The Ethics of a Human Chimp Hybrid

[Spaceman]

You answered my question on evolution thankyou.You need not anticipate further questions as i did not ask if you believed in evolutionary theory only evolution.

Providing two responses do not negate the fact you were personal and insulting.But i dont wish to get into a flaming war,if your above giving apologies so be it.

My statement wasnt flawed it was meant in general,yes some creationists interpret the bible literaly not all!Some are academics who research the meaning of the actual text,not just the revised english version

And not all evolutionists are athiest and indifferent to the bible,I do not really see a conflict between evolution and the bible.

You thought my original post was what you expected to see from a creationist nutter Why? because i disagree with the link when the data is inconclusive.Why would that give you concussion,you should stop jumping so high and banging your head.

eh nostalgia,i asked you to show me proof of direct evidence of a link an ape/man(missing link).Your not silly you know quite well piltdown man is the closest piece of evidence yet and that was faked.The missing link will never be found,because it doesnt exist.

As for your offer of links to material available this isnt ultimate proof,only supposition and interpretation of data.

I will not deny we share similarities,such as using hands as prehensile tools,or eyes facing forwards facilitating spacial vision,thus indicating a relationship with apes.but this is far from agreeing to the evolution stand point saying we decended from monkeys.Have you ever seen a white monkey,or a dark ape with curly negroid hair.

 

Seeing how you dont offer any real facts.Lets clarify my earlier post with some facts i offer to dispute our lineage with other primates our uniqueness so to speak.

Anatomy and physiology.

Evolution natural selection yes,says we started out at x point in time from a single product with our cousins the apes developing on 1 branch,we millenia of mutations later on the other branch.Sounds great simple yes were related,Unfortunately not there is no observed evolution between primates and man.

Primates dont have feet,they dont have a circulatory system that would support an erect animal,Man has knees that lock,our head balanced on our shoulders,our spine curved in four places for a wide variety of positions,our arms are short legs long,primates have the opposite.

man shares 396 anatomical characteristics with chimps,'wow' close.But 312 strictly to himself mm not so close.

Man is totally unique in his thermogenic sweat glands,his hypthalamus can respond to 0.1% rise in blood temperature,primates are very poor thermoregulators.

Now to the controversial genetic 98.5% with chimps(and bonobos which by the way is a small chimplike primate) poppycock and misleading interpretation of data.

If we share 98.5% that leaves just 1.6% yes?Were so close genetically yes? not so !

chimps actually have 10% more DNA than humans,they have more alpha-hemoglobin genes and more Rh bloodgroup genes, and fewer Alu repeats, in their genome than humans? their chromosomes contain DNA not present at the tips of human chromosomes.Theres alot more to genomics than just nucleotide substitution.But the percentage comparison renders that fact invisible,and obscures more interesting genetic questions.We differ from chimps in a vital way the surface of every cell, except brain cells, carry glycoproteins that contain one particular member of a family of sugar molecues called sialic acid. In humans this sugar is not present in any cell in the body.

If you search for more up to date studies (not old library books)you will find that their is only 86.7% genetic similarity when segments of human and chimpanzee DNA (totaling 1,870,955 base pairs) are laid side by side.

Consider this our DNA is 75% identical to Nematodes(small soil-dwelling worm.)your not suggesting the nematode is 75% human.

here HUMANS 100%.

CHIMPS 86.7%

NEMATODES 75%

 

that places chimps less than half way between humans and a worm,now you see the problems faced by maintaining the argument.

[Ophiolite]

Providing two responses do not negate the fact you were personal and insulting.But i dont wish to get into a flaming war' date='if your above giving apologies so be it.[/quote']I was attacking your ideas and your presentation of them, not you. I make no apologies for attacking your ideas.

My statement wasnt flawed it was meant in general,

This in relation to your earlier statement Evolutionists interpret whole bible extracts literally. To repeat, evolutionists do not interpret the bible creationists do. So your statement is wrong. So, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant to write Creationists interpret whole bible extracts literally. In either case, if this is meant to be a general statement you say 'many creationists' or 'some evolutionists', otherwise the clear implication is that you mean all.

 

Your not silly you know quite well piltdown man is the closest piece of evidence yet and that was faked.The missing link will never be found,because it doesnt exist.

You really do test my desire to insult you personally. Clearly I am silly. The last time I read about Piltdown Man was in a book explaining the hoax, which I read in 1958 or 1959. Are you so out of touch with reality that you think Piltdown Man was especially important evidence? Are you unaware of the research and the discoveries in the half century or so that have elapsed in between? What flaming missing link are you talking about?!! There are dozens of 'missing links' along the evolutionary path. As research advances many of those are filled in, other will be discovered in the future, some, because of the randomness of the fossil record, never will be.

 

man shares 396 anatomical characteristics with chimps,'wow' close.But 312 strictly to himself mm not so close.

Well of course not. Man and the chimps are not the same f***ing family. Of course there are many differences.

 

Have you ever seen a white monkey,or a dark ape with curly negroid hair.

Why would I? What would be the evolutionary advantage to a monkey or ape to develop such characteristics? Whereas we know the evolutionary advantages of these features in man.

 

this is far from agreeing to the evolution stand point saying we decended from monkeys

Find me a single evolutionist any time any where who has ever claimed man descended from monkeys and you will have my most humble abject apologies, accompanied by a major paradigm shift on my part. Do not try to brush this off by saying you were being general. This is yet another flawed statement. I used 'flawed statement' because if I called it drivel you might interpret that as another deeply offensive and personal attack. I am deeply offended that you populate a rebuttal of my arguments with nonsense like this. I shall be happy to resume this discussion anytime you wish to start talking coherently.

 

Edit: You also tackled me on the %similarities between chimp and human DNA, although I never raised this as an issue (others did). The information you provided here is interesting and I shall very much keep it in mind during my studies on genetics during the next year or so.

[Spaceman]

I think i just answered option 2.If you dont like the answers tough.And dont go into he said i said rubbish the posts are plainly readable.You chose to respond to a post i made to Aardvark,not you and then you post deflamitory remarks.I hope you are happy in your kinship with chimps,the way your acting i may throw you a banana.

 

Maybe your motive is only to troll

[Ophiolite]

.......and then you post deflamitory remarks.

Maybe your motive is only to troll

I take you to mean inflamatory or defamatory' date=' not deflamitory. In either event I have already explained that I was attacking your ideas, not you.

You chose to respond to a post i made to Aardvark,not you

I thought this was an open Forum. If you want to have a private discussion with Aardvak that's fine. Use a pm. If it's posted here, I understand that it is open to anyone to respond to.

 

Meantime I would still value your response to this challenge: Find me a single evolutionist any time any where who has ever claimed man descended from monkeys.

[Spaceman]

yes i did mean defamatory i added an L sorry,i must have been suffering concussion or is that conclusion you were trying to say.

Please just scroll up your own posts and without predudice give an honest opinion,play the game friend.Im quiet happy to consider anything you want to put forward.And yes this forum is open to public debate but not to people who want to ridicule someones post when they have answered your questions and in the same respect you have not offered any input of fact to warrant your interuption.

 

cheeky monkey!!!!!

[Spaceman]

I take you to mean inflamatory or defamatory' date=' not deflamitory. In either event I have already explained that I was attacking your ideas, not you.

I thought this was an open Forum. If you want to have a private discussion with Aardvak that's fine. Use a pm. If it's posted here, I understand that it is open to anyone to respond to.

 

Meantime I would still value your response to this challenge: [i']Find me a single evolutionist any time any where who has ever claimed man descended from monkeys.[/i]

 

I dont have to!!! read your own posts buddy,i think anyone can interpret them.

You seem to me without being personal,you have no real perception of evolution,you obviously havent read any literature on the subject,if your asking such a dumb question .I would love to respond but the page is not big enough.And i could not post 3,587058 google links to put you right.perhaps i should ask you ,name a book on evolution that doesnt put forward a descendancy from apes.

[DreamLord]

Ok... I thought that humans and apes descended from the same evolutionary line. In other words humans did not evolve from apes directly. But they evolved from ape-like creatures which then took different evolutionary paths and formed both humans and apes as we know them today.

[Spaceman]

Dreamlord thats the doctrine so far friend,and thats what every book of evolution theory says.Unfortunately there is no hard scientific fact to back this up.Despite wishfull thinking by some here,thats why we cannot find the missing link.It is only my opinion of the facts available, that makes me believe present and past primates which we find evidence for in fossils are a totally seperate line of decendancy from man.(a simple eg. man from dog ,apes from cat)

This may leave a huge door for the creationists to exploit,however its a small price to pay

[Ophiolite]

Absolutely correct DreamLord, but I can't seem to get Spaceman to accept this.

 

 

Spaceman, you wanted me to name a book that doesn't have man descending (or ascending if you prefer) from the apes. Here are four:

The Origin of Species – Charles Darwin ISBN0517123207

 

The Blind Watchmaker – Richard Dawkins – ISBN0613913817 etc

 

The Origin of Humankind – Richard Leakey – ISBN 0465053130 etc

 

Principles of Human Evolution – Richard Lewin ISBN 0632047046

 

If you wish I can find ones by people who aren't called Richard.

Now, could you Spaceman, name one book that does claim descent from apes?

 

Edit: So where have you published this important theory Spaceman?

And, I ask you again, what 'missing link'. Evolutionary biologists do not talk of a 'missing link' as you do, as a sngle missing step on an evolutionary path. So take a moment to tell us what you mean by the 'missing link'.

[Spaceman]

Quoting them books eh fine!!,go away over the next few days and read them,then come back and say the same thing.And will you then be satisfied if i give the page numbers and lines down.Dont bog yourself down in wording (decent from apes).If man and chimp both started from point x 1 source they are decendants!

as in roots-tree-branches. Grandma-mam-son .Carefull now before you reply

Missing link,yes they do! its the holy grail of human evolution stop being ridiculus.

 

edit

ive just noticed you just said that Dreamlord was absolutely correct,make your mind up your looking quite silly now.If you continue like this i shall not reply in future

 

edit

mr and mrs blobby in bed...mrs blobby goes wobbleobblegurrblgurg.

mr blobby says " shut up and just swallow it women"

[DreamLord]

OK, what Ophiolite is trying to say is that though humans and apes are related evolutionary, man is not descended from apes. Both man and apes are descended from the same creature, but that does not mean we are their descendants. That would make us relatives evolutionary, NOT descendents. Using your family tree example Mum +Dad to brother + sister. Just because the sister is related to the brother, she is not his descendant. But they are both descendents of the parents.

[Ophiolite]

Spaceman,

 

you misinterpret my posts, you fail to answer any direct question, you susbstaniate nothing that you claim, you write mumbo-jumbo. Arrividerci!

[Spaceman]

ophiolite since (post 70) i have been consistant in that i believe man shares no common ancestry with chimps/apes.I put forward facts(post 76) to support my belief.When one reads over subsequent posts from your innitial objection to post 70 you have basically went.

yes we do,no we dont,yes we do,and end up in your last two posts vindicating my post(70).

all of your posts offer no factual evidence at all,so it would be nice if you could post your stand point on this issue,do you believe we share common ancestry with chimps/apes (point x 1 creature)

Then i will post something that will hopefully put an end to your trolling..

 

Please dont pm me to insult me its very immature,your claims that you teach evolution to students for 40 years i find very difficult to accept,your posts show that you have no real concept of the subject

[Spaceman]

OK, what Ophiolite is trying to say is that though humans and apes are related evolutionary, man is not descended from apes. Both man and apes are descended from the same creature, but that does not mean we are their descendants. That would make us relatives evolutionary, NOT descendents. Using your family tree example Mum +Dad to brother + sister. Just because the sister is related to the brother, she is not his descendant. But they are both descendents of the parents.

Sorry Dreamlord your posts are fine but dont speak for ophiolite as he hasnt tried to say anything.Also just a point when you refer to my posts i never stated mam/dad/brother/sister.So if you are going to quote me it would be helpfull to not attribute words to me which are not me own.Ok thanks

[Sayonara]

The original question was this:

Find me a single evolutionist any time any where who has ever claimed man descended from monkeys.

[Ophiolite]

ophiolite since (post 70) i have been consistant in that i believe man shares no common ancestry with chimps/apes.I put forward facts(post 76) to support my belief.When one reads over subsequent posts from your innitial objection to post 70 you have basically went.

yes we do' date='no we dont,yes we do,and end up in your last two posts vindicating my post(70).

all of your posts offer no factual evidence at all,[u']so it would be nice if you could post your stand point on this issue,do you believe we share common ancestry with chimps/apes (point x 1 creature)[/u]

Then i will post something that will hopefully put an end to your trolling..

 

Please dont pm me to insult me its very immature,your claims that you teach evolution to students for 40 years i find very difficult to accept,your posts show that you have no real concept of the subject

I do hope this is my final post to you Spaceman. (I am sure many will breathe a large sigh of relief.)

I believe we share a common ancestry with chimps. I do not believe we are descended from them, which is what you stated in more than one of your posts.

You pm'd me, apparently offering an olive branch. I responded in kind. Then you launched into personal attacks on me in your postings, so I privately told you exactly what I thought of you.

I did not claim to have taught evolution for forty years. Here is the relevant text from my pm

Let's set aside the fact that I have been studying evolution for over forty years. Let's set aside the fact that I have read a great deal of literature on the subject. Let's imagine I really am as intellectually challenged as you think I am.

One thing that I am at pains to point out to my students is that there are no dumb questions, only dumb answers. But I'll set that aside also. Can you explain to me in what way it was dumb to ask you to name any book in which the writer did claim man was descended from apes. It is a simple question - and pehaps dumb, but if you are not simply trolling, then please give me a direct answer.

Thank you.

I certainly don't teach my students evolution, unless it is evolution of drilling technology! You may be correct that I have no real concept of evolution: if I am as dumb as you think, the forty years of study wouldn't take me very far. But I have a hunger to learn and have tried to learn something from you. It has not been easy.

Disagreements can be intellectually stimulating. Passions can run high. We all have a strong commitment to our own beliefs, which have grown and evolved over the years. I regret that your interpretation of my postings has led to such animosity in this instance.

[Spaceman]

Fair enough,i agree with most of the latter in your post.Like a few people here i post my thoughts on subjects im interested in,i dont post to influence other people to my way of thinking,just stimulate them into discussion.I own a huge library of books on many topics,i have a head full of facts,thoughts and questions,I do not post for answers as you know many topics are ambiguous,just to discuss possibilities.I admit i dislike to be told my opinions are crap,especially as ive studied many hours on evolution(yes origin of the species as well) you see i didnt come to the conclusion of why i dont think we share lineage with primates off the top of my head.I searched for the data with an open mind and could only draw this conclusion from digesting the facts.

I dont want to convert you,i dont have that right but you may have some input i find intriguing and likewise.I would like this very much to be an end to our quarrel.So may i just say to you a small but vital fact regarding this closeness to our buddie the chimp.You may be stimulated into finding some data for yourself.

You and many here know we have only just mapped the human genome,no such mapping of chimps/primates genome have been done.When they say 98% its an exaggerated generalisation grounded on the similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man and the chimpanzee. A sequence analysis has been made with a method named "DNA hybridization" on the DNA sequences that are correlated with these proteins and only those limited number of proteins have been compared.

There are about one hundred thousand genes, and therefore one hundred thousand proteins encoded by these genes in humans. For that reason, there is no scientific basis for claiming that all the genes of man and ape are 98% similar just because of the similarity in 40 out of 100,000 proteins.

(this 98% similarity was carried out in 1987 by biologists Sibley and Ahlquist) which has been revised by later studies to( 86.7 sarich)

last example used by evolutionists on "the genetic similarity between man and ape", is the presence of 48 chromosomes in chimpanzees and gorillas versus 46 chromosomes in man.Evolutionists regard the closeness of the number of chromosomes as indication of an evolutionary relationship. However, if this logic used by evolutionists were valid, then man would have an even closer relative than the chimpanzee: "the potato"!. Because the number of chromosomes in potatoes 46.

Ok i hope ive got my point across a little more amicable bye now buddie

[JHAQ]

It would be very sad for the hybrid & a dreadful burden to put on a living creature. Look at wolf- dog hybrids & dogs are more closely related to wolves than man is to Chimps .I am surprised though that it has not been attempted & if so we should learn from it & not react as was done re- Nazi human experiments ( refuse to learn from them )-- dreadful & inexcusable as they were .

[Ophiolite]

Radical Edward asked us back in April to consider the ethics of creating a human-chimp hybrid. It can be argued that an important basis for arriving at a conclusion on this would be the degree of relationship between chimp and man.

Spaceman expressed the view that their is no relationship.

since (post 70) i have been consistant in that i believe man shares no common ancestry with chimps/apes

I should like to clarify the nature of this belief. I am not sure, Spaceman, if you are arguing that:

• The evolutionary divergence is earlier in the primate line
  
• The divergence pre-dates the emergence of primates
  
• Man is a 'special' creation separate from primates and from other life
  
• Some other explanation
  

If I can understand your underlying thoughts on this it will be easier to discuss those thoughts.

 

In the meantime, a central plank, I believe, of your arguments for the non-relationship of man and chimps was the declared 98.5% (or whatever) similarity in genetic make up between chimps and man, which you characterise as inaccurate and misleading. I am not wedded to any specific figure, at all, but rather the underlying relationships. You state:

 

If you search for more up to date studies (not old library books)you will find that their is only 86.7% genetic similarity when segments of human and chimpanzee DNA (totaling 1,870,955 base pairs) are laid side by side.

Good advice. I would ask for your thoughts on the following abstract:

 

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

What do functionally important DNA sites, those scrutinized and shaped by natural selection, tell us about the place of humans in evolution? Here we compare 90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. On a time scale, the coding DNA divergencies separate the human–chimpanzee clade from the gorilla clade at between 6 and 7 million years ago and place the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees at between 5 and 6 million years ago. The evolutionary rate of coding DNA in the catarrhine clade (Old World monkey and ape, including human) is much slower than in the lineage to mouse. Among the genes examined, 30 show evidence of positive selection during descent of catarrhines. Nonsynonymous substitutions by themselves, in this subset of positively selected genes, group humans and chimpanzees closest to each other and have chimpanzees diverge about as much from the common human–chimpanzee ancestor as humans do. This functional DNA evidence supports two previously offered taxonomic proposals: family Hominidae should include all extant apes; and genus Homo should include three extant species and two subgenera, Homo (Homo) sapiens (humankind), Homo (Pan) troglodytes (common chimpanzee), and Homo (Pan) paniscus (bonobo chimpanzee).

 

From, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America June 10, 2003

[Spaceman]

Yes bullet number two is my answer.I do not want to get involved in the second part as instead of debating we will only go in circles and start arguing again,which as already proven were both as stubborn as each other.

I already stated that the Dna data alone is insufficient as conclusive proof when we have only just mapped our own genome sequence.

As for a common link between man/chimp or any other animal the unequivacal answer is yes were all related.We formed as life on this planet as carbon lifeforms so our DNA will share similarities.Were made up of the same ingredients just as when we build a house,with a million bricks and cement(the bricks are made of the same materials but you wouldnt say they were decendants of each other.

I could if asked give evidence to an even closer link between man/chimp, pointing to a closer divergence.Just to show the contradiction of the present science understanding.But getting back on topic a human chimp hybrid which we could make happen tommorrow would give credence to about several authors including Von Daniken that an alien race did what we can now do and create an intelligent being(humans)out of manipulating the gene's of monkeys.How could we despute his theories when 35 years later we stand on the threshold of doing just that.And if we go there Planet of the apes here we come....lol.!!!

 

edit

I liked that last bit,hahaha.....sorry

[jaime]

I thi nk that it is not wrong, provided the hybrid is treated with respect, and offered a good life, not caged in a lab nor enslaved. Regardless of the inteligence this creature achieves,he has to be respected, I do not think it is wrong unless it is brought for lab purposes. He can be studied, in the same way we test humans, in a human way. Perhaps this hybrid creature will enlighten our messed up view on life in this planet, we Human beings(homo sapiens sapiens) have destroyed the planet, sent many species to oblivion, including our once alive cousin, the Neanderthal man,we are materialistic, vengefull, envious, quarrelsome...etc...we are a disgrace, we live in a developed country and think that those in poor places are not human as we are and think of ourselves as better than wjhat we are, we are those poor people species, we are stupid. Perhaps the chimp blood will open something new and good for us, a new perspective.

Jaime.

[Artorius]

Yes we can dress it up in a nice suit and tie, ask it deep meaningfull questions...hopefully it will enlighten our messed up view of life....however i prefer the human materialistic,vengefull,envious,quarrelsome approach and just dissect it..

[Kleptin]

Heres a question. If the animal is 1/2 human, should we dissect it? what about 3/4 human? and on and on? when would we NOT dissect the resultant offspring?

[Sayonara]

Why should we not dissect it? We dissect humans all the time.

[Kleptin]

I don't think we breed humans for that purpose though. Maybe we should wait until the hybrid has died from old age, then dissect it? (only if it wishes its body donated to science)