Is Selective Breeding the Key to Making Apes More Human-Like?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JerryClower
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of selective breeding of apes and other primates to potentially make them more human-like. Participants explore the feasibility, implications, and historical precedents of such an endeavor, touching on themes of evolution and the societal perceptions surrounding it.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that selective breeding could demonstrate evolutionary principles by gradually producing more human-like traits in apes over generations.
  • Others argue that the time required for such breeding is impractical, given the long reproductive cycles of great apes, which can be 8 to 10 years.
  • One participant suggests that even if evolution were proven through such breeding, it would not convince all skeptics, particularly those with strong religious beliefs.
  • Historical examples, such as breeding programs in the Soviet Union with foxes, are cited to illustrate the potential for selective breeding to produce significant changes in animals.
  • There is a mention of the challenges and ethical considerations surrounding the breeding of primates, including the potential for public backlash and credibility issues among skeptics of evolution.
  • Some participants note that visible changes in traits could take many generations, potentially spanning over a century, which raises questions about the practicality of the approach.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus on the feasibility or ethical implications of selective breeding of apes. There is disagreement on whether such efforts would effectively demonstrate evolutionary principles or convince skeptics.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the long reproductive cycles of great apes, the ethical implications of selective breeding, and the unresolved nature of how such experiments would be perceived by the public and religious communities.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in evolutionary biology, animal behavior, ethics in scientific research, and the historical context of breeding experiments may find this discussion relevant.

JerryClower
Messages
68
Reaction score
1
Why don't scientists try to breed apes and other primates selectively to try to get them to become more human-like? We could do it over generations and generations and keep track of the differences with cameras. Sounds like a great idea in trying to prove or disprove evolution of humans.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
That would be an extremely time-consuming affair, since great apes (like humans) are rarely able to reproduce before the age of 8 to 10. And, among people with enough resources to pull this off, proving or disproving evolution of humans is normally not a high-priority objective.
 
hamster143 said:
That would be an extremely time-consuming affair, since great apes (like humans) are rarely able to reproduce before the age of 8 to 10. And, among people with enough resources to pull this off, proving or disproving evolution of humans is normally not a high-priority objective.
But if evolution is proved then scientists would be able to shut up creationists and religious people. I mean, if we share 95% of our DNA, we should be able to breed them to our liking, thus, over a lot of time, making them more human like. It doesn't have to "change" into a human species. It just needs to show some small characteristics (more than it already does lol) so that many people who don't believe in the theory of evolution can see what happens.
 
A lot of scientists speculate that humans got their bipedal walking from having to walk through swamps and tall weeds. We could put apes in environments similar to what I described and then see what happens.
 
JerryClower said:
But if evolution is proved then scientists would be able to shut up creationists and religious people.
It wouldn't prove it - nutters (sorry deeply committed religious people) would claim that it proved you needed a god to direct evolution.

Evolution has already been proved in every hospital with MRSA and every druggie with drug resistant TB.

There was a breeding program like your described in the soviet union with dogs, IIRC they showed you could go from wolves to dogs in a few decades.
 
mgb_phys said:
It wouldn't prove it - nutters (sorry deeply committed religious people) would claim that it proved you needed a god to direct evolution.

Evolution has already been proved in every hospital with MRSA and every druggie with drug resistant TB.

There was a breeding program like your described in the soviet union with dogs, IIRC they showed you could go from wolves to dogs in a few decades.


I had always read of that breeding experiment in the Soviet Union being with Foxes not wolves and they were still foxes afterwards not dogs at all (although similar to dogs.)
http://www.overpill.com/2009/12/21/soviet-scientist-turns-foxes-into-puppies/

What is extremely remarkable about that experiment is that the 'human friendly' foxes, after so many generations, had floppy ears and a broken patterned coat and curly tails(like cows or dogs) among other features.
It is a very significant experiment to me because of my own nutter ideas which I won't mention here.
 
BTW, these domesticated foxes are now available for sale in the United States. $6000 including shipping from Siberia. Unfortunately, foxes don't live that long (shorter than cats), they can't be bred because they are neutered before the sale, and they are illegal to own in at least 20 states.
 
Last edited:
Like I said, if it takes even 10 generations to produce visible changes (and 10 generations is not a lot), that's 100-120 years if you work with gorillas or orangutans, 150 years if you work with chimps. Like mgb_phys said, even that is not going to convince anyone who hasn't been convinced yet. You could try to cut down those numbers through IVF & such, but that's going to shoot down your credibility among the creationist crowd even lower than it was to begin with (if that is at all possible).
 
Last edited:
ThomasEdison said:
Foxes not wolves...
What is extremely remarkable about that experiment is that the 'human friendly' foxes, after so many generations, had floppy ears and a broken patterned coat and curly tails(like cows or dogs) among other features.

Thanks, that's what I was remembering
 

Similar threads

Human Brain Evolution: 2 Studies Examined
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Why Apes and Humans don't have Tails
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Can Adding More Cortex Make Animals Like Humans?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Virus mutation by artificially guided selection
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Human evolution - From sperm to ape
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Natural selection, evolution "why are we still sick"
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
Book Review: The Gene's-Eye View of Evolution
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Why does biology deal with why questions?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Why does hair on a human head grow indefinitely?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
On evolution of humans and that of other animals: any discrepancy?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
7K