Information icon.svg

Nominations for the RationalMedia Foundation 2019 board of trustees election are now open!

Talk:Humanzee

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Actually I think this a semi-serious topic. It does seem to waver between science and pseudo-science, depending on genetic research and what ideas are trendy at the time, I think we should cover it. - User \scriptstyle h/2\hbar 00:23, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

I must say this is a hard topic to research, web searches keep bring up all kinds of fringe people; mostly creationist and white supremacists. - User \scriptstyle h/2\hbar 01:20, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
An actual contribution. Amazing. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 17:27, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

chromosome[edit]

I had thought that a difference in chromosome number was an absolute bar to reproduction. When the sperm enters the egg, the two DNA strands must line up chromosome by chromosome. If there are a different number of chromosome then it can't work, can it? Or can the many scientists Here give another explanation. I mean this question in all seriousness and would be interested in the answer.--Tolerance 15:41, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

I am far from an expert in this, but from what I understand, an organism can still survive if the chromosome count is off by a chromosome or so. This is what allows the creation of closely related hybrids, such as horses and donkeys producing mules, or lions and tigers producing ligers. The catch is this, due to the chromosomal makeup (often having an odd number of chromosomes), the hybrids are almost universally sterile. A comparison in humans is downs syndrome, even though it does not produce another "specie", the offspring is generally sterile due to the trisomy of chromosome 23. JĀvąṢ₡ä₰ hi there 17:22, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
Doesn't that cause a problem for the Theory of Evolution?--Tolerance 10:59, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
There have been cases of fertile mules and ligers. Tolerance, perchance, have you done any research at all on chromosome 2? Neveruse513 11:03, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
Przewalski wild horses have 66 chromosomes. Domestic have 64 chromosomes. I wonder if they can produce fertile offspring... Neveruse513 11:09, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
I'm Not Sure. But if the Offspring of such matings are of Doubtful Fertility then that would seem to be a big problem. (By the way I mean this question in all Seriousness, so keeping any Hostility towards me out of the conversation might be a Plus.)--Tolerance 12:49, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
Not eVen A litTLe HOstIliTy? SeEms lIKe it WoUld be a Lot CHeaper and quiCKer to Skip THe ArtIfIcial InsEMination aND WorK ON a CHumAn hybrid. Thee Nuttish Talk 12:54, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
I'm Sorry. I don't quite get your Point there.--Tolerance 13:02, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
yes przewalski's horses can produce fertile offspring with a domestic horse https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/molbev/msn239 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18931383

Pic[edit]

I would just like to put in my opinion that this pic should be removed. I've never really found it funny because you could find any number of pictures of any human making primate faces that compare to other primates, no reason to single out Bush. Plus, I think it's an insult to chimpanzees/bonobos. Smyth 17:39, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

While I agree that it is a mild insult to "real" chimps, Bush comes across much better as a highly accomplished chimpanzee than as a "human being". I do agree with removal for one reason - it's gonna get dated pretty quickly as Bush slips out of the public eye. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:46, 15 April 2009 (EDT)