Why are there no half monkey half human?

In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey
Butane in my veins and I’m out to cut the junkie
With the plastic eyeballs, spray-paint the vegetables
Dog food stalls with the beefcake pantyhose
Kill the headlights and put it in neutral
Stock car flamin’ with a loser and the cruise control

farmer,
Y chromosome -- see Wikipedia, "Humanzee" (yeah, I know, but they had to file it under something--the research they report sounds reputable)
quagga-horse hybrids, etc.-- not sure what you mean by "intervention"--if you means humans fiddling about directly with the genetic material, that doesn't seem to have happened. If you mean humands bringing into contact two species that wouldn't be in contact in nature, like zebras and the probably-invasive- because-of-human-introduction domestic horses, then yes, but that's kind of beside the point, since the question is can two related species with different numbers of chromosomes sometimes mate successfully, no how did they come into contact, and the answer seems to be yes, sometimes.

And if you look at the question of hybrids occurring naturally, then again it looks like if you've got species of close or distant relationships and they do come into contact, then the more liberal, free-thinking males and females amongthe two species are damn well going to try to find out for themselvers whether or not it's possible.

Gunga, you actually fall for the "Haldane Dilemma"? What a putz. Read your source. It postulates one breeding pair, in humans' case, mating once per generation (20 years) and carrying at most one mutation, then another single mutation in the next generation, and so on, and so it claims mutations couldn't spread. The reality of the situation is that you have thousands, millions, or even billions or trillions or more of that species, not just one, mating every year, or in some species up to every few hours, each member of that species carrying potentially thousands of mutations from the "standard" genome, because DNA replication is pretty good but not perfect, and with the huge number of
dna molecules and the huge numbers of base pairs in each, and environmental stressors that can cause mutations too, there are a huge number of actually existent mutations in each individual. And the survival of the offspring of each of those matings is an instant referendum, not on just one mutation but on ALL of them at once, otherwise the offspring don't grow and reproduce themselves. Which means the "dilemma"s strictly linear model is just so much hogwash, so much simplistic crap. But that's your specialty, isn't it?

farmer, see "hybrids" in wikipedia too, for what surprised me about a much larger number than I knew of.

Until the species themselves define what is "alien" and what is humpable.

All the animals of the equine family have been hybridized by :"Artificial means", That is with human intervention, which includes close proximity, animals kept in the same paddocks, same pens, introduced during estrus etc. Generally, everything we do to accomplish what would NOT go on in nature.
What efines a species has classically been reproductive isolation(not an impossibility but an overwhelming improbability unless under very special circumstances).
Polar Bears and brown bears dont even occur at the same niches. When they do come into contact, their sex cycles ,may be quite different by a mere few weeks or a month.
Although it does happen (very raley) so that the species identity continues to diverge and the "hybridization" becomes rarer and rarer unless the environment that defined the initial adaptational changes , again changes.

I've got an artificial insemination process question. If either 100 gorillas and/or 100 chimpanzees were artificially inseminated with human sperm during their estrus, what would this process yield?

OK -- OK...I hear 'ya say too small a sample. What about 100,000 such inseminations?

THere probably aren't that many gorillas alive, including both genders.

Probably nothing would happen. Chimps and humans , besides the 2 major chromosomal differences, have 9 other major chromosomla differences in locii that are determinant for such things as the HOx genes (controling thoracic structures) and the Alu codes which also include head shape and size. (Birthing what would be a watermelon for a chimp would p[ossibly mean sacrifice of the mother to even get to term. Same thing with other things like blood barriers and nutrients ahred between mother and baby.

Horses and donkeys and zebras and quaggas can be hybridized artificially with less problems because when you think of it, the horses and others share a closer evolutionary kinship. Sorta like the same way dogs and wolves can hybridize under proper artificial conditions. Chimps didnt give rise to humans. We and chimps share a common ancestor that , if still around could have provided a more successful route to hybidization_________________

also, the "math" was generated by a Creationist douche bag named Remine who didnt know squat all about that genes dont only control one trait or that several genes may control one trait. NO matter what, even if Remines math were not unstable, the entire Haldane proposal could be summarized in the following corollary"
IF an environmental change occurs at a rate that necessitates the replacement of several genes, the population under environmental stress will go extinct"
HAldane rejiggered his own hypothesis in 1961, and the Cretinists , since they only hang on the oldest work first, failed to take Haldanes own work into account. Haldane himself used to get quite annoyed at what the Cretinists were doing in "bogus math" and misrepresentation of genetics.

Remine is an iotenerant guitar player and an electrician, That gives him all the necessary creds to work in genetics

oh crap! Then they missing link is missing still? Or is it that the conditions that produced a missng link AND the link itself are gone?

Do I have to reread this whole thread? Make this simple 'cause I get lost easily without my GPS (gene positiraction sensor).

intermediates or the common ancetsors may have lived moe like the apes, (in the forests) and so, the possibility of fossilization would be less.

aha..so as I earlier theorized..still missing and presumed innocent?

monkey fossils are genearlly rare. We have the hominids that are our ancestors because they would travel by walking over larger distances in alluvial soils or ash fields.

ourse , even those are usually found disagreggated as if they were someones snack

farmer, wolves and dogs seem to be perfectly willing to go at it hot and heavy whenever they come in contact (at least they are every six months or so) (same with dogs and foxes, tho they're farther apart). Eskimos reportedly bred their ragtag mutts back to wolves periodically. It was kind of a case of who's the daddy and who's the mommy, which also seems to be the case in a lot of other hybrids--mules and hinies have some different characteristics (and fertilities) depending on which species is which parent. A dog dad-wolf mom cross hasw problems because wolves live in family units with both providing for the pups, while dogs don't, so a dog daddy takes off (the cur!) and leaves the wolf mom to fend for herself, which puts the pups at much higher risk. But a wolf dad and a dog mom means the pups will very often end up in the human-dog family and so the pups are much better provided for, and have a much greater chance of surviving.

Similarly, I'd suspect a chimp dad and a human mom would mean that the baby would likely have a smaller head and. since the human mom is adapted for bipedalism her pelvic floor is much wider and the birth canal is less restricted,so she could pass a much bigger-headed kid than a chimp mother could. So that kind of cross would more likely produce a viable and birthable offspring.

In addition, since the thinking is that humans evolved in edge-of-forest and savannah habitats, while chimps were forest-to-edge-of-forest dwellers primarily, then it would seem to me that they could in fact have had contact with each other. Further, the first point of divergence seems to have been bipedalism, and the early hominims were otherwise quite similar, pretty small-brained and headed, for example. As I was thinking about this, it occurred to me, and I haven't seen any research on this, tho I'm sure someone must have done it, that that makes a lot of sense because bipedalism means for a stable platform your legs are farther apart (and hinged to the pelvis at different points), which gives a wider pelvis. Brain size apparently has a lot to do with regulatory genes working longer, and the brain then self-organizes into more complex structures, and is a simpler mutation. With a larger pelvis such a mutation in place would produce a kid with a larger brain, which a narrower chimp pelvis would doom to never being able to get out of the womb. So when we started walking, it might have been just a long, logical walk to us.

(I'd say the probability of a viable present-dday-human-cross with a present-day-chimp cross is somewhere between "possibly" and "probably", and probably closer to "possibly")

You was given the reasons why that is highly unlikely on this thread already.

do a little research and see what most data shows. Im still disagreein with the concept. The morphological and environmental differences between australopithescenes and pongids were divergent enough so that no fossils are known and very few fossils of pongids are known.

So where did AIDS come from?

huh?

HIV came from USA malarial research involving whole blood transfer from monkeys to humans carried out on volunteer prisoners, circa WWII and the 50's . The link between HIV and AIDS is a guess .

The first serological AIds and HIV were from a Bantu guy i the Congo in 1959. The samples were preserved luckily and were able to be run . SO the possibility that monkey love was going on is really freakin me out here.
Apparently there was no offspring (or else they sent the kid to the UK ).