of such an experiment which clearly point in an unacceptable direction on my moral compass. Of course, if you think moral compasses are essentially emotionally determined that would make you doubly wrong.

Landon Caeli said:

Scientifically speaking, creating a humanzee would be no different from how we've created Ligers and Mules. So why haven't we created a humanzee yet, knowing it's entirely possible and super easy?

Many say it's an issue of morality. But why would it be, considering a humanzee would be neither human, nor chimp. What would be a worst or best case scenario in this situation? Being the eternal optimist that I am, I envision a friendly pet-like companion, like a dog, but much smarter. It's not like it would be in a constant state of pain, like some kind of groaning Frankenstein - nature doesn’t allow animals to live in perpetual pain. Perhaps they could even be trained to do our work for us? Like picking fruit in the fields? Or factory work, or other jobs humans don't particularly like doing? For thousands of years we've been using horses in similar ways - I don't see how a humanzee would be any different.

Click to expand...

I don't believe God would allow this to happen.

Landon Caeli said:

Great point! I believe in God, and I also believe that nothing is an accident. There is clearly a reason why this hasn't happened. Right?

Click to expand...

Makes sense to me.

There is nothing wrong with curiosity as long as we stay anchored in the Lord.

Landon Caeli said:

I don't think that. I think a lot of our morals are genetically passed on, as natural instincts, and others through learning. Much in the same way as our free-will, to act and behave, are based on a combination of our biology in combination with 'learned' experiences:

Click to expand...

I broadly agree. I think different cultures interpret the tendicies imposed by our instincts in different ways, hence the clash between cultures; a great problem because instinct tells us "different is dangerous". Reason can counteract this, but there is shortage of reason in most humans.

Landon Caeli said:

Scientifically speaking, creating a humanzee would be no different from how we've created Ligers and Mules. So why haven't we created a humanzee yet, knowing it's entirely possible and super easy?

Many say it's an issue of morality. But why would it be, considering a humanzee would be neither human, nor chimp. What would be a worst or best case scenario in this situation? Being the eternal optimist that I am, I envision a friendly pet-like companion, like a dog, but much smarter. It's not like it would be in a constant state of pain, like some kind of groaning Frankenstein - nature doesn’t allow animals to live in perpetual pain. Perhaps they could even be trained to do our work for us? Like picking fruit in the fields? Or factory work, or other jobs humans don't particularly like doing? For thousands of years we've been using horses in similar ways - I don't see how a humanzee would be any different.

Click to expand...

hey buddy!

The idea of human eyes ,with all due respect are a abominable concept(not directed at you at all;the concept only).humans and apes may share characteristics and traits but we and apes are completely different species.Its not like breeding two different species of chickens,where you’ll get a healthy,unique crossbreed.on the other hand cross breeding two completely different species will either cause death or severe malformation in the result,a good example is like trying to crossbreed a Dog and Raccoon.
A human-chimpanzee crossbreed is just immoral,first of all,how can you actually breed a chimp and a human? Chimps have expressed very violent and aggressive tendencies whether they’re male or female,two the idea of a human and animal conception is bestiality,regardless of actual sexual contact is engaged.

Three, the creature would be in pain and would indeed have a whole variety of health issues,including physical,chronic; possibly terminal diseases and disabilities

Four,I hope you’ve seen planet of the apes,because we all know what happened when the apes understood the concept of slavery

Overall it’s not a good idea,very respectfully speaking!

Blaise N said:

hey buddy!

The idea of human eyes ,with all due respect are a abominable concept(not directed at you at all;the concept only). humans and apes may share characteristics and traits but we and apes are completely different species.

Click to expand...

Humans are apes. Taxonomically speaking, we're a type of great ape. It doesn't matter how you break it down (morphologically, behaviourally or genetically), we're a part of the Hominidae family that includes all other great apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, bonobos and us).

Blaise N said:

Its not like breeding two different species of chickens, where you’ll get a healthy, unique crossbreed. On the other hand cross breeding two completely different species will either cause death or severe malformation in the result, a good example is like trying to crossbreed a Dog and Raccoon.

Click to expand...

The genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees is much smaller than the genetic difference between a dog and a racoon.

Humans and chimpanzees last shared a common ancestor somewhere around 6-10 million years ago. We both belong to the Hominini sub-family.

In comparison, the last common ancestor of dogs and raccoons is somewhere between 25 million and 40 million years old. Taxonomically, they're only within the same sub-order (Caniforima).

Blaise N said:

A human-chimpanzee crossbreed is just immoral,

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Blaise N said:

first of all,how can you actually breed a chimp and a human? Chimps have expressed very violent and aggressive tendencies whether they’re male or female,two the idea of a human and animal conception is bestiality,regardless of actual sexual contact is engaged.

Click to expand...

Artificial insemination exists.

Blaise N said:

Three, the creature would be in pain and would indeed have a whole variety of health issues,including physical,chronic; possibly terminal diseases and disabilities

Click to expand...

We don't actually know this.

Crossbreeding has been achieved at the family group level with some bird and fish species without significant issue. Even in species that diverged 50+ million years ago. These seem to have been successful.

Blaise N said:

Four,I hope you’ve seen planet of the apes,because we all know what happened when the apes understood the concept of slavery

Click to expand...

When you teach apes concepts like money, some interesting things happened...

Gene2memE said:

Crossbreeding has been achieved at the family group level with some bird and fish species without significant issue. Even in species that diverged 50+ million years ago. These seem to have been successful.

Click to expand...

Are any of those family group level hybrids fertile? If fertile are the hybrids stable in that progeny are replicas of the crossbred? Do the hybrids die out after a few generations?
From what I have read, none of the crossbreds, even in very close family groups has proved stable.
In the plant world hybrids, even chemically altered genomes, tend to be sterile or die out after a few generations.
Some may revert to something that closely resembles one or the other parent but even those tend to die out.
Man has not been able to "evolve" one species which is basically what artificially manipulating human and chimp genes would be.
What Darwin predicted man cannot duplicate. That makes evolution, at least Darwinian evolution a failed theory.

QvQ said:

Man has not been able to "evolve" one species which is basically what artificially manipulating human and chimp genes would be.

Click to expand...

What percentage of biologists do you think have actually attempted to "evolve" one species? Do you actually believe that experiments in hybridisation were intended to "evolve" a new species? If so, that would explain some of the errors in your thinking.

QvQ said:

What Darwin predicted man cannot duplicate.

Click to expand...

Darwin made a number of predictioncs. Which one did you have in mind?

QvQ said:

That makes evolution, at least Darwinian evolution a failed theory.

Click to expand...

Nothing you have said here in any way overturns any aspect of Darwinian theory, or of the Modern Synthesis, or of any of the amendments to that version of evolutionary theory currently under review. If you wish to reject evolutionary theory you will need to come up with a better strategy than attacking strawmen, obsessing with Darwin and making unsupported assertions.

Ophiolite said:

What percentage of biologists do you think have actually attempted to "evolve" one species?

Click to expand...

Thousands of "biologist" if not millions have attempted to "evolve" one species.
That would include anyone who ever did any selective breeding of any plant or animal.
None of the hybridization of one or between species has resulted, if fertile, in a stable progeny with the "evolution" intact.
That is a known biological fact in the breeding of animals, plants.
It is becoming a known fact in the genetically manipulated plants and animals that are being created.
Genetically modified organisms are infertile, die out or revert to the parent species within a few generations.
Selectively bred species also do exactly that, revert or die out after a few generations.
Darwin predicted that species would evolve.
However man, after at least 8,000 years has not created One evolution in any species.
Man has tried.

QvQ said:

Are any of those family group level hybrids fertile?
If fertile are the hybrids stable in that progeny are replicas of the crossbred? Do the hybrids die out after a few generations?
From what I have read, none of the crossbreds, even in very close family groups has proved stable.

Click to expand...

There was very low (>1%) fertility with some bird hybrids. Hybridization is exceptionally common in birds overall, with estimates that between 6% and 20% of bird species have hybridization on the species level.

There were reports that the cross between an American paddlefish and Russian sturgeon was assumed to be fertile, but no confirmation either way in the scientific literature. The assumption was probably a precautionary measure – no point in releasing anything into the wild without better knowledge about it.

Hybridization more common in fish than in any other vertebrate group. Triple hybrids are not unheard of (A and B species breed, creating fertile offspring AB. AB then breeds with species C, creating ABC offspring)

QvQ said:

In the plant world hybrids, even chemically altered genomes, tend to be sterile or die out after a few generations.

Click to expand...

I don’t think that’s true. Intra-species fertilization rates for plant hybrids have been observed for centuries. A survey of the US and North America in the 1990s found that around 11% of observed naturally occurring specimens were hybrids.

Fertility rates for first generation hybrids have been observed as low as 0.4%, but they also all the way up to greater than 90%. Generally it seems that pollen fertility in first generation hybrids ranges between about 4% and 18%.

See this review from the end of the 1990s: https://courses.botany.wisc.edu/botany_940/15Stebbins/chapter 7 papers/Rieseberg 1997 Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.pdf

QvQ said:

Some may revert to something that closely resembles one or the other parent but even those tend to die out.

Click to expand...

Again, I don’t think that’s true. The observable evidence is that hybridisation is widespread in natural world and is one of the major mechanisms for the creation of new species.

QvQ said:

Man has not been able to "evolve" one species which is basically what artificially manipulating human and chimp genes would be.

Click to expand...

Sure we have. We’ve changed the expressed and inherited allele frequencies in lots of species. That's what evolution is.

We've done it in everything from basic bacteria and fruit flies all the way up to vertebrates like our domesticated animals. Consider, for instance, the Lenski long-term evolution experiment.

QvQ said:

What Darwin predicted man cannot duplicate. That makes evolution, at least Darwinian evolution a failed theory.

Click to expand...

You’re going to need to be specific. What exactly did Darwin predict that “man cannot duplicate?” It wasn't Darwin that predicted hybridisation would create new species - that prediction was made about 80 years before Darwin was born, by Carl Linneaus.


And, if that prediction is failed, how does it invalidate the current understanding of evolutionary biology (the ‘modern synthesis’)?

Gene2memE said:

Sure we have. We’ve changed the expressed and inherited allele frequencies in lots of species. That's what evolution is.

And, we've done it in everything from basic bacteria and fruit flies all the way up to vertebrates like our domesticated animals.

Click to expand...

The domesticated animals and plants are not stable. Even changes that are easily achieved with selective breeding do not hold without the continued manipulation by man. The changes in expressed and inherited allele frequencies are not maintained in progeny.
This is off topic but it is unlikely that chimps and humans can be bred even in a test tube.

What is intended is to grow organs for transplants
And it is a not very clever ploy to get around the laws against growing pure humans parts reducing the "human" to a subhuman by inserting monkey parts, therefore...
It is a very clever scheme to make money from spare parts.
That, given the various incentives is the most likely outcome of the "humanzee."