"I can create a Neanderthal baby"

[Gigantopithecus]

I can only imagine trying to put something like that through an IRB. They probably don't get past the first sentence before the NO stamp comes out.

LOL. I'm not sure if the IRB would get the NO stamp out, or pick up the phone to call administration to find out whether Dr. Moreau is working on campus...

 

[zinfamous]

It's not hilariously not possible. It is entirely plausible. But it is absolutely taboo and monstrously unethical to test, so we'll never know. (Hopefully.)

what about the chromosomal difference?

 

[Geosurface]

what about the chromosomal difference?

In a direct parallel to the chimp-human case, the Przewalski horse (Equus przewalskii) with 33 chromosome pairs, and the domestic horse (E. caballus) with 32 chromosome pairs, have been found to be interfertile, and produce semi-fertile offspring, where male hybrids can breed with female domestic horses.

From the Wiki on Humanzee

 

[Gigantopithecus]

what about the chromosomal difference?

Someone posted earlier that Przewalski's horse and the domestic horse have non-identical chromosome counts. Also, horses have 64 chromosomes and donkeys have 62 chromosomes. There were supposedly wolf/maned wolf hybrids (78 and 76 chromosomes, respectively). And there are many non-mammalian vertebrate hybrids known that have different chromosome numbers. Of thematic relevance, elephants have 56 chromosomes and woolly mammoths had 58 chromosomes - so if we ever tried to clone woolly mammoths, the same issue would arise.

 

[Geosurface]

Someone posted earlier that Przewalski's horse and the domestic horse have non-identical chromosome counts. Also, horses have 64 chromosomes and donkeys have 62 chromosomes. There were supposedly wolf/maned wolf hybrids (78 and 76 chromosomes, respectively). And there are many non-mammalian vertebrate hybrids known that have different chromosome numbers. Of thematic relevance, elephants have 56 chromosomes and woolly mammoths had 58 chromosomes - so if we ever tried to clone woolly mammoths, the same issue would arise.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that there is less genetic distance between humans and chimps than there is between horses and donkeys.

I think it is quite possible a humanzee could be born. I think it's quite possible they HAVE been born, perhaps in pre-modern times, and unknown to any but those in human villages near the chimp's territory.

In the BBC Documentary "Oliver the Chimp" they talk about a famous chimp that walked upright and had a very unusual appearance, that other normal chimps became very agitated around... who showed various signs of possibly being a humanzee. In the end they tested his DNA and found he had the same number of chromosomes as a chimp, and they declared he was not a humanzee.

What I do not believe they considered, was whether he might be a second or third generation or even further down the line "humanzee" - not 50/50 but the offspring of human-chimp interbreeding some number of generations before his.

The documentary, at about an hour, is worth a look. I posted the link to it on YouTube earlier in the thread.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that there is less genetic distance between humans and chimps than there is between horses and donkeys.

Correct. But genetic distance alone just affects the chances of possible interfertility. It doesn't guarantee that it can/can't happen. Hybridization is impossible to predict without actually testing it. There are more closely related mammals that aren't interfertile. That's why I don't think we'll ever know, because ethically we can't test human/chimp interfertility. It would also be highly unethical to even test chimp/gorilla interfertility, given that apes enjoy near-human ethical consideration from the scientific community.

I think it is quite possible a humanzee could be born. I think it's quite possible they HAVE been born, perhaps in pre-modern times, and unknown to any but those in human villages near the chimp's territory.

Or in modern times, but as you've said, knowledge of an event would not be widespread.

What I do not believe they considered, was whether he might be a second or third generation or even further down the line "humanzee" - not 50/50 but the offspring of human-chimp interbreeding some number of generations before his.

This would be less likely than creating a human-chimp hybrid. As you know mules are very, very rarely fertile. So any human-chimp hybrid is unlikely to be fertile, and thus would be incapable of being backcrossed with either parental population.

 

[BeauCharles]

a lot of neanderthal babies post here

Damn right and I have the pronounced brow ridge and large jaw to prove it!

 

[Geosurface]

because ethically we can't test human/chimp interfertility. It would also be highly unethical to even test chimp/gorilla interfertility

Chimps and gorillas are slaughtered for bush meat by certain humans at an alarming rate.

I fail to see how scientists or hell, private citizens with a turkey baster, testing the interfertility of chimps and humans and releasing their results to the public and media via the internet, inviting those results to be verified... would be "unethical" or at least any moreso than testing cosmetics on animals, encroaching on habitat, and slaughtering for bush meat.

In fact, I believe the result of proving interfertility could be to:

- Dramatically increase acceptance of evolution
- Decrease bush meat practices or increase pressure against them
- Raise the level of consideration given to the lives of non-human apes
- Raise consciousness about the fact that humans are animals and fall within that spectrum
- Expand our understanding of what it means to be human, etc

I see almost entirely positives coming from it.

I also frankly don't think that such things even require justification. Scientific experimentation is it's own justification.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

I also frankly don't think that such things even require justification. Scientific experimentation is it's own justification.

Yep, just ask the folk over at Unit 731.

 

[Geosurface]

Yep, just ask the folk over at Unit 731.

My response is two-fold:

1.) Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. And we have 7 billion eggs. From what I've heard, a lot of modern medical knowledge was arrived at through some very gruesome, widely decried experiments in the past.

that one was ... somewhat tongue in cheek. Maybe.

2.) Isn't pointing at specific examples of scientific research being done in an abusive fashion and going wrong and trying to extrapolate this to other research a lot like pointing at a couple of mass shootings and saying let's ban these types of weapons?

 

[Saint Nick]

Genetic drift

 

[Saint Nick]

Here's the reconstruction of a Neanderthal in utero:

Why are it's bone flying off it's body?

 

[zinfamous]

Someone posted earlier that Przewalski's horse and the domestic horse have non-identical chromosome counts. Also, horses have 64 chromosomes and donkeys have 62 chromosomes. There were supposedly wolf/maned wolf hybrids (78 and 76 chromosomes, respectively). And there are many non-mammalian vertebrate hybrids known that have different chromosome numbers. Of thematic relevance, elephants have 56 chromosomes and woolly mammoths had 58 chromosomes - so if we ever tried to clone woolly mammoths, the same issue would arise.

yeah, that makes sense. We often attempt (and almost always fail) to create hybrids with our model species: D miranda, and one of the closer, more studied species, D pseudoobscura. this can be done, and has been done. miranda has odd, evolving neo-x and neo-y chromosomes, though the autosome complement is the same across species (across all Drosophila, iirc--though that probably isn't the case.)

so that is possible, though not easy. and yes, infertility, and the reverse crosses produce different results. I should have put more thought into it before posting.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

My response is two-fold:

1.) Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. And we have 7 billion eggs. From what I've heard, a lot of modern medical knowledge was arrived at through some very gruesome, widely decried experiments in the past.

that one was ... somewhat tongue in cheek. Maybe.

2.) Isn't pointing at specific examples of scientific research being done in an abusive fashion and going wrong and trying to extrapolate this to other research a lot like pointing at a couple of mass shootings and saying let's ban these types of weapons?

My reply was specifically to this statement:

Scientific experimentation is it's own justification.

No it is not.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

yeah, that makes sense. We often attempt (and almost always fail) to create hybrids with our model species: D miranda, and one of the closer, more studied species, D pseudoobscura. this can be done, and has been done. miranda has odd, evolving neo-x and neo-y chromosomes, though the autosome complement is the same across species (across all Drosophila, iirc--though that probably isn't the case.)

so that is possible, though not easy. and yes, infertility, and the reverse crosses produce different results. I should have put more thought into it before posting.

Hybridization genetics/genomics is a very hot topic in biology as you know. I think it will be one of the last things we truly understand about biology, as we'll have to know A LOT more about a lot of things before we can accurately model/predict what might happen in the lab or in nature.