Homo in which there are no other representatives in that particular genus, and Homo Sapien, wherein we have our own particular interbreeding group. Racial subgroups are still human and Bassou is no exception.

As to the question of what is human, that scientifically the most can be said of what is human by observing key inferences about humans, that they have large brains and walk upright. But is much more to what it means to be human, such as the fact that as a successful species, we possess the ability to socially interact with others through complex media. The same could just as well be said about other animals in regards to basic interaction, but it is our uniqueness (no matter how base) in this regard that makes us human. Bassou was, after all, persuaded to wear a burlap sack as a form of social conformity. If Bassou wore a burlap sack, he at least had some trust or agreement with whoever put it on him supposing he were completely devoid of human psychological traits.

Do we need to re-examine the whole myth of racial equality and begin to face reality? No. The "myth of racial equality" would imply that some humans are not human despite the key identical attributes which make humans a part of the same genus and species. I am a human the way a Chinese person or an African person is still a human. The issue with "reality" is the fact that people wish to make themselves that much more special than the person the left or right of them. In making a person special, or more precisely, making it as though one racial group is better than the other, all they do is breed a false sense of inequality.

You sure it isn't possible? Zebras and Donkeys can have offspring, and the closest taxonomic relation is of the Order: Perissodactyla.
Humans and great apes belong to the same Family which is a step closer than a zebra or donkey, hehe.....dunno what scientific relevance that has but it's not out of the question for this to be true, imho.

You have a point the cat or feline family can produce hybrid off spring what is so special about the ape family? like it or not of which we humans are a member's of?

Russian scientists, I believe have under the cover of dark, tried to produce a humanzee or chimp human hybrid

you guys never saw anyone like him before? well, what can i say...

anyway we could force a dna test on everyone first to be sure they are human i guess...i know a lot of people who are thought to be 100% human but they dont act that way. i have my doubts about gwb...there's a chimp if ever i saw one!

And it was all making at least some sort of 'sense', right until I hit this!
The first sentence is just nonsense. Western scientists would go snorkling up their grandmothers woo woo if it meant making such a wondrous new historic discovery. You imply that 'western scientists' are ignorant superstitious idiots. Generally, they aren't.
And then comes this;
the true believers in the TV religion of universal human equality.
What, exactly, are you ad-homming here? What are you biasedly dismissing with no good reason? What axe (-s are) is being ground?
The reading was going on so nicely, right up to this, at which point, train derailed.

And then peeking at the end and seeing this;

I see the racist source!
Nazi? Aryan Nation? Black whatever? ... not that there's much difference.

Not only are all humans equal, but all life is equal, as seen in the eye capable of such sight. Tiny eyes don't let in much 'light'...

The question whether Bassou is human or not human is not the real reason for my thread. To me he is just an odd looking human, read the article below and comment on at please


Exclusive: Half man, half chimp - should we beware the apeman's coming?

Exclusive: Half man, half chimp - should we beware the apeman's coming? - Scotsman.com News



Published Date: 29 April 2008
By JENNY HAWORTH

A LEADING scientist has warned a new species of "humanzee," created from breeding apes with humans, could become a reality unless the government acts to stop scientists experimenting.
In an interview with The Scotsman, Dr Calum MacKellar, director of research at the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, warned the controversial draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill did not prevent human sperm being inseminated into animals.

He said if a female chimpanzee was inseminated with human sperm the two species would be closely enough related that a hybrid could be born.

He said scientists could possibly try to develop the new species to fill the demand for organ donors.

Leading scientists say there is no reason why the two species could not breed, although they question why anyone would want to try such a technique.

Other hybrid species already created include crossed tigers and lions and sheep and goats.

Dr MacKellar said he feared the consequences if scientists made a concerted effort to cross humans with chimpanzees. He said: "Nobody knows what they would get if they tried hard enough. The insemination of animals with human sperm should be prohibited.

"The Human Fertilisation and Embryo Bill prohibits the placement of animal sperm into a woman The reverse is not prohibited. It's not even mentioned. This should not be the case."

He said if the process was not banned, scientists would be "very likely" to try it, and it would be likely humans and chimps could successfully reproduce.

"If you put human sperm into a frog it would probably create an embryo, but it probably wouldn't go very far," he said.

"But if you do it with a non-human primate it's not beyond the realms of possibility that it could be born alive."

Dr MacKellar said the resulting creature could raise ethical dilemmas, such as whether it would be treated as human or animal, and what rights it would have.

"If it was never able to be self-aware or self-conscious it would probably be considered an animal," he said. "However, if there was a possibility of humanzees developing a conscience, you have a far more difficult dilemma on your hands."

He said fascination would be enough of a motive for scientists to try crossing the two species.

But he also said there was a small chance of scientists using the method to "humanise" organs for transplant into humans. "There's a desperate need for organs. One of the solutions that has been looked at is using animal organs, but because there's a very serious risk of rejection using animal organs in humans they are already trying to humanise these organs.

"If they could create these humanzees who are substantially human but are not considered as humans in law , we could have a large provision of organs."

He wrote to the Department of Health to ask that the gap in the draft legislation be addressed.

The department confirmed that the bill "does not cover the artificial insemination of an animal with human sperm".

It said: "Owing to the significant differences between human and animal genomes, they are incompatible and the development of a foetus or progeny is impossible.

"Therefore such activity would have no rational scientific justification, as there would be no measurable outcome."

Dr MacKellar disagrees. He said: "The chromosomal difference between a goat and a sheep is greater than between humans and chimpanzees."

Professor Bob Millar, director of the Medical Research Council Human Reproductive Sciences Unit, based in Edinburgh, agreed viable offspring would be possible. He said: "Donkeys can mate with horses and create infertile offspring; maybe that could happen with chimpanzees."

But he said he would oppose any such attempt. "It's unnecessary and ridiculous and no serious scientist would consider such a thing. Ethically, it's not appropriate.

"It's also completely impractical. Chimps would never be a source of organs for humans because of the viruses they carry and the low numbers."

Professor Hugh McLachlan, professor of applied philosophy at Glasgow Caledonian University's School of Law and Applied Sciences, said although the idea was "troublesome", he could see no ethical objections to the creation of humanzees.

"Any species came to be what it is now because of all sorts of interaction in the past," he said.

"If it turns out in the future there was fertilisation between a human animal and a non-human animal, it's an idea that is troublesome, but in terms of what particular ethical principle is breached it's not clear to me.

"I share their squeamishness and unease, but I'm not sure that unease can be expressed in terms of an ethical principle."

A Department of Health spokeswoman said: "It's just not a problem. If you inseminate an animal with human sperm, scientifically nothing happens. The species barriers are too great."

HYBRIDS ARE AT CROSS PURPOSES

EVEN though hybrids of humans and animals have never been created, many other creatures have been crossed successfully.

Lions and tigers have been bred to create ligers, the world's largest cats.

And there are also zorses (zebra and horse), wholphins (whale and dolphin), tigons (tiger and lion), lepjags (leopard and jaguar) and zonkeys (zebra and donkey).

As well as these hybrid mammals, there are also hybrid birds, fish, insects and plants.

Many hybrids, such as mules, are sterile, which prevents the movement of genes from one species to another, keeping both species distinct. However, some can reproduce and there are scientists who believe that grey wolves and coyotes mated thousands of years ago to create a new species, the red wolf.

More commonly, hybrids mate with one of their parent species, which can influence the genetic mix of what gets passed along to subsequent generations.

Hybrids can have desirable traits, often being fitter or larger than either parent.

Most hybrid animals have been bred in captivity, but there are examples of the process occurring in the wild.

This is far more common in plants than animals but in April 2006 a hunter in Canada's North-west Territories shot a polar bear whose fur had an orange tint.

Research showed that it had a grizzly bear father, and it became known as a pizzly.

In 2003, DNA analysis confirmed that five odd-looking felines found in Maine and Minnesota were bobcat-lynx hybrids, dubbed blynxes.

The full article contains 1056 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.


Animal-Human Hybrids Spark Controversy

Maryann Mott
National Geographic News

January 25, 2005
Scientists have begun blurring the line between human and animal by producing chimeras-a hybrid creature that's part human, part animal.
Chinese scientists at the Shanghai Second Medical University in 2003 successfully fused human cells with rabbit eggs. The embryos were reportedly the first human-animal chimeras successfully created. They were allowed to develop for several days in a laboratory dish before the scientists destroyed the embryos to harvest their stem cells.

• Modified Mice Stay Super-Fit-Without Exercise
  
• Fluorescent Mice Herald Gene-Transfer Breakthrough
  
• Mice Used as Sperm Factories for Pigs, Goats
  
• Cloned Pigs Modified for Use in Human Transplants
  
• Scientific Pitfalls Complicate Cloning Debate
  
• Anti-Aging Drug for Humans Hinted at by Worm Study
  

In Minnesota last year researchers at the Mayo Clinic created pigs with human blood flowing through their bodies.
And at Stanford University in California an experiment might be done later this year to create mice with human brains.

Scientists feel that, the more humanlike the animal, the better research model it makes for testing drugs or possibly growing "spare parts," such as livers, to transplant into humans.
Watching how human cells mature and interact in a living creature may also lead to the discoveries of new medical treatments.

But creating human-animal chimeras-named after a monster in Greek mythology that had a lion's head, goat's body, and serpent's tail-has raised troubling questions: What new subhuman combination should be produced and for what purpose? At what point would it be considered human? And what rights, if any, should it have?
There are currently no U.S. federal laws that address these issues.

Ethical Guidelines

The National Academy of Sciences, which advises the U.S. government, has been studying the issue. In March it plans to present voluntary ethical guidelines for researchers.

A chimera is a mixture of two or more species in one body. Not all are considered troubling, though.

For example, faulty human heart valves are routinely replaced with ones taken from cows and pigs. The surgery-which makes the recipient a human-animal chimera-is widely accepted. And for years scientists have added human genest

Huge half ton liger (Hybid lion/tiger)

Allright. I followed your first link and read the complete artical. It seems to be a moral/ethical concern regarding attempts to 'cross pollenate' different species. I'm afraid that I am unable to opine on the 'debate' as I have no morals and cannot defend or attack either position. We certainly cross pollenate botanical species and no one gets their panties all abunch! But for some reason, many seem to draw some imaginary line and say it's ok to invade and destroy and use for vivisection and eat and enslave and genocide and discriminate and, and... whatever we conveniently deem on the 'other side' of that rather arbitrary line.
Hybrid avocados are bigger and fleshier and tastier and sing happy birthday to me from my sandwich. Non-hybrids dont....
Perhaps crossing a hamster and a persian cat, you know, a longhair persian cat that rides in your pocket! The successful scientist will make a fortune from all those lonely old ladies... Fit IN the pocket!
What was the question?

Very interesting article. This is a very good branch of science that could go very bad....hope someone with a lot of responsibility and a strong moral/ethical compass leads the way in it and not some person whose main concern is how much money they can make

Thank you in philosophy we must not shy away from any debate no matter how difficult or speculative

Looks like a black man with microcephaly. Probably is cognitively impaired, can't get a job, worse yet he's a sub-Saharan living in Morocco, so he forages.

Yeah, it does look like microcephaly a bit but microcephaly doesn't make your arms that long, it looks disproportionate to me.