Debate on Science

[juantoo3]

Q, I'm thinking it's cheaper and easier to harvest pig parts because they reproduce a lot faster than chimps, are easier to keep and farm, are easier to manage under animal rights requirements (i.e., they don't have as many social needs as chimps), hit maturity faster than chimps, and are easier to get past ethical review boards.

And pig valves are a by-product of factory farming for the food supply, whereas monkey meat is an exclusive delicacy only in select cultures.

I do think a crucial point being overlooked is the necessity for anti-rejection medication with the use of any animal organs or components. Its not like these things are "set and forget." That "inter-compatibility" is contingent on some very potent medications...medications that also leave a person's immune system highly vulnerable to infection. There are trade-offs in making these things work. It can be done, yes, but at what cost? I'm not talking about monetary...

 

[juantoo3]

I have not been able to find much in the literature yet about ape transplantion, which makes me think there are many serious problems, but more research in the area might be interesting.

As I recall one of the things that curtail consideration of monkey / simian / ape organs relates to transfer of disease. I am not directly implicating AIDS, I am only using this for example, but AIDS came from SIDS, an ape disease that is not fatal to apes, but the human variant has proven quite devastating to humans.

That may be one of the "ethical" considerations Path of One was referring to...

 

[juantoo3]

horses have 64 and donkeys have 62. While it may be possible for chimps and humans to interbreed to produce infertile offspring (as horses and donkeys can),

And Przewalski's horse has 66 genes, *and* it can interbreed with horses that have 64 genes *and* produce fertile offspring.


Przewalski's Horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just one of those little glitches in the genetic explanation...so it is not a given that a human / ape hybrid would be an infertile "mule." That is the most likely possibility, but by no means certain *in accord with established animal husbandry.*

I do think it is more than a bit convenient that *if* a Neandertal can interbreed with a Cro-Magnon that the classification should magically change to a sub-species. The child of Lapedo seems to indicate that it was *possible* for humans and Neandertals to interbreed, but from what I have gleaned concerning Neandertal genetic studies that there is insufficient Neandertal genetics in the modern human lineages to suggest any significant contribution to the modern genepool by Neandertals. In short, it is irrelevent from a practical standpoint whether or not Neandertals were sub-species or distinct. They are extinct as a species.


My armchair observations...

 

[juantoo3]

What I get for going through these threads backwards is the realization that some of the things I mentioned were already covered...

 

[path_of_one]

LOL, still good stuff, 123.

 

[Avi]

Interestingly, most of the work that I have found so far with primates is related to transplanted pig islets in macques (monkeys) for diabetes treatment. This is expected to lead to transplantable islets for humans: ​

Here, we report reversal of diabetes for more than 100 d in
cynomolgus macaques after intraportal transplantation of
cultured islets from genetically unmodified pigs without Galspecific
antibody manipulation. Immunotherapy with CD25-
specific and CD154-specific monoclonal antibodies, FTY720
(or tacrolimus), everolimus and leflunomide suppressed indirect
activation of T cells, elicitation of non-Gal pig-specific IgG
antibody, intragraft expression of proinflammatory cytokines and invasion of infiltrating mononuclear cells into islets.​

Nature Medicine, 2006, 12, 3, 301.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Sorry Q but your hurried reading and trying to fit what you have read to what you have already written here is is a long chalk short of working. You still have fundamental level ignorance of certain principles and processes. While I applaud your effort to 'read up' I would highlight that you do need to become familiar with the basics to sound coherent. Copying verbatim and yet out of basic context appears foolish. And means your posts will continue to be torn to shreds. I admit I occasionally do the same thing myself but I have learned here not to try and appear knowledgeable when I know nothing, there are simply too many smart cookies to get away with it. To get a handle on the basics I suggest you start here:
Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

 

[Quahom1]

Sorry Q but your hurried reading and trying to fit what you have read to what you have already written here is is a long chalk short of working. You still have fundamental level ignorance of certain principles and processes. While I applaud your effort to 'read up' I would highlight that you do need to become familiar with the basics to sound coherent. Copying verbatim and yet out of basic context appears foolish. And means your posts will continue to be torn to shreds. I admit I occasionally do the same thing myself but I have learned here not to try and appear knowledgeable when I know nothing, there are simply too many smart cookies to get away with it. To get a handle on the basics I suggest you start here:
Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please provide me (and the rest of the members here), the points where I "cut and pasted" hence "plagerized" material.

In the mean time, please show me where I am "ignorant" of what I was talking about.

Really, charlatans should be ratted out, don't you think? I'm no different.

Thank you Tao.

v/r

Q