It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Human animal hybridization, are the risks worth the possible gains?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 05:50 PM
Reply to post by rhinoceros

I am at work now (actually just starting). I will supply links and give further response after I get home and have had some sleep.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 03:23 PM
reply to post by rhinoceros

First thing is you are getting hung up on the wording of one sentence. It could have read part instead of half but I used half instead. The thing is though if you thoroughly read the OP you would see it deals with more than just 50% of each but actual differing amounts.

Regardless the rest goes perfectly with either word used. Man has desired traits of animals since the dawn of time.


posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 03:37 PM
reply to post by rhinoceros

Welcome to, where you can learn all about GloFish® fluorescent fish.
Seeing is believing with GloFish®—they are extraordinary! Both hardy and beautiful, GloFish are perfect for hobbyists and beginners alike. Available in three striking colors—Starfire Red®, Electric Green®, and Sunburst Orange®—CLICK HERE to find them at a retailer near you!

Yes, I know this is Wikipedia but this is the only time I have used it.

The first genetically altered pet, a glowing fish, is on sale just in time for the holidays. Scientists say GloFish are safe, but some worry technology has gone too far, Lee Cowan reports

I would say that is proof enough that they are a novelty product brought about by this technology. I stand by my statement that it has turned into noting more than the latest party favor. I would not have stated that they were being sold unless I had researched it to being with.

Nevertheless you are getting hung up on one idea again and not opening up to the idea of other GM animals. Okay so if these escape into the wild they will die because they will be eaten (possibly), or they could be very aggressive in breeding and take over an ecosystem in no time. Imagine though if other GM animals escape into the wild. They can have any alteration and they could devastate an ecosystem. Disasters happen allowing animals to get free, accidents happen allowing the same, some people let animals lose because they no longer wish or can care for them (exotics living in Florida). The point is not just these fish when I talk about them getting into our ecosystem but any animal for that part.
You can find endless articles about animals escaping into a different ecosystem.

Remember the military dolphins that got lose?

What happens when they release their altered mosquitoes (talked about in a link already provided) into the wild and kill the majority of the population? Bats and many others animals will start to decline. Mankind wants to do things with little regard to nature or the ecosystem around them. This technology is dangerous. Just because we are not seeing any effects does not mean it is not taking place as we speak or is on the way to becoming reality.

If we wait around until they inform us, it will have already been too late.


posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 01:04 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 02:58 PM
The first hybrid/chimera mice were created/born in 1978.

The resulting hybrid cells segregated human chromosomes quickly and retained one to three human chromosomes including chromosome 17 that carries the human genes for thymidine kinase and galactokinase (EC Single hybrid cells from five independent clones containing human chromosome 17 were injected into mouse blastocysts bearing several genetic markers that affect the coat color phenotype and strain-specific enzyme variants in order to detect tissue differentiation derived from the injected cells.

However, since that time things have advanced quite well for the mad scientists and their new party favor.

Mouse With Human Brain May Live

Geneticist Fred Gage injected embryonic human cells into two-week-old fetal mice as they developed in the womb. When the mice matured, some human stem cells survived and became functional components of the mice's brains and nervous systems.

By implanting human brain cells (grown from a human embryo's stem cells) into a mouse engineered to have Alzheimer's, Dr. Keyes inadvertently made a remarkable and startling discovery: she not only cured the mouse's Alzheimer's Disease, but the animal soon developed the relative intelligence of a human being.

So if these mice managed to get lose into the ecosystem imagine the amount of damage they could instill as they breed in numbers and rapidly. As you can see in this article despite what some posters believe traits of genetically altered animals are passed to their young, as I have mentioned numerous times.

Genetically modified primates that glow green and pass the trait on to their offspring could aid the fight against human disease.

Science is creating what could be a ticking time bomb in the GM animals and hybrids.

Genetically modified monkeys give birth to designer babies
Seems reminiscent of the idea of building the ultimate humans mentioned earlier on. I wonder where that idea came from? They have proof traits are passed along to offspring, they had that proof before using this technology to create the creatures.

It makes one wonder if an army is not being amassed over time. Alternatively, what sort of testing might be being done on current unsuspecting military personnel?


Edit: Recreated post to better fit the topic.

[edit on 6/12/10 by Raist]

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 03:39 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 03:44 PM
reply to post by wassup

Thanks for the links.
I will check them out now.

I cannot verify the satanic part at this time. However, I do believe it is morally wrong even if you look at it strictly on the secular level of things.


Edit to add: the links do not seem to be working properly I get page not found errors.

[edit on 6/12/10 by Raist]

[edit on 6/12/10 by Raist]

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 04:26 PM
What happens if a GM fish or another animal escapes or is set free?

Transgenic fish pose potential threats to natural ecosystems and native species populations that are not fully understood and remain insufficiently studied. However, it is known that:
• Fifty percent of all intentionally introduced fish have had harmful economic or environmental effects(3);
• Sixty-six percent of all unintentionally introduced fish have had harmful economic or environmental effects(3);
• Millions of farmed fish escape from open water facilities each year and contaminate native populations(4); and
• It is inevitable that transgenic fish will escape from aquaculture pens or field trial parameters.(3)
Guess we have an idea.

Well I have to admit that despite California’s normally over regulation on life in general I am proud of them for this.

SACRAMENTO, Calif., Dec. 3, 2003 - Citing ethical concerns, state regulators Wednesday refused to allow sales of the first bioengineered household pet, a zebra fish that glows fluorescent. GloFish are expected to go on sale everywhere else next month.

Want your GM pet? Again as previously mentioned there are numerous companies flocking to the technology to create a genetically altered pet. Of course this would have nothing to do with greed or human arrogance.

Several companies are already involved in pet manufacture and sale, or at least in banking genes (or taking cash deposits) for future manufacturing.

I have spent some time on a few sites; one in particular is the Felix that is mentioned.
According to their site the allergens a person has with cats is a certain protein that they can remove, and not the hair or the dander. I think there are good points raised with research but what are the consequences to our actions? There are always reactions, at times reactions that are not so pleasant.

I cannot stress the following enough.

What happens if a glow in the dark rabbit gets loose and breeds with other “normal” rabbits? Nocturnal animals would have a heyday feasting on easy prey. While scientists say that this would not happen the fact is that genetically modified material has all ready gotten loose in the environment and caused problems. The problems between Canadian farmers and Monsanto are a good example of this.
Whether you think it is a good idea or a bad one it is, at the very least, interesting. Whether glow in the dark animals become the next popular, designer pet remains to be seen.

Here is the Canadian farmers and Monsanto link they refer to.

Science has been packaged and sold for entertainment with this technology. Nothing here but greed and pride.


posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 05:01 PM
I would love to quote more form this article as it touches heavily into some of the statements that have been expressed not only in other article but by me as well. However, there are limits to the quoting and as I found out in my OP limits to the amount of stuff that can be crammed into a single post (thus the numerous back-to-back posts from then on).

On March 3 the cover story of the New York Daily News trumpeted a simple imperative to “Design Your Baby.” The screaming headline related to a service that would try to allow parents to choose their baby’s hair, eye and skin color. A day later the Fertility Institutes reconsidered. The organization made an “internal, self regulatory decision” to scrap the project because of “public perception” and the “apparent negative societal impacts involved,” it noted in a statement.

Notice they did not change their mind or attitudes because of the moral reasons behind it but because at that time the public was not accepting, it as well as they had imagined. So how do they overcome that? They slow fade the populace into the idea the GM anything is good, normal, healthy and all the other glitz and glamour of a shiny new future. As time progresses the more we are exposed to the world of GM anything be it food, pets, or what have you we will grow to accept the idea that it is morally sound and should be allowed without question. This is how they always manage to sway the public when we do not respond as they wish us to.

Look at how they start it out.

Parental demand for “designer babies” screened to lack faulty genes will grow dramatically over the next decade, with new discoveries about the influence of DNA on health, a leading geneticist has predicted.

Of course, it is for health reasons. Nevertheless, why do they expect it will grow dramatically? Because other options will also be available and even recommended. Control the populace by creating the populace.

This says a great deal along these very lines.

Future Generations is about humanitarian eugenics.
Humanitarian eugenics strives to leave a genuine legacy
of love to future generations: good health, high intelligence,
and noble character.
We advocate measures to improve the innate
quality of humankind which are entirely voluntary. Please be forewarned
that most ideas expressed on this website are "politically incorrect." We aspire
to total honesty, believing that it is the only policy for people with integrity,
and furthermore, that in the long run, honesty is far-and-away the most compassionate
policy. If we ever hope to solve the problems which face our species, it's imperative
that we first look at them objectively, and assess the scientific evidence without
bias. If the truth about genetics and behavior, about eugenics, or about
race, is considered "taboo," and falsehoods are the only socially
acceptable opinions, then this is truly a sad state of affairs,
but we won't let it deter us.

I have no problem with health issues, but again this is just the start of the acceptance. That I have a problem with.

Two couples whose families have been ravaged by breast cancer are to become the first to screen embryos to prevent them having children at risk of the disease, The Times has learnt.

Seems nice, something we could all agree on for the most part. However, the acceptance is only a step away. Before long, something normal will be demonized as bad for society. I am not saying breast cancer is good for society just pointing out that this is how it starts.


posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 06:17 PM
You have created a magnificent thread

Although I lack the knowledge to comment on the science within your thread, I'd like to widen the subject.

As I did not see it anywhere in the replies.

I agree with our rights as they are important.
However. Humans don't even apply those rights to other humans. Let alone a hybrid.

99 % human you said ? Doesn't that make a chimp that also shares 99 % of DNA wit us ?

Now it comes and I do not necessarily agree with the following.
Whenever I think of Hybrids I can't ignore that there is written evidence of something like it already happened in the past.

The bible states that the giants from genesis were in fact human / fallen angel hybrids. The flood was to destroy all people. Noah was saved because he was the only human left ( or true human ? ) What if all the others were genetically different making them no longer human but something else ?

I posted this not to evangelize but to let you know how stunning I think it is that there are warnings from the past for this subject.

That has got to make you think...

~ Sinter

[edit on 6/12/2010 by Sinter Klaas]

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 06:52 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas


I am not sure how the rights thing would work for a hybrid or even a chimp for that matter. Somehow, I believe the chimp might have more rights. Chimps though only share 98.5% with us, I know that seems close enough to 99% but that is also a huge difference when we share 94% with a mouse, and 44% with a fruit fly.

Another human? 100% - All humans have the same genes, but some of these genes contain sequence differences that make each person unique.
A chimpanzee? 98% - Chimpanzees are the closest living species to humans.
A mouse? 92% - All mammals are quite similar genetically.
A fruit fly? 44% - Studies of fruit flies have shown how shared genes govern the growth and structure of both insects and mammals.
Yeast? 26% - Yeasts are single-celled organisms, but they have many housekeeping genes that are the same as the genes in humans, such as those that enable energy to be derived from the breakdown of sugars.
A weed (thale cress)? 18% - Plants have many metabolic differences from humans. For example, they use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide gas to sugars. But they also have similarities in their housekeeping genes.

Not to mention that when looking at the genome only a very, very small percent is worth anything. The rest of it is pretty much junk it seems.

The problem is that most of the three-billion-letter code carried by human DNA -- the human genome -- appears to be made of "junk," filler that doesn't perform any important function, he said. Only 1.5 percent of the whole genome is made up of actual genes -- stretches of DNA holding a recipe for making some kind of biological substance.
Green said they suspect that an additional 3.5 percent of human DNA serves some important purpose. To sleuth out the useful parts from all the junk, they reasoned that they should look for those stretches of code shared by many different creatures.

So, while we might share a large amount with chimps we are also very much different from them because of the amount of “working” genomes.


posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 07:07 PM
reply to post by Raist


The rest of it is pretty much junk it seems.

This is actually the most valid reason not to mess with this.
As we don't have a clue what the seemingless junk DNA is.

Being some kind of a nature lover. Nature usually found the perfect way to do things. Junk is IMO out of the question.

~ SK

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 07:19 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Well said.

My guess is that much of the “junk” does more than they believe. On a side note though the one link mentions that even the 99.9% is a huge difference because of how things are arranged.

I believe this is why chimps and humans are so different. We might seem close and this that is often an argument used for certain agendas to push an idea. But the facts are we are vastly different at the same time as being closely related in the percentage of DNA shared. Even the fruit fly is close enough to be considered “half human” if you go by numbers and lettuce from my understanding shares 30% of our DNA. I cannot verify the lettuce thing that is just a number I read at one time, I say I cannot verify because of the source.


posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 07:23 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

This is the closest I can come to a decent source stating the 30% DNA shared with Lettuce.

All life is based on DNA, and just as human kinship can be linked by DNA, so can species. Humans share more than 98% of their DNA with chimpanzees, and 30% with a lettuce.

Since life is based on DNA, it should be expected in my opinion that all life would share larger than expected percentages of DNA.


posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 07:52 PM
Another interesting read is this one that explains who some want to put limits on such technology. The limits would be the percentage of human animal mix. This was mentioned earlier on but here is another article on it.

Meanwhile, the regulation on how much human DNA can be put into an animal is vague and scientists are now trying to determine where the line should be drawn on experiments that use human material in animals.
Martin Bobrow, chairman of the group conducting the study, said they are trying to work out what is reasonable. He and others said they recognized people might be nervous about experiments where animals were given human features or brain cells.

However, some experts, like David King, director of Human Genetics Alert, an independent watchdog, are not convinced such experiments are warranted.
"This is a classic example of science going too fast. If you cannot firmly say exactly what it is you're creating, you should not do it," he said.

Also you have this. That basically says some of the stuff we are just now learning about DNA. Just now (this year that we are being told) we are learning this stuff. Yet it is perfectly acceptable to move forward with out full or even majority knowledge of DNA.

"Scientists can now begin trying to understand the functional importance of these sequences and their variations," Kidd said.

I chose that quote from the link because it best decribes the rest of it. I do not know about others but I like to have an idea of what I am doing before I just jump in over my head.

What ever is done may not be aboe to be undone onec it has completed.


posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 09:03 PM
What a tragedy these tests and test subjects become. When animals are treated with little regard is it any wonder there might be concern for what goes on in the lab and the test subjects held prisoner within?

First Gene-Altered Monkey Hailed as Research Tool / Opponents concerned about ethical issues

"It's immoral to use these animals as nothing more than test tubes with tails," she said.
But Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said "it is defensible to sacrifice a small number of primates" if it leads to quicker advances on diseases that afflict humans and can't be studied well in mice.

Nothing but a tool, less than a living thing. Humans have been labled this in the past when they were experimented on for various reasons. How different will it be when humans or hybrids today are used as subjects for testing. When people say things like this is it hard to imagine the testing likely to be going on without our knowledge?

It is sickening to hear that a life form is regarded as nothing moer than a tool.


posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:59 PM
I very much agree it is sickening to treat any life the way they do.

How far are they and do we stop them. IMO they already crossed the line.Yet I'm curious about the first hybrid. Conflicting feelings here all over.

I'm always interested in new discoveries. I think it is marvelous but moral is forgotten to often.

Where would we be if they didn't torture both man and animal.
The fact is that the times of rapid advancement is done during war times.

This whole genetic issue existed at the beginning of the 21st century. 1900 didn't it ?

posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 06:19 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

It is cool to see the hybrids in movies, however the idea of real life ones actually frightens me a bit. Think of the part in the move The Island of Dr. Moreau where the man-beasts get angry and go on the attack. Without the shock thing, they were unstoppable by people that were unarmed. The animal strength and hunting ability mixed with the human understanding and problem solving seems a dangerous combination.

As far as stopping them, I feel it is too late. I am sure they are doing more in government labs than we know about. Yes, I know this is just complete assumption on my part. Nevertheless, with the information that has reached the public of past experimentation and the facts that governments do more often than not hide what they are doing from the public convinces me they are.

It is sad to say but you are right, war and the torture we do to animals and people do seem to lead to advancement in medicine.

I am not sure when the genetic issue first started as we know it (before this they simply used breeding to achieve them means of hybrids). The first one created in the U.S. was the mouse human with the ear on its back in 1978. I have not really gotten too far into that yet in my research; I might dig more into the past experimentation in my next posts. I understand though that prior to and during WWII; some governments were looking to build the perfect soldier through such means.


posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 06:59 PM
reply to post by Raist

What do you think of the master race. The nazi's tried to simply eliminate does who were challenged. I think they were not alone in this. These kind of thoughts come from somewhere.
The elite of Europe did not interbreed with each other ( against all of nature) for nothing.
This way has got to have a certain origin.

But I think I stray of topic.

I saw the movie a long time ago. I don't really remember it.
Maybe you can tell me the reason for their revolt ? ( The hybrids )

[edit on 6/13/2010 by Sinter Klaas]

posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 07:43 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

It has been some time since I have watched it myself. I have it so I will need to watch it again before I can tell you why they revolted. I think it had something to do with one of them breaking a rule and being punished for it. Then it later found a gun and led the others in a revolt because it was mad.

It was somewhat sad because I remember the one acting as if Dr. Moreau was its father and showing love and a sort of disappointment in itself.

I posted above somewhere about the Dr. that was with the Nazi party and moved to Brazil so he would not be arrested and started the twin town which seems to have all blond hair blue eyed children. The Nazi party also told their soldiers and German citizens to breed more so that they could create the perfect race. The Dr. worked on this in a different way.

You are on topic though because you are talking about things now more possible than before and in an easier way. This is where the designer babies come in. When they start to alter the genetics of children before they are children, you will have those working on the perfect race. I would say that this has already taken place and that it has for some time now. I believe we do not find out about certain technologies until years after they have been around.


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in