/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15844759
Great now crossbreed them too

>>15844911
They're infertile.

https://guardian.ng/news/genetic-makeup-of-12-year-old-angolan-boy-in-dispute/

>The genetic makeup of a 12-year-old Angolan, boy is now disputed by experts after his deceased mother allegedly told him he is the offspring of a human-chimpanzee love affair, reports the Gazeta Nacional.

>>15845050
That's really interesting, he posseses mostly human features too. Were there any tests done to measure his intelligence?

>>15844759
>lab-created human-chimp hybrids
waste of time and money when Detroit exists

>>15845045
They're not, there is a reason second generation hybrids like liligers and tiligers exist. Some groups can produce hybrids with almost no fertility issues, pythons for example can produce a fertile hybrid with pretty much any other python species assuming they're similar enough in size to copulate

>>15845666

What the heck is that? Jaguar Lion looks so cool. Could be photo shopped but still.

>>15845054
>mostly human features too
he looks stereotypically negro because negroes are already human-chimp hybrids. the one in the pic only looks a little different because he has a somewhat higher fraction of chimp genetics than most negroes do.

>>15845666
can I cross breed housecat and lion? I mean by artificial insemination of course because the animals have too big size difference for copulation

>>15845134
LMAOOO
>>15845050
Ayo... wtf I thought we wuz just joking around
>>15845961
No, that's like trying to breed a dog with a bear

>>15845967
Why not? They have the same amount of chromosomes and come from the same family tree

>>15845666
>pythons for example can produce a fertile hybrid with pretty much any other python species assuming they're similar enough in size to copulate
That's more a function of shitty taxonomy. If there's no fertility issues with crossbreeds, they should be considered the same species, or at minimum species complex.

Genomic reclassifications are thankfully becoming more prominent but they really need to hurry the fuck up. I can't help but feel a lot of famous animals aren't reclassified as the same species for cultural reasons more than anything cause a lot obviously are.

>>15845866
Its a liliger, 75% lion 25% tiger born from a female liger and a male lion. It probably has spots because a spotted pattern is ancestral to lions and they still kind of have it but it fades as they grow, so if you add genes from a cat who's got a pattern it starts to show through
>>15846066
>That's more a function of shitty taxonomy. If there's no fertility issues with crossbreeds, they should be considered the same species, or at minimum species complex.
Not they shouldn't, they're not even remotely that closely related. It's just an evolutionary coincidence as far as anyone knows.
>>15845961
I doubt it
>>15845967
>No, that's like trying to breed a dog with a bear
Dogs and bears aren't in the same family, they're nowhere near as close to each other as a lion is to a cat

>>15844759
Why did they specify male vs female for the liger but not the tigon? They're both 50/50, one is just a giant and the other is a dwarf

>>15844759
I was always thinking if you can make an ultimate breed by mixing cross breeds with male liger and female tigon , then female liger and male tigon. Further these cross cross breeding will have male and female offsprings , then we cross breed them further.
My question is how far into the cross breeding chain will we have samples that will have less variation in genes among them and then can call them truly the mix of lion and tiger

>>15846168
>they're not even remotely that closely related
If they're close enough to interbreed without problems then that's really all that fucking matters. It's not like there's some hard limit on how closely related animals have to be to count as the same species, nor is there some defined rate of speciation. Hell you can end up with a new species with 1 random ass genetic fluke in a single generation.

>>15846066
>If there's no fertility issues with crossbreeds, they should be considered the same species, or at minimum species complex.
>I can't help but feel a lot of famous animals aren't reclassified as the same species for cultural reasons
The cultural reasons are the relevant ones. The species concept was made to record the differences between animals that are important to us. It doesn't line up with artificial and arbitrary simplified criteria like "can have fertile offspring", but between the two it's the useless arbitrary criteria that should be thrown out.

Does anyone know anything about any other human-animal hybrids?

>>15845050
Sounds like complete bullshit. Do you even know how ridiculously difficult it is to fuck a chimp?

>>15846483
Important website for your inquiry:
http://www.macroevolution.net/

>>15846247
>If they're close enough to interbreed without problems then that's really all that fucking matters
Ball pythons and carpet pythons diverged earlier than humans and chimps, yet can have fertile offspring while the latter can't.
>It's not like there's some hard limit on how closely related animals have to be to count as the same species, nor is there some defined rate of speciation
That's the point. Whether or not they can interbreed is irrelevant, that's an outdated definition of species that nobody really uses anymore

>>15847855
>while the latter can't.
Unproven

>>15847981
If they're not proven to then as it stands they can't. All attempts to create them in the past failed

>>15844759

tigondeeznuts

>>15845666
>liligers and tiligers
Science has gone too far.

>>15847855
>that's an outdated definition of species that nobody really uses anymore
So what definition are you using?

>>15846418
>The cultural reasons are the relevant ones
Not to fucking biologic taxonomy. If there isn't a useful biologic difference being tracked then species as a concept is as fucking worthless as every type of classification above it.

>>15844759
here we have a douse

>>15850088
a dabbit

>>15850093
and a dat

They are all really great with kids and would never hurt anyone

>>15846548
>http://www.macroevolution.net/
Mind blown.

>>15849803
>>15849805
>then species as a concept is as fucking worthless as every type of classification above it.
We use taxonomy for our convenience and to try sort something ever changing with no clear boundaries. There is no cut and dry definition of species because you can never draw a line between a species and an ancestral or descendent species

>>15850088
>>15850097
>>15850093
Get lost AI fag

>>15850861
>You're using an outdated definition!
>Okay, what definition are you using?
>Whatever's convenient.
>Convenient for what?
>Whatever we want.
>To do what?
>Whatever we want.
Okay, so you're just admitting I was right and your shit is worthless.

>There is no cut and dry definition of species because you can never draw a line between a species and an ancestral or descendent species
Sure you can. If a mutation causes something to double its genome and suddenly it can't breed with its relatives without massive complications, obviously they're now separate species.

Now you obviously you can't necessarily check breeding compatibility against extinct species, but that's a separate problem. Not knowing where the lines were between extinct species will ALWAYS be a problem due to the limited availability of data on those extinct species. That doesn't mean we should abandon a functional definition of species usable for extant species or pretend one doesn't exist. I mean hell, what the fuck are we even guessing if we abandon the current definition? Species is just another meaningless way to name shit if we abandon that.

>>15851395
>If a mutation causes something to double its genome and suddenly it can't breed with its relatives without massive complications, obviously they're now separate species.
That’s not happening in one mutation
>That doesn't mean we should abandon a functional definition of species usable for extant species or pretend one doesn't exist. I mean hell, what the fuck are we even guessing if we abandon the current definition?
It’s not a functional definition though. Ring species throw a wrench in that definition, as do species where fertility is variable between the sexes of hybrid offspring like in ligers

>>15845666
They should release a whole bunch of these into the wild somewhere

>>15852484
>That’s not happening in one mutation
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy
>Polyploidization can be a mechanism of sympatric speciation because polyploids are usually unable to interbreed with their diploid ancestors.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympatric_speciation
>Sympatric speciation events are quite common in plants, which are prone to acquiring multiple homologous sets of chromosomes, resulting in polyploidy. The polyploid offspring occupy the same environment as the parent plants (hence sympatry), but are reproductively isolated.
Motherfucker, why are you talking out your ass?
>Ring species throw a wrench in that definition
Ring species can be treated as species complexes. That there are blurry lines in nature doesn't mean you can't definitively sort certain shit into separate boxes. Definition also doesn't work for single celled organisms. Doesn't mean it should be tossed out for what it can work for.
>as do species where fertility is variable between the sexes of hybrid offspring like in ligers
Reduced fertility is reduced fertility.

>>15853025
>Reduced fertility is reduced fertility
Its not incompatibility though. At what point do you decide something has reduced fertility?

>>15854787
>Its not incompatibility though.
I didn't say incompatibility.
>At what point do you decide something has reduced fertility?
When a portion of offspring are consistently mules, be it 50% or 15%.

How would one go about creating a real cow-girl? It wouldnt be as easy as fucking a cow i presume?

>>15855093
>When a portion of offspring are consistently mules, be it 50% or 15%
How much is consistently? What if it reduces with back crossing?

>>15855277
Try it and report back.

>>15855283
>How much is consistently?
Consistently is a rate, not a portion.
>What if it reduces with back crossing?
Then who gives a shit?

At this point you've gone from bitching about the concept of species to bitching about the concept of statistically significant frequency.

>>15844759
LIGER? MORE LIKE LIGER MY BALLS

Would a wolf-dog hybrid be possible? What about a rat and a mouse.

>>15844759
You mean hybrids or FERTILE hybrids? because chromosome number matter for both.

As for why we know so little, we actually know a lot but it is an EXTREMELY inconvenient study when applied to humans.

>>15856035
>Would a wolf-dog hybrid be possible?
Yes. These are intentionally made by dog owners. I am not sure about the legality of it.

>>15856035
Would a wolf-dog hybrid be possible?

No. Dogs are wolves so that'd just be a wolf. On that note my parents had a wolfdog named wolf before I was born. They're common as shit.

>>15855391
NTA but you’re bitching about how if we don’t use the definition of whether or fertility is observed in offspring then there’s no good definition for species. The problem with that is there’s no solid definition for species and the viable offspring definition doesn’t work