Regenmacher:
If you will please read your own sources, you will see that indeed I DO have a "fundamental knowledge" of genetics (a degree in it tends to do that
to you). Let's see, where should I begin?
From your source at The Register:
Lead author Nick Patterson said: “If the dating is correct, the fossil would precede the human-chimp split. The fact that it has human-like
features suggest that human-chimp speciation may have occurred over a long period with episodes of hybridisation.”
Now, that quote suggests that early "human-like" species were able to breed with chimps. I believe that absolutely. We already aren't far off
genetically from chimps, and about 5 million years ago were even closer. No where does it say modern human were able to breed with chimps. Perhaps you
need to re-read your source, you know, past the title?
Now, your source from Indiana University:
[quote[Still, cross-species matings usually result in sickness or sterility, if the offspring get that far -- many naturally abort.
That sounds familiar...oh yeah, I said it!
"We're all aware hybridization and intensive cross-breeding has produced better corn and better cows,"
They're absolutely right, it has. However, hybridisation of demesticated animals and plants is much different than in the wild. The article states
that even successfully hyrbridised and fertile animals are usually much weaker than their non-hybridised constituents and thus rarely is ab le to
breed and entre the gene pool.
So, basically, your articles are bunk. They represent good theory, absolutely, but not applied genetics. I'm sure cross-breeding does occur, but it
rarely successful, happens very rarely, and has not happened in humans for nearly 5-6 million years (before we were modern humans).