Oliver the Human-Chimp Hybrid / Humanzee

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: peacefulpete

Chimps are killers and do not make good pets. Sorry
These guys are not Bonzo.

There are actually people who DO have chimps as pets. Especially in Central Africa, where people live in the same exact areas of chimps. All they have to do is capture a baby chimp and put a chain on him. Instant pet.

Sorry.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: peacefulpete

Its impossible.

The studies quoted in this thread, report that human sperm CAN combine with the egg of a gibbon, and presumably, can do the same with monkeys who are MORE SIMILAR to us.

Chimpanzees are literally the most similar creature to human beings.

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: TinySickTears

#MeToo

There was a dolphin in Hawaii when I was a kid, the lady jumped out of the water on the tour crying screaming "Rape!", slot of folks laughed but as I learned, they actually try to rape people. Blew my child mind away

Animals!

What? lol. I'm assuming you made that up?

a reply to: peacefulpete

I don't have proof of what? Factually his y-DNA was never tested, i.e. his paternal DNA was never tested. It's all factual.

That this chimp was a hybrid.

There is no evidence.

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: peacefulpete

Its impossible.

The studies quoted in this thread, report that human sperm CAN combine with the egg of a gibbon, and presumably, can do the same with monkeys who are MORE SIMILAR to us.

Chimpanzees are literally the most similar creature to human beings.

But your repeated insistence that we must be able to engage in admixture with Chimpanzees is not supported by science in the least. It’s just your personal hyperbole laden conjecture with nothing to support it. And a minor correction, the studied showed the human sperm can penetrate the egg of a Gibbon, not combine or create a viable embryo. 2 very different things.

You keep insisting that it’s a totally plausible hypothesis that male human copulated with and had successfully progeny with a female chimpanzee simply because there wasn’t an accurate test for Y DNA when the tests were done over 20 years ago. If there were hybridization it would have showed itself in the chromosomal testing. The Y DNA isn’t necessary to rule out admixture.

It’s not on anyone else to falsify your personal position. The onus lies with you to support your hypothesis with the science.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: peacefulpete

I don't have proof of what? Factually his y-DNA was never tested, i.e. his paternal DNA was never tested. It's all factual.

That this chimp was a hybrid.

There is no evidence.

The evidence is his morphological anomalies.

a reply to: peter vlar

insistence that we must be able to engage in admixture with Chimpanzees is not supported by science in the least.

It's supported by the scientific studies that have already been cited and quoted in this thread...!

Human sperm combining with a gibbon's egg DOES suggest that the same is possible with the apes that are MORE closely related to us, than gibbons. Chimps being the CLOSEST relatives to humans.

the studied showed the human sperm can penetrate the egg of a Gibbon, not combine or create a viable embryo. 2 very different things.

Not really "very different things."

Sperm penetrating an egg... leads to... an embryo.

AFAIK the studies destroyed the combined human sperm & gibbon egg, after they combined. There are no studies that actually address whether or not the embryo could grow after that point, AFAIK.

However, nature does show us examples of 2 species mating and producing a hybrid offspring. Horse + donkey = mule. Lion + tiger = liger.

And in both those examples, the 2 species are MORE distant from each other, than humans and chimps (again, our closest relatives to humans).

So nature alone suggests that it should be possible for humans & chimps to procreate & produce a hybrid offspring, which is LESS bizarre than the real life examples of that happening (with mules and ligers).

The Y DNA isn’t necessary to rule out admixture.

...Why not? That would literally be the way to verify the DNA passed-down from his father.

It’s not on anyone else to falsify your personal position. The onus lies with you to support your hypothesis with the science.

Yeah, it IS supported by science, as we've been discussing.

originally posted by: peacefulpete
a reply to: peter vlar

insistence that we must be able to engage in admixture with Chimpanzees is not supported by science in the least.

It's supported by the scientific studies that have already been cited and quoted in this thread...!

Human sperm combining with a gibbon's egg DOES suggest that the same is possible with the apes that are MORE closely related to us, than gibbons. Chimps being the CLOSEST relatives to humans.

the studied showed the human sperm can penetrate the egg of a Gibbon, not combine or create a viable embryo. 2 very different things.

Not really "very different things."

Sperm penetrating an egg... leads to... an embryo.

AFAIK the studies destroyed the combined human sperm & gibbon egg, after they combined. There are no studies that actually address whether or not the embryo could grow after that point, AFAIK.

However, nature does show us examples of 2 species mating and producing a hybrid offspring. Horse + donkey = mule. Lion + tiger = liger.

And in both those examples, the 2 species are MORE distant from each other, than humans and chimps (again, our closest relatives to humans).

So nature alone suggests that it should be possible for humans & chimps to procreate & produce a hybrid offspring, which is LESS bizarre than the real life examples of that happening (with mules and ligers).

The Y DNA isn’t necessary to rule out admixture.

...Why not? That would literally be the way to verify the DNA passed-down from his father.

It’s not on anyone else to falsify your personal position. The onus lies with you to support your hypothesis with the science.

Yeah, it IS supported by science, as we've been discussing.

No, it’s not supported by anything other than your very vivid imagination. Show me a single peer reviewed paper indicating that humans can successfully mate and create a viable embryo with a Chimpanzee. If you can do that, then there’s a conversation to be had. Without that, all you have is your hyperbolic conjecture. Which is fine until someone insists that their conjecture should be regarded as fact despite having nothing to support the position.

Sperm penetrating an egg doesn’t always lead to a viable embryo. Even in humans a large percentage of fertilized eggs do not become viable embryos. So yes, being able to penetrate the egg and creating a viable embryo are 2 very different things.

Again, the Y DNA isn’t needed when you have the chromosomes themselves. That’s a completely different test than the MtDNA or Y DNA test. The chromosomes are known. You’ve got no argument and no evidence.

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: peacefulpete

I don't have proof of what? Factually his y-DNA was never tested, i.e. his paternal DNA was never tested. It's all factual.

That this chimp was a hybrid.

There is no evidence.

The evidence is his morphological anomalies.

To your untrained eye. To a primatologist or Anthropologist, what you view as an anomaly is within the the standard range of variation. You’re commenting out of your depth. It really is that simple.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: peacefulpete
a reply to: peter vlar

insistence that we must be able to engage in admixture with Chimpanzees is not supported by science in the least.

It's supported by the scientific studies that have already been cited and quoted in this thread...!

Human sperm combining with a gibbon's egg DOES suggest that the same is possible with the apes that are MORE closely related to us, than gibbons. Chimps being the CLOSEST relatives to humans.

the studied showed the human sperm can penetrate the egg of a Gibbon, not combine or create a viable embryo. 2 very different things.

Not really "very different things."

Sperm penetrating an egg... leads to... an embryo.

AFAIK the studies destroyed the combined human sperm & gibbon egg, after they combined. There are no studies that actually address whether or not the embryo could grow after that point, AFAIK.

However, nature does show us examples of 2 species mating and producing a hybrid offspring. Horse + donkey = mule. Lion + tiger = liger.

And in both those examples, the 2 species are MORE distant from each other, than humans and chimps (again, our closest relatives to humans).

So nature alone suggests that it should be possible for humans & chimps to procreate & produce a hybrid offspring, which is LESS bizarre than the real life examples of that happening (with mules and ligers).

The Y DNA isn’t necessary to rule out admixture.

...Why not? That would literally be the way to verify the DNA passed-down from his father.

It’s not on anyone else to falsify your personal position. The onus lies with you to support your hypothesis with the science.

Yeah, it IS supported by science, as we've been discussing.

No, it’s not supported by anything other than your very vivid imagination. Show me a single peer reviewed paper indicating that humans can successfully mate and create a viable embryo with a Chimpanzee. If you can do that, then there’s a conversation to be had. Without that, all you have is your hyperbolic conjecture. Which is fine until someone insists that their conjecture should be regarded as fact despite having nothing to support the position.

Sperm penetrating an egg doesn’t always lead to a viable embryo. Even in humans a large percentage of fertilized eggs do not become viable embryos. So yes, being able to penetrate the egg and creating a viable embryo are 2 very different things.

Again, the Y DNA isn’t needed when you have the chromosomes themselves. That’s a completely different test than the MtDNA or Y DNA test. The chromosomes are known. You’ve got no argument and no evidence.

I don't believe you're having an honest conversation with me. There are obviously no studies (at least, publicly-known) which attempted to produce hybrid offspring. (If such studies have ever happened, then they have been kept secret.)

However, that is besides the point. Studies cited in this thread DO show that human sperm CAN AND WILL penetrate the egg of an ape, the gibbon, which is a distant relative to humans. It's only logical that the same exact thing would be expected to happen with EVERY OTHER TYPE OF APE which is MORE CLOSELY RELATED TO US. Such as chimpanzees, the literal CLOSEST RELATIVE TO HUMANS. This is all logical extrapolation, based on the studies that are known to exist.

The argument that the combined sperm & egg might not develop, is meaningless. There's no reason to think that it WOULDN'T develop.

Plus, there's every reason to think that it WOULD develop into an embryo and a hybrid organism. Nature shows us this same exact thing happening, with species mating and producing hybrids, which are more distant species than humans & chimps.

Nature shows us horses and donkeys mating to produce a hybrid offspring, and those species are MORE DISTANT than humans and chimps are.

I'm not a geneticist but I also don't know how you could argue that the lack of testing of Y-DNA is somehow irrelevant. AFAIK that would be the most direct way to prove his paternal DNA, i.e. to prove what species his father was. Without testing that, we simply don't know what his Y-DNA was, and what his father was.

While Oliver did have 48 chromosomes, it's possible that a legit human-chimp hybrid might also have 48 chromosomes. We don't know, because hybridization tests have never been conducted (publicly). We can't assume that a legit hybrid WOULDN'T have 48 chromosomes. It doesn't prove anything either way.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: peacefulpete

I don't have proof of what? Factually his y-DNA was never tested, i.e. his paternal DNA was never tested. It's all factual.

That this chimp was a hybrid.

There is no evidence.

The evidence is his morphological anomalies.

To your untrained eye. To a primatologist or Anthropologist, what you view as an anomaly is within the the standard range of variation. You’re commenting out of your depth. It really is that simple.

Out of my depth? Then who is allowed to comment on such topics? Only geneticists? Are you going to tell me now that YOU are a geneticist?

Oliver's anomalies are obviously NOT in the standard range of variation. He is the ONLY chimp known to walk upright habitually, for example, with a skeleton that was apparently "built" for walking upright.

Being the only ONE known example of that, is certainly NOT in the standard range of variation lol.

a reply to: peacefulpete

And then I pointed out that... it actually WAS said.

well its not in this thread, its not posted anywhere.

Um, "incompatible" is a completely different word, with a completely different meaning, from the word "incomparable." They are 2 letters' difference, plus they are dramatically different words with dramatically different meanings.

You are one dead set idiot.

Christ, that's not even a sentence. Let me guess, you're going to argue that it WOULD be a sentence if you had used a couple of commas, so I shouldn't mind that what you wrote is not actually a sentence lol.

the levels if idiocy just go so beyond that you should start charging for such entertainment.

^ Sounds creepy and obsessive. I'm not interested in you. lol.

Really


you mean even after posting this

I don't plan on responding to your posts in this thread.

I guess your plans have changed.


Please stop replying with nonsense that goes off topic.


If you said you wont reply, try not being a liar and add some value to your words instead of making them mean nothing when you cannot say one thing and stick to it.

originally posted by: Spacespider
Discusting humans busy tormenting every other living thing on the planet in the most cruel ways possible.
I wish there is a special hell for everyone that harms animals

What is it about us humans? I am really ashamed of that...

originally posted by: pointessa

originally posted by: Spacespider
Discusting humans busy tormenting every other living thing on the planet in the most cruel ways possible.
I wish there is a special hell for everyone that harms animals

What is it about us humans? I am really ashamed of that...

They had it do tricks and kept it captive for some freak show.. lots of cameras and lots of yelling..
Stressed animal loosing all will and reason to live. Freedom is taken away, experiments was done, painful tests until the end of its hurtful life.. just as the rest of the animals of this world beside humans

originally posted by: pointessa

originally posted by: Spacespider
Discusting humans busy tormenting every other living thing on the planet in the most cruel ways possible.
I wish there is a special hell for everyone that harms animals

What is it about us humans? I am really ashamed of that...

I think humans were a genetic experiment that didn't work out, very well lol.

Advanced species saw the Earth full of primitive life, and they wanted to see what would happen, if they combined some of their DNA with the monkeys, which were the most advanced of the primitive life on Earth.

So they gave us the ability to talk, and to think a little bit better.

However, they are surely surprised at how stubbornly stupid and violent we are, regardless being gifted with speech and thought.

They didn't expect us to still be essentially as primitive and stupid as the monkeys that they created us from.

We're still basically living like a bunch of monkeys, only with upgrades of speech, thought, and tools / tech.

If we consider that most of our houses are built of wood, then our houses are still basically just... living in trees like monkeys, only built a little better lol.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

well its not in this thread, its not posted anywhere.

Well it is. Why don't you try reading the thread that you're trolling.

You are one dead set idiot.

^Whether you like it or not, words have meanings behind them, and 2 different words have 2 different meanings. You don't need to call other people idiots because of how words work lol.

I'll re-quote myself so you can think it over:

Um, "incompatible" is a completely different word, with a completely different meaning, from the word "incomparable." They are 2 letters' difference, plus they are dramatically different words with dramatically different meanings.

the levels if idiocy just go so beyond that you should start charging for such entertainment.

^Are you half-illiterate, or what? Do you know that a sentence is supposed to start with a capital letter? If you're going to crap up all my threads, is it too much to ask that you at least try to form a sentence?

And again, you don't need to accuse others of idiocy, just because you don't seem to understand how language works...

Please stop replying with nonsense that goes off topic.

Really? Responding directly to your posts is "off topic?" How about stop crapping up my thread and I won't have your crap to respond to?

If you said you wont reply, try not being a liar and add some value to your words instead of making them mean nothing when you cannot say one thing and stick to it.

If you said you're not a troll, try not being a troll, "and add some value to your words instead of making them mean nothing when you cannot say one thing and stick to it."

a reply to: peacefulpete

In a separate study, Oliver's cranial morphology, ear shape, freckles, and baldness were found to fall within the range of variability exhibited by the common chimpanzee.

Sorry but no.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: peacefulpete

In a separate study, Oliver's cranial morphology, ear shape, freckles, and baldness were found to fall within the range of variability exhibited by the common chimpanzee.

Sorry but no.

He was the only one single chimpanzee to ever walk upright habitually.

That alone means he does not fall within the range of variability of normal chimpanzees.

a reply to: peacefulpete

No sir! two surrounded a snorkler lady and thrashed her around and she said they put their snouts between her knees and knocked side to side. The lady was freaked out and ushered away by a bunch of people.

It wasnt quite as erotic as the Shape of Water, IMHO

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: peacefulpete

In a separate study, Oliver's cranial morphology, ear shape, freckles, and baldness were found to fall within the range of variability exhibited by the common chimpanzee.

Sorry but no.

He was the only one single chimpanzee to ever walk upright habitually.

That alone means he does not fall within the range of variability of normal chimpanzees.

Since this is your claim, you can surely provide an appropriate citation supporting this right?