Xref: utzoo sci.astro:9809 sci.psychology:3373 bionet.molbio.evolution:125
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!yale!mintaka!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!news.funet.fi!tukkasotka.tut.fi!neal
From: neal@tukkasotka.tut.fi (Norwitz Neal)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.psychology,bionet.molbio.evolution
Subject: Re: Theories needed on life (Human + Chimp)
Message-ID: <1990Oct20.224403.17290@funet.fi>
Date: 20 Oct 90 22:44:03 GMT
References: <1990Oct18.213753.34575@eagle.wesleyan.edu> <3996@3comvax.MCD.3Com.Com> <1990Oct19.204109.1718@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <1153@helens.Stanford.EDU> <1990Oct20.105947.19023@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Sender: news@funet.fi (#News )
Reply-To: neal@tukkasotka.tut.fi (Norwitz Neal)
Organization: Tampere University of Technology
Lines: 23


Wayne Hayes writes:

> The further away from our
> branch of the tree we get, the more lax we are about defining
> species.  For example, we and the Chimps are a *lot* closer
> morphoplogically than some invertatrae that we call "sibling species";
> we're also closer than the horse and donkey, which can breed to
> produce a mule (or is horse+mule=donkey, whatever).  The only thing
> stopping us from interbreeding with chimps to see if we're sibling
> species is that, right now, most people would be revulsed by the idea.

Does anyone know if this experiment has been tried?  To bread a chimp with
humans would pose many ethical questions.  But it could provide some answers
about many topics including evolution.


*****************************************************************************
	Neal Norwitz
	neal@tut.fi		What have we learned?

Opinions expressed are purely your own.

*****************************************************************************