Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by lixluke, Feb 1, 2007.
Makes alot of sense?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
The ability to interbreed is the final word on whether two species are actually the same species or not. If they consistently have healthy and fertile offspring they are the same species. If the consistently have healthy offspring that are usually infertile, they are a different species but closely related. I don't think that such a determination can otherwise be made without extremely detailed DNA matching.
Can humans breed with other primates?
Ask Inverto (just kidding).
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! not donkey?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Look at Spuriousmonkey Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, this is no longer the accepted definition. And hybrids can sometimes change from being sterile to non-sterile through polyploidy. Today we define a species as two separate populations that do not normally interbreed in nature. You see the difference here? They are ecologically isolated but yet if placed in an artificial environment, as is the case with the two distinct species of lions and tigers, they can still produce viable fertile hybrid offspring.
No. They were thought to have interbred with Neanderthals but this is still debated. Humans cannot produce offspring from any other primate species.
What about in the past though Valich?
How far in the past zenbab?
All species somewhere should have the ability to interbreed otherwise the evolution proces would be extremly difficult. But you don't wreally hear much of hybrid homidae
Monkey's on the other hand: link
gibbon+ Siamangs= Siabon
Rhesus Macaque+Hamadryas Baboon=Rheboon
If humans neanderthals were to breed you would proberly get something like when a sumatran orangutans and bornean orangutans mate and that's, sterile or poorly fertile hybrids. Hybrid orangutans are genetically weaker, with lower survival rates than pure animals.
That's a pretty bold call. I would have thought that humans and chimpanzees were at least as close genetically and horses and donkeys. I suspect that the notion hasn't been properly tested, and if it has, it hasn't been published (no surprise!)
Getting ethical clearance would be pretty impossible. Even if it was only to test if human and chimpanzee haploids would combine in vitro to make a zygote.
Since "we're all just animals," according to Darwinists, then why don't they just pay somebody to mate with a chimp to see what happens?
Who is this "they", that doesn't have a code of ethics?
You can't even mate a mouse with another mouse without a permission in science.
"Hey, do you have funding for those little fuckers?"
are you volunteering
If a human were able to mate with a chimp to produce an offspring, what would it look like? Would it look like Eddy Munster, or a pygmy African, or a monkey with a moustache and straight legs in a suit, would it look like the Geico caveman, thoughts?
stalin was hoping for a "I want a new invincible human being, insensitive to pain, resistant and indifferent about the quality of food they eat."
Separate names with a comma.