When we know (probably already do) how to cross DNA for making an apeman or missing link, should we?
Since apes can already speak sign language, maybe a missinglinker would be our Rosetta Stone for learning about animals.
Ah, one of the great ethical questions of our time. Should we use our knowledge of life to create life? In my humble opinion, Yes.
I mean, think of the possibilities… Synthetic meat that is indistinguishable from real meat, Synthetic silk and other fabrics that are completely indistinguishable from the natural counterpart, Organs on demand for people waiting for transplants.
To answer the actual question, I think we should use our knowledge of DNA to recreate the missinglinker. Problem is that until we know the genetic makeup of the ML, we will only be specualating as to what it was actually like.
What’s a “missing link”? Why do you even think there is such a thing?
Eh, there’s some argument about that, really. And, certainly, it’s not a transmittable talent in any case.
I doubt it.
Rather than create a “missing link”, which really is a misnomer anyway since apes have evolved for as many millions of years as we have since our genetic tree split, it would be easier to simply tweak the genes that control intelligence and create a really smart ape that could discuss the finer points of ape socialization and dominance politics over a bridge game with his creators.
Morally and ethically, why not? Since I acknowledge no deity, I don’t believe that DNA and chromosomes have a holy “Do Not Touch!” sign on them. In fact, the decision to create life artificially is less morally problematic than the life’s probable subsequent treatment after creation.
Er, some of us who do acknowlege a deity also don’t think genes are inviolate.
I thought I read that someone in Germany recreated a missinglink Okapi (recently extinctified) that matched the DNA of one of the last ones’ hide in a museum.
Also, they plan to reanimate mammoths found in Siberian permafrost by cloning and using an elephant to incubate.
I think that Ptahlis is just a kid who is saying “im an atheist look at me” 
My question about this would be, why? Who cares? Itd just be a waste of money. As for tweaking apes to make them more intelligent the intelligent Apes would just be guessing, something humans can already do.
Instead of doing these fancy complicated gene-splicing experiments, why don’t we just cross a modern chimpanzee with a modern human? I’ll bet we’re closely enough related to produce offspring, even if they’re not fertile offspring.
So, has anyone tried breeding a “himp” or a “chuman”?
If Planet of the Apes has taught us one thing, it’s that Planet of the Apes has taught us nothing.
No, I was giving my opinion, as well as why I have no moral qualms about it. That way, it heads off those who would specifically address me with theistic reasons against such practice before they bother.
While it’s true that a smarter ape would be less like an ape than a true ape, he would presumably share more traits with a true ape than an ape/human hybrid, and therefore have better insight. Since the OP was asking whether we could tweak genes to gain that insight, I merely suggested what I think is a better method.
I’m an ape man, I’m an ape ape man, oh I’m an ape man
I’m a King Kong man, I’m a voo-doo man, oh I’m an ape man
I don’t feel safe in this world no more
I don’t want to die in a nuclear war
I want to sail away to a distant shore and make like an ape man…
Of course, in tweaking the brain-development genes to make a chimpanzee (say) intelligent enough to carry on a sophisticated conversation in sign-language, we’ll be changing its brain development. No matter how hard we try to localize these tweaks to only the language centers of the chimp’s brain, we’ll still be altering the chimp’s brain structure. And that will alter its behavior – possibly to the point where its behavior is more humanlike than chimplike.
It would still be a fascinating experiment to perform, just don’t get any grandiose ideas that your super-smart-chimp would tell you how a “normal” chimp behaves.
Of course he wouldn’t be able to tell us how a normal chimp behaves, but that doesn’t mean that he would not be able to give us any insight at all. I still contend that he would be better equipped than a hybrid chimp/human. Ideally I suppose the best way would be to come up with a way to make an existing adult chimp smart enough to tell us what we want to know, but that gets even further from the OP.
It seems a shame that we can’t get human-smart chimps when we have a bunch of chimp-smart humans in the world. Perhaps Dan Quayle could help here? 
Close. Okapis are not extinct. The animal in question is called a quagga. Last I heard, they were still in the planning stage. I think I would have heard had they succeded. That would be a very big deal. And they want to clone it (same with the mammoth), not recreate its DNA. A small but important distinction. Cloning is easy, but it requires a tissue sample, like the frozen mammoth or the stuffed quagga in the museum. To do what the OP suggests is much harder.
In fact, trying to “recreate” an extinct animal without a reference DNA sample is pretty pointless. Even assuming the technology, we’d still be basically shooting for a best guess. We’d be creating a new type of life, rather than recreating an old type.
As for the language question, it’s doubtful whether this would be at all useful. Language is taught through society - it’s not genetic. (Ability to use language may be, but not the language itself.) A better experiment would be to let a human baby be raised by apes, then teach it English and see if it can translate. Any volunteers??
You’re right about language, although I would underscore that the ability to use language is genetic, and that you are programmed to learn your mother tongue without much effort. But that’s neither here nor there.
I remember reading about one of the gorillas who had been taught sign, and she was able to tell the researchers fairly interesting things about gorilla life.
Matt:
If you are thinknig about Koko the gorilla, she’s a pretty clever ape. But her best work is heavily interpreted and/or edited by her trainer.
This tells us much more about what a researcher believes than what it is like to be a gorilla.
Interesting idea, but some apes, specifically chimpanzees, may already be… well, not human, but on practically th same level. As a matter of fact, researchers argue over whether Chimps, or Pan troglodytes should actually be called Homo troglodytes. Why? It seems that chimps exhibit the 8 criteria for abstract thought - the thing that sets us humans apart from other animals.
On the question of whether we should “create” an organism, particulary an intelligent organism (“intelligent” menaing capable of abstract thought), I say nay. We’ve already fucked around with nature and look where it’s gotten us.
So, what exactly are you saying here? We’re not better off than our stone age counterparts?
smilla wrote:
I thought we were set apart because of our poopsable thumbs. Or really really good toolmaking ability.
Yeah. Disinfection, penicillin, predator control, reliably abundant food supplies, artificial shelters from the weather – what were we thinkin’?
SNORT