Just What We Need
Did you see this disturbing story in National Geographic?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070314-hybrids.html
It turns out that sometimes two species can mate and produce a new species. This is the sort of news that makes bestiality less appealing. How many humans saw that story and said to themselves, “Uh-oh”?
I suppose the people who prefer getting jiggy with animals would say there are many advantages to it: economics, unconditional love, no complaining, etc. But right at the top of the list had to be “no birth control needed.” Now that theory is out the door. It’s as if all of life’s pleasures are being chipped away by an angry God. I don’t know how else to explain it.
Now I’m on the lookout for people who are part human and part some-other-species. I know they’re out there. And the whole “people who look like their dogs” thing has taken on an entirely new interpretation.
Have you ever seen a parked car with a dog sitting in the driver’s seat? You usually say to whoever you’re with, “Ha ha! It looks like that dog is getting ready to drive!” Well, that’s not so funny any more. I suggest you keep an eye on that car and see if the dog pulls out and drives home. He might look like a terrier on top, but if he has human legs, he can reach the pedals.
The thing that worries me the most is that now I have a new wrong thing to say when someone shows me their baby. It’s already hard enough to resist saying, “It looks like Yoda.” Now I have to worry about not saying, “It looks half human and half pug.” I don’t have that kind of self-control, and it’s probably because I’m at least one-fourth Chihuahua. [Note to my Mom: I mean on Dad’s side.]
What about competing with these new hybrids in the workforce? Imagine going in for a job interview as a busser in a restaurant, and the applicant next to you is half cheetah. You don’t have a chance. You turn to make conversation, trying to throw him off his game before the interview, and it would go something like this:
You: “So, do you have much experience bussing tables?”
Cheetah-man: “Just a moment, it’s my turn to interview….done. I got the job. What was your question?”
Nothing good can come from this.
A well written article, It was extremely enjoyable and I plan to return to read more
Posted by: J Voltz | April 23, 2008 at 12:18 PM
What came first the chicken or the egg? The age old question. Nature always finds a way
Http://www.amnipata.com
Posted by: Amnipata | October 20, 2007 at 06:01 PM
What's that sound? Oh! I think...Yes...yes, it's the bullshit alarm! Ah, what sweet music.
Posted by: Becca | May 11, 2007 at 04:33 PM
OK, that does it. I can't read this blog at work anymore. I was nearly busted when I laughed out loud, then nearly blew out my eardrums trying to stifle the laughs (I'm still trying to clean the snot off the display).
Good one, Scott!
Posted by: Mike | March 22, 2007 at 10:12 PM
Uh oh, good thing my dog and cat are both male and fixed, or I'd have one funny looking litter on my hands. Imagine trying to pawn up these little mutants?
Posted by: BJ | March 19, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Unplanned creation of a new spieces is just one disadvantage of animal tapping. HIV/AIDS to supposed to have come from chimps which begs the question of who was the first human to develop it, and was it from a chimp... anyone admitting to that one?
Posted by: Alan Brain | March 19, 2007 at 02:34 AM
Mister Adams, do you know what is a mule? I'm speaking about the animal.
Posted by: ACC | March 17, 2007 at 02:16 PM
In the New Scientist article http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325931.300-the-neanderthal-within.html, there's a quote "Surely our direct ancestors would not have been remotely interested in inter-species sex." and now in this NG article it says "sexual blunders could be an important force in their evolution."
Inter-species sex is not something I have any personal interest in, but I do think it's weird that these scientists say there would be no "interest" and it would be a "blunder". Either they've led very sheltered lives, or they must think their readers have and don't want to offend them. Or maybe they just haven't watched as much Star Trek as I have; almost every other character is a vulcan/human, klingon/human, betazoid/human, ... cross.
Other comments have asked, what do we mean by species? Is it "can't produce fertile offspring" or "don't normally mate"? Until we have a more exact definition of species - http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowen/HistoryofLife/speciesconcept.html - it's always going to be difficult to distinguish between normal reproduction and hybridisation. And any definition has to include Ring Species, which don't seem to fit into any suggested definitions - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species.
So come science guys admit it, there's no simple evolutionary tree of life, it's more like a tangled mess.
Posted by: Paul Dove | March 17, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Read Cordwainer Smith's stories about the "Underpeople". They became such in a laboratory, by modifications of animals to humans, now clearly human with a trace of the ancient animal showing in their character. Different path to the same result, but the issues are wrenching. (Underpeople! No civil rights.)
Posted by: Val | March 17, 2007 at 10:24 AM
If they can breed, by definition they are the same species. Sub-species were promoted to species just to give the endangered sppecies act absolute control over all human development. Power to the taxonomist?
Posted by: Walter E Wallis | March 17, 2007 at 07:31 AM
For the "free will" thread people:
http://www.slate.com/id/2161936/?nav=fix
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/02/12/070212fa_fact_macfarquhar
Posted by: asmediagoby | March 17, 2007 at 05:52 AM
looks like this guy just discovered the x files.
Posted by: AHA! | March 17, 2007 at 05:30 AM
and science is freaky, but intresting
Posted by: Marxist | March 17, 2007 at 01:17 AM
It explains reality shows, most goverments and fanatics.
Posted by: Marxist | March 17, 2007 at 01:14 AM
Jeez, here I go again. Do you and Michael Crighton, like hang out and play tennis together? Your recent blog posting on bullshit among experts got me thinking, and a little research and bingo! sounds very much like Michael Crighton's more explicit ideas about the evils of consensus science (http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/index.html)Which people are still beating him up about, even Charlie Rose for crissakes, because it challenges the current popular notions concerning global warming.
Are you on his mailing list or did you meet up at Indian Wells one day?
Posted by: Kevin Kunreuther | March 16, 2007 at 11:31 PM
You've been at the Michael Crighton book, "Next" again, haven't you?
http://www.crichton-official.com/next/index.html
Posted by: Kevin Kunreuther | March 16, 2007 at 11:13 PM
Dude, you sound like you are on mushrooms...
Posted by: Adonai Elohim | March 16, 2007 at 10:18 PM
This brings us back to that chimp that spontaneously got pregnant.
Posted by: CH | March 16, 2007 at 09:39 PM
Kramer saw PIM-MAN and Sienfeld.
Posted by: Dio | March 16, 2007 at 07:56 PM
Hybrid Species! Ha..ha.. I think we can see flying man after some 50 years. Superman! Spiderman!! Cartoon characters in real life!!!
Posted by: Deepak M Varier | March 16, 2007 at 07:02 PM
It stands to reason that if we can talk to the animals there's bound to be a moment when the conversation turns to the idea of interspecies naughty stuff because that's just what happens, so it follows that if the moment is ripe, so to speak, a paw, hoof or a claw is bound to be found on one's arm or leg or even thigh, then the next logical step in any relationship is definitely going to be RABID ANIMAL SEX and I'm all for that, particularly if both of you have been talking about it and one of you has taken the proper precautions by getting yourself declawed.
Posted by: TrevOverT | March 16, 2007 at 06:45 PM
Speaking as a 6 month pregnant woman who has very recently had an ultrasound I can tell you that MY son does not look like he's part pug. Just like every other newborn, he looks like Winston Churchill. Chuh, get it right, pugs indeed.
Posted by: L | March 16, 2007 at 06:25 PM
Dibs on a mouse elephant space rocket copyright.
Posted by: Jez | March 16, 2007 at 05:59 PM
Let’s see, cross a hen with a pig and you can get a bacon and egg omelet. Put a cow in the mix and it’s now got cheese. Cool.
Posted by: Arby | March 16, 2007 at 05:00 PM
i think it's worring about the fasinastion with animals. I've just watched clerks 2 and the donkey scene was disturbing. Whats happening over there in the states?
Posted by: Martin | March 16, 2007 at 04:25 PM
Another off-topic. Did you know the following Usenet newsgroups exist ?
alt.binaries.cartoons.dilbert
alt.comics.dilbert
alt.games.microsoft.dilbert
clari.feature.dilbert
Well at least there isn't a alt.binaries.erotica.dilbert :P
Posted by: Monique | March 16, 2007 at 04:14 PM
Crossing a vulture and a hyena will on occasion produce a lawyer, but
that's usually the end of the line since it's very hard to find anything
that will mate with a lawyer. Were you to find two lawyers that will
mate, you could end up with a SheMale like mAnn Coulter.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
http://boskolives.wordpress.com/
Posted by: jerry wolfe | March 16, 2007 at 03:53 PM
As a biology student, I always wanted to do something very evil and religiously incorrect, just to shock those condom-shunning Catholics. Thanks for the great idea, Scott.
Posted by: vader1941 | March 16, 2007 at 03:09 PM
This has all happened before, just look at all those Egyptian gods and statues.I believe the ancient Egyptian culture died out when they bred too many weird creatures that ate most of the priests and a pharaoh or two.
Posted by: DWH | March 16, 2007 at 03:02 PM
chiwawa!
Hmppph Snicker!
Posted by: Tim Shepard | March 16, 2007 at 02:47 PM
Of course the biggest question is whether or not these hybrids will be allowed in the carpool lane by themselves..
Posted by: Ian | March 16, 2007 at 02:29 PM
non-linear evolution
http://greetings.banjig.net/send.php?card_type=f&card_id=843
Posted by: rd | March 16, 2007 at 02:19 PM
Totally off the subject, but this is the only place i could think of to ask this question. If you go to a hypnotherapist, and you've never been hypnotized before, how do you know that it worked? I guess what i'm asking is, is there a recognizable difference between being relaxed and laying in a moderately dark room listening to someone tell you how to motivate and help yourself vs. being hypnotized? Should i be able to remember the whole session pretty much verbatim? I paid a hundred bucks and i'm not entirely convinced anything was accomplished. I could care less about the money, but want the intended results. I considered calling the therapist, who was very nice and energetic about the session, but don't want to make an issue out of nothing. What are the determining characteristics that make a person "hard" or "easy" to be hypnotized? I have severe depression, and have a very hard time putting my mind in a non-manic state, and I have a very high IQ. This is driving me crazy.
Posted by: boogereatinmoron | March 16, 2007 at 01:58 PM
The wikipedia article about the "species problem" is interesting, but it really seems to be more of a problem for biologists trying to decide whether to declare a new species for taxonomic purposes. If I understand the article correctly, then the Biological Species Concept is still the consensus for discussions about evolution, and the BSC says exactly what most of the posters here have been saying: "Creatures belong to the same species only if they can produce fertile offspring."
--Stomper
Posted by: Stomper | March 16, 2007 at 01:49 PM
Hey Scott! Sorta off topic, but then again sorta not, if you look at it from a certain angle.
~Hmm ... rats think like humans
Rats appear capable of reflecting on their own cognition~
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17537590/
So if the lowly rat, loathed by humans, thinks like us moist robots, what does that do to those who feel that humans have a high Specialness Quotient! Remember that post?
This article would make it appear that humans drop SEVERAL rungs on the Specialness ladder! Your thoughts, sir?
Posted by: Dee | March 16, 2007 at 01:35 PM
As Flo used to say..."when pigs fly!"
Posted by: Mr Bongo | March 16, 2007 at 01:22 PM
"I knew a guy once who was a bit of a sphinxter. Does that count?"
What the hell is a "sphinxter"?
Is that a cross between a man-lion and an ass?
Or is it this:
http://www.sphinxter.com/cartoon.gif
Posted by: Eric Smith | March 16, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Species - most definitions will contain a requirement for the offspring to be fertile. And any definition that doesn't is an ass! I think I might be beating a dead donkey with that pun, and so on and so forth.
Posted by: Sean | March 16, 2007 at 12:47 PM
From entry from your blog itself...
~~BULLSHIT~~
Posted by: uPoduh | March 16, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Maybe this combined with dogs being a popular target of bestiality will lend some credence to the idea of werewolves.
Posted by: SirDrinksalot | March 16, 2007 at 12:28 PM
To be fair, this is generally only successful between species that are extremely similar in genetics, biomechanics, and biochemistry.
Posted by: Erik | March 16, 2007 at 12:12 PM
So the bear in the picture is gri-polar? No wonder he looks so upset.
Posted by: Diana W | March 16, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Just where did YOU think those flying monkeys in the Land of Oz came from?
Posted by: JD | March 16, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Duh, ligers, donkeys, different birds? Learned that back in the 80s and I "think" this stuff has been around for a while before then.
Posted by: CptainCrunch | March 16, 2007 at 11:22 AM
So maybe I should be more careful around dogs that want to hump my leg? I might produce off spring! Well I always wanted to be a dad. I always wondered how mutts happened. Like half chiwawa and half Great Dane. Seems like it would be difficult. So to follow this out. We may someday have beef that tastes like chicken! Or how about pidgeon rats. They enjoy the same habitat. It's just a matter of time. With all of this loose animal lust going around it's just a matter of time before our best friend really is a dog.
Posted by: Mike | March 16, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Is it just my imagination, or are you abnormally obsessed with sex with animals?
Are we going to have a blog entry soon explaining how you like sex with animals more than humans, in the hope that you get a lot of "I though it was just me!" type responses? Seems like you're sounding us out.
If it halps, just about any oddity about your character you mention, you'll always find hundred of others on the internet that share this oddity.
Posted by: squigs | March 16, 2007 at 10:44 AM
re: "Luckily also, setting the criteria as this means we don't have to drop $100K at Satan's churchs (aka science departments within universities)"
These are not Satan's Church's, they are his PLAYGROUNDS!
Carl, Look here, I cloned a sheep and Jackass!
Why do that Stan? We already have Fundamentalists!
Posted by: LA Clay | March 16, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Scott, did you know that there's no scientific consensus on how to define the word "species"? Little-known fact...
Here's some excellent reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
This is partially, of course, because you can't pinpoint the instant that something changes into another species; there's no such thing as "the parents were 99% aardvarks, but their child is 100% aardvark". It happens gradually, with many shades of grey. Even during evolutionary "bursts", it happens gradually as far as you and I are concerned; certainly not within a single generation. Once you realize this, the word "species" begins to look oddly out of place. One of my friends defines "species" as being any group of animals which can mate with each other and produce viable offspring. Of course, this would mean that a single animal could belong to multiple "species" (lions and tigers can sometimes produce viable offspring).
I don't know anybody else who uses that definition, but it does illustrate the problem nicely. The word "species", at least in the way that it has traditionally been defined, is outdated. Some people have been going on and on about how one species can't change into another, when all of this time the word hasn't even been defined!
Posted by: Esn | March 16, 2007 at 10:31 AM
Is this not old news? Did the homo sapiens not mate with the neantherdal? I know my sister dated one :)
Posted by: William Tell | March 16, 2007 at 10:30 AM
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325931.300-the-neanderthal-within.html
Posted by: Gerald | March 16, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Actually, you mix that with the whole DNA story you commented on earlier this week, and we have to wonder if the Modern Humans (about 4,000 orginally according the article) drove the others to extinction, or bred with them to come out on top genetically over a few dozen generations...
On a side note, Happy St. Urho's day...
Posted by: Jorrath Zek | March 16, 2007 at 10:21 AM
I seem to remember hearing that the definition of a "species" was that members of the same species could inter-breed (and produce fertile offspring). I always wondered who got the job of sticking the animals in a cage together, getting them turned on, and checking the results... For example, Koala Bears are known to be a different species to Bears, but who was the lucky scientist who stuck the two together, and had to get the Bear turned on enough that it didn't just eat the Koala. I can just see it now:
"Hey Harv, this is Phil down in species research - I'm going to need a bottle of extra-strength perfume, a Barry White Album, and a crate of Koalas"...
Posted by: Chris Tann, LAWNMOWER MAN | March 16, 2007 at 10:16 AM
Don't believe any of it. That's just baaahd science.
Posted by: Karl H. | March 16, 2007 at 10:00 AM
Here comes Man-Bear-Pig
Posted by: Cube Critter | March 16, 2007 at 09:56 AM
Why is this a surprise? I've known this for years - all I had to do is look around at the people I work with and realize that they're half human, half jack-asses. I'm the only normal one here....just don't roll a tennis ball by me.
Posted by: ughbert | March 16, 2007 at 09:54 AM
I think we're going to be overrun by goat and sheep people very soon.
The bad side is that those sheep people (Sheeple) will go to church every Sunday, just becuase other sheeple are going. Oh wait, the humans already do that!
Posted by: niCk(mem beth) | March 16, 2007 at 09:32 AM
"Interesting that the only examples they cite are where one type of animal has cross breed with another animal 'of the same type'. It does not surprise me...
Again, this is NO proof of evolution"
Thank you for reminding us that the term 'species' is one created by scientists in league with Satan, to confuse and confound us. Clearly the number of Chromosomes an 'animal' has is also irrelevant. (And possibly only indeed knowable through the use of witchcraft.)
What is important, as you point out, is whether or not 'me and my buddies' think these 'animals' are 'of the same type'. Luckily also, setting the criteria as this means we don't have to drop $100K at Satan's churchs (aka science departments within universities)
Posted by: Sean | March 16, 2007 at 09:31 AM
You needn't look far for people who are part human and part other species. Just check the Weekly World News. There's lots of 'em! And invisible aliens too. And Adolf Hitler (he's still alive, you know).
Posted by: ND | March 16, 2007 at 09:31 AM
My mother has been telling me for years that I've got part Labrador in me from my father's side. Maybe she wasn't joking after all..
Posted by: Moto | March 16, 2007 at 09:29 AM
Mix a Psychotic Chihuahua with any Jackass,
Shake well,
Presto: Danny Bonaduce
http://boskolives.wordpress.com/
Posted by: jerry wolfe | March 16, 2007 at 09:27 AM
A blog columnist for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer suggested that more hybrids may be seen as global warming progresses and alters normal mating periods. Dateline Earth Blog, reporter Lisa Stiffler, "You got your grizzly in my polar bear," May 11, 2006
I love that even this non-event is being used to shill for the leftists.
Posted by: Tim Shepard | March 16, 2007 at 09:25 AM
The article's a joke. Two different butterflies mating counts as inter-species? Who's to say the two didn't come from the same ancestors 200 years ago and we're just now seeing what the ancestors looked like? Come back when we have real cross-breeding.
Posted by: Blank | March 16, 2007 at 09:23 AM
You are bordering on copyright infringement Scott. Marvel comics is gonna be after you for ripping off X-Men! First evolution, now people with animal traits?
On the other hand, I wouldn't mind a set of wings sometimes.
Posted by: Beaker | March 16, 2007 at 09:22 AM
Hmm. Sounds to me like scientists have to (1) come up with a new definition of "species," and/or (2) revise their morphological distinctions, to acknowledge that the butterflies really weren't separate species in the first place.
I'll concede that this phenomenon provides more circumstantial evidence of speciation, but it is a far cry from direct evidence, and still dangerously close to tautological when used to "prove" speciation. See my most recent post in the "fossils" thread, if you want a more detailed statement of my position. I just said it there, and I'm not going to say it again here.
--Stomper
Posted by: Stomper | March 16, 2007 at 09:14 AM
I think you may have misunderstood the article to some extent. The point isn't that cross-species coupling can produce off-spring, it is that the off-spring themselves are capable of producing more off-spring with the same genetic structure. An excellent example of inter-breeding that has been very common for hundreds of years is the mule. Mules are crosses between horses and donkeys, yet a mule very rarely is capable of producing offspring itself, and when it does it is a bit uncertain what it will produce. This is why mules are not considered a species under some definitions, since they would be required to be able to interbreed.
Hence, the "no birth control needed" argument isn't quite right, although at the very least you could be pretty sure you will never be a grandfather that way.
And I also agree with what people have been saying, if you are half-cheater then you could probably do better than bus-boy, depending on whether or not sporting bodies have made their rules carefully. I imagine there is already a rule saying that other species can't compete, but there may still be a chance for the hybrids :).
Posted by: Oliver | March 16, 2007 at 09:02 AM
You did not even talk about the most interesting part of the article. In each case, the hybrid found its own ecological niche. The butterflies lived at a higher altitude, the fruit flies used non-native plants, and the fish lived in murky water. The article makes it sound like they chose this, but I think their fellows and/or parents drove them there. Think about it, a hybrid butterfly, with different colored wings. All the other butterflies would tease it, harass it, and drove it to a higher altitude. The fruit flies had to find a new place to live, and lastly the fish hide themselves in the muddy water.
Can you imagine the fish public calling the hybrids freaks and forcing them to hide in the muddy water. Nature is so cruel!
Posted by: Richard Harris | March 16, 2007 at 08:57 AM
I live in West Virginia. I think half our population might be hybrids. I wouldn't mind being half walrus.
Cyrus
http://blogging4burgers.blogspot.com
Posted by: Cyrus | March 16, 2007 at 08:49 AM
Whenever someone asks why I am such a hairy bearded woman, I always tell them my Grandmother was a Bigfoot. I also wear size 11 shoes and am very strong.
Posted by: Robin Byrd | March 16, 2007 at 08:49 AM
Mark Thorson: He's not dumb. The reptilian humanoids have finally cultivated human civilization to a point where we may actually accept them as "normal" and allow them to come to power without scrutiny or mistrust.
Posted by: Cody | March 16, 2007 at 08:47 AM
"My fellow Americans......"
Posted by: Peter | March 16, 2007 at 08:41 AM
Do you think your cheetah-man is going to work for busboy wages? That's an NFL running back worth millions.
The NBA can start scouting giraffe-men for their teams, if they don't already do that.
Clubs looking for bouncers can contact gorilla-men, (again, I think we're already at that point.)
The possibilities are endless...don't even get me started about all the jellyfish-humans in politics.
Posted by: RPK | March 16, 2007 at 08:29 AM
I grew up with a kid that always wanted to be 'in' on things... and since he was never very good at those things, he was the butt of a lot of jokes... To accompany his annoyance factor, he also had a face that only the dog could love, if you smeared it with raw meat and peanut butter... We used to insult him by saying that he was proof that the Indians and buffalo really DID fuck...
Now I have to wonder how much of an insult that truly was... thanks.
Posted by: Foobar | March 16, 2007 at 08:27 AM
[looks like yoda]
OMG
haha!!!
Posted by: jimbot | March 16, 2007 at 08:24 AM
That explains why the Australian outback is populated by man-sheep.
Posted by: chuck | March 16, 2007 at 08:13 AM
Scott, you really need to put a "WARNING: do not drink while reading" PSA at the top of posts like today's. The entire post was LOL funny; I was grateful the office was empty today so I didn't have to bust a rib NOT laughing. Your "It looks like Yoda" comment regarding babies would have made me spray my coffee out my nose ... fortunately, I had not yet quite conveyed the mug to my lips. I can't wait to plagiarize your comment when I compliment the next set of proud new parents I meet.
Regarding Reader's comment -- "The mystery of Dubya's uncanny resemblance to a chimpanzee is finally revealed" -- you made my day ... thanks.
Posted by: Fellow Reader | March 16, 2007 at 08:04 AM
This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase, "son of a bitch."
Posted by: Screech | March 16, 2007 at 07:54 AM
I desperately want to say something clever at this point, but am part bug so 'baint have a big brain. Bum
Posted by: Harvest Perkiness | March 16, 2007 at 07:53 AM
my own mother thought I looked like Yoda when I was born...
Posted by: Helen | March 16, 2007 at 07:48 AM
My neighbor has some explaining to do!
Posted by: Eric Smith | March 16, 2007 at 07:45 AM
So wrong yet so funny. But I go around everyday and see people that you're talking about. Like you step out on the street and right next to you is this 7ft tall guy and you're wondering did he get it from his mom's or dad's side. Alwell it was going to happen sometime I bet that you are going to get tons of angry scathing comments for this one.
Posted by: Chris Greiner | March 16, 2007 at 07:44 AM
"The mystery of Dubya's uncanny resemblance to a chimpanzee is finally revealed".
It's more his walk I find. He walks as if immensely proud of his very achievement of standing upright.
Posted by: JJ | March 16, 2007 at 07:37 AM
lol oh man ugly people are in trouble now.
Posted by: Ms. Pons | March 16, 2007 at 07:36 AM
Are you just pretending to be
dumb? This has been going on
for centuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke#Reptilian_humanoids
The only way a smart guy like
you could pretend to NOT know
this is if you were part of
the conspiracy.
What has me puzzled is why you
would even raise this subject,
if you are indeed one of the
perpetrators of this monstrous
plot. Are you planning to
leave the cabal? If so, you
need to hire 24/7 security
immediately, get the best body
armor money can buy, and move
someplace really cold. Those
guys really slow down in cold
weather.
Posted by: Mark Thorson | March 16, 2007 at 07:35 AM
That Fido commercial explains everything!
Posted by: rsnMickey | March 16, 2007 at 07:34 AM
How else could you explain the platypus or George W. Bush. http://www.bushorchimp.com/
Yeah Satan, I'm already packed...
Posted by: MU_Shadow | March 16, 2007 at 07:32 AM
Here, the perfect specimen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Southpark_ep105_2.jpg
Posted by: Yuriy | March 16, 2007 at 07:16 AM
Laughed till I nearly fainted (genetic trait - kind of like fainting sheep).
I used to have a neighbor, the largest man I've ever seen, who once forced open the jaws of a pit-bull that was attacking another neighbor's dog. It is supposed to be impossible to do that. He accomplished it by straddling the pit-bull and squeezing its jaw muscles with his huge hands until the pit-bull let go. His knuckles were beat-all-to-hell from dragging on the ground and, except for the few times he yelled something barely intelligible at his kids, I never heard him speak in anything but occasional grunts. That man had to be a cross between a human and big-foot (or maybe a troll).
I do have a mild concern about your continuing theme of boinking animals. Is there something you're not telling us Scott?
Posted by: JoNa | March 16, 2007 at 07:16 AM
That Fido commercial explains everything!
Posted by: rsnMickey | March 16, 2007 at 07:16 AM
Another National Geographic article (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0125_050125_chimeras.html) links to further scientific involvement. It concerns me that we might create intentionally weird criters 'to see if we can.' That's not science, that's freaky.
Posted by: Randy Peterman | March 16, 2007 at 07:09 AM
Another great quotation, "sex with another species may be very occasionally quite a good idea."
Sounds like an original Star Trek episode to me.
Someone get Captain Kirk off the platypus.
Posted by: Real Live Girl | March 16, 2007 at 07:06 AM
certainly explains porch monkeys ...
Posted by: mike | March 16, 2007 at 07:02 AM
Interesting that the only examples they cite are where one type of animal has cross breed with another animal 'of the same type'. It does not surprise me that yellow butterflies can breed with red butterflies.
What do you get when you cross a butterfly with a butterfly? Surprise! A butterfly!
Again, this is NO proof of evolution.
Posted by: bb | March 16, 2007 at 06:56 AM
I don't think your restaurant-job example is realistic, because as we all know "Cheetahs never prosper"!
Posted by: Ace | March 16, 2007 at 06:56 AM
I wonder how many of those cases you actually have a correct species definition for the two animals. For instance it's well known you can cross species breed wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis familiaris) but scientists later decided that their was no genetic basis for dogs to be a separate species and reclassified dogs to be (Canis lupus familiaris) thus removing an example of cross species breeding. So while the article sounds profound, all that might really be happening is that animals are disproving our categorizing of them. And that is an artificial construct we created, not a biological thing that exist in the natural world.
Posted by: Jason | March 16, 2007 at 06:55 AM
I don't know if you know this, but there is a windows vista gadget for daily Dilbert comics. If you make an entry about vista eventually you may want to mention it.
It can be found on the Microsoft site here
http://gallery.live.com/liveItemDetail.aspx?li=c6f0ebbb-64a4-4a18-b375-e72a0bd76bc0&l=1
Posted by: CrimsonSkunk | March 16, 2007 at 06:45 AM
One more thought...
Years ago I saw a company selling stickers in the shape of a big screw. It was called "Screw your heart out."
The idea was to stick the screw over the heart on other people's bumper stickers. So, bumber stickers that read "I *heart* my Doberman Pinscher" would now read "I *screw* my Doberman Pinscher"
I never understood why this idea didn't catch on. Maybe when the little human/Pinscher babies start showing up the company will make a comeback.
Posted by: Mokkery | March 16, 2007 at 06:39 AM
Wowser.
I guess this explains all those 'star trek' shows.
Posted by: locomotivebreath1901 | March 16, 2007 at 06:35 AM
This has long been common knowlege in Scotland (Not Scott-land, yet), where the men have taken to wearing kilts because sheep can hear a zipper in use 50 yards away.
http://boskolives.wordpress.com/
Posted by: jerry wolfe | March 16, 2007 at 06:32 AM
Gavin: Yes.
Marina-cat: I hope you’re not insulting pigs.
Sean: You said, “Anyone who believes different species can mate and produce offspring has the intellect of a mule!” First, don’t insult mules. Second, hey wait a minute. I was just about to go into the fact that black ducks are in decline because the females often prefer male mallards. Then I realized you said mule. So, you are clearly referring to the fact that mules are half horse and half donkey.
BTW, mules and mallard/black duck hybrids are exactly the kind of hybrids I was referring to in my first post when I said that the species are more closely related than human/dog and human/cheetah.
Reader: Good one!! LOL. (Of course, I have always thought that pointing out that resemblance was insulting to chimps though. But that’s just me being misanthropic me.)
TwistedMunky: I think you mean porcupines. But, they don’t actually shoot their quills. They’re just evolved to stick in the victim that gets too close, i.e. touches. In fact, I seem to remember that you have to push them in a bit to release them then the barb on the end sticks in you and the quill comes free of the porcupine.
Posted by: Misanthropic Scott | March 16, 2007 at 06:32 AM
The implications are endless. Some day our children won't be able to read Batman comics because they will be considered horribly racist, and offensive to batmen and batwomen everywhere.
Speaking of horribly racist...I wonder how many Osama Bin Camels are running around in Afghanistan...
Posted by: Mokkery | March 16, 2007 at 06:24 AM
Combine this with Flann O'Brien's atom-swapping theories in Third Policeman, and you get one third human, one third cheetah, one third bicycle. "Busser wins Tour de France"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Policeman
Posted by: Langer Dan | March 16, 2007 at 06:23 AM
South Park has addressed this issue on more than one occasion...
Back in 1997, in the episode entitled "An Elephant Makes Love to a Pig", the idea of a "pot-bellied elephant" was introduced (as well as some interesting genetic engineering experiments).
More recently, in the episode "Go God Go", Mrs. Garrison gave a hilarious explanation of evolution, which ended with my new favorite South Park quote:
"You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel!" (you can read the full quote at http://imdb.com/title/tt0890648/quotes )
Posted by: spugbrap | March 16, 2007 at 06:13 AM
My nieces daughter looked like Yoda. Thank goodness she grew to be more human-like.
But ew, Im disgusted by the thoughts you gave me with your entry :/
Posted by: Malin | March 16, 2007 at 06:11 AM
Pro: Mating with certain animals can result in women with 6 or breasts.
Con: They'd probably all be hairy or furry.
Decision: I'll pass on the hybrids.
Posted by: Jabba | March 16, 2007 at 05:57 AM
This is one of those ignorance is bliss moments that are oft ruined by people like you. Damn your quest for knowledge.
Posted by: Myke | March 16, 2007 at 05:56 AM
Wow.. two different butterflies apparently 'crossbred'. And two different types of fish? What's next? Mixing dogs to make designer breeds?
Posted by: just_human | March 16, 2007 at 05:49 AM
Know why an Elephant needs four feet? 18 inches just isn't enough. Now make fun of Elephant man!
Posted by: LA Clay | March 16, 2007 at 05:49 AM
[Now I’m on the lookout for people who are part human and part some-other-species]
Seems donkeys have been getting action for quite some time ;)
Posted by: CLB | March 16, 2007 at 05:35 AM
How does this affect fossilized evidence of so-called missing links? Additionally, these "sports" of nature can rarely reproduce, themselves.
Posted by: John Bonus | March 16, 2007 at 05:34 AM
Trouble sl;eeping again?
Posted by: LA Clay | March 16, 2007 at 05:31 AM
So I went to take a look at the article linked in this post and NG presented me this large ad to the right: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7366820@N04/422965375/. Now, while the articles contents give the ad's tagline a fun little twist, what really killed me was the invitation on the ad's bottom: harmless under normal circumstances, downright obscene in this context...
Posted by: Snaro | March 16, 2007 at 05:23 AM
wow, just think about all the possible combo's.
I would go for a lizard, with the abilty of having 2 penis's and the power to grow things back...
Posted by: More | March 16, 2007 at 05:01 AM
Hey Scott,
It is SOOO hard to tell when you are just screwing around and when you are serious (maybe never?)....
Anyway, just to piss off the funduhmentalists, and because my programming requires it... (I think they call this trolling?)
Obviously they are talking about closely similar species. Many researchers (at least of those who don't think their magic book tells them evolution is bullshit) classify species as a subgroup that won't/can't interbreed with other groups. However on the continuum of won't/can't there is always some point where won't is merging into can't that some, uh, will. (To any confused fundies, this is the evidence of speciation-in-progress that many of you were claiming doesn't exist in the comments a few days ago.)
Often they are sterile or otherwise fracked up (whatever happened to you cursing in your blog?), but if they haven't separated too much their offspring might still be viable. To quote Napoleon Dynamite, "It's a lyger. It's pretty much my favorite animal."
Speaking of ugly babies, my (ex)wife told her girlfriend that I thought her baby looked like a monkey. For a minute or two I really thought she was going to physically attack me. (My ex wasn't the brightest; perfect example of people being surprised at the obvious responses to their statements... in my defense I was 19 and the programming was harder to resist!)
Later,
Jim
Posted by: Jim | March 16, 2007 at 04:52 AM
when i was in grade 4, i had this hilarious question on reproduction in the midst of science lessons: can a turtle's young be frogs?
i didn't know whether to laugh or to cry. it was outrageous enough. any 10-year-old would feel insulted.
turns out....we may all have got the answer wrong.
Posted by: mary | March 16, 2007 at 04:29 AM
first post! ****
Posted by: anonymouse | March 16, 2007 at 04:29 AM
My favorite quote from the article:
"animals' sexual blunders could be an important force in their evolution."
Just makes me stop and think as my parents have told me that I am the result of their sexual blunder. They were freshmen in college and had just met and uh... Oops here I am.
Now it seems that I'm destined to be an important force in evolution! I'm looking forward to that.
Posted by: UnCrash | March 16, 2007 at 04:25 AM
I think these are cases of much more closely related species than human/dog or human/cheetah Scott. That said ...
A middle-aged man in a suit and a young punk-rocker are sitting across from each other on the New York subway.
The punk-rocker has spiked, multicolored hair that's green, purple, and orange. His clothes are a mix of leather and rags. His legs are bare and he's without shoes. His entire face and body are riddled with piercings and his earrings are big, bright feathers.
The suit is staring for quite some time, starting the following dialog:
Punk: What are you lookin' at old man?
Suit: Have you ever done anything really stupid that you regretted later?
Punk: NO!
Suit: Well I did. When I was just about your age, I fucked a parrot. And, I was just thinking, you might be my son!
Posted by: Misanthropic Scott | March 16, 2007 at 04:21 AM
Scott,
I disagree!
I think if we got all the marines crossed with ant-eaters (you know the ones that can fire their spines at enemies) then that would save on needing to give them guns, they just need to run, and fire their spines at them!
Just a second, didn't I rip that off from a recent major action film? Maybe? But it was written that I would, as I have no free will... Just like its written that I will have to go to the pub at lunch on Fridays! Oh dear!
Cheers
GW
Posted by: TwistedMunky | March 16, 2007 at 04:18 AM
Now the 300 pound hippo looking people might actually be part hippo, and what about The people who look like the were born with gorilla like strength? Is Shaq really part animal? and we think Barry Bonds took steroids? The world as we know it is becoming one yellow, fish-like creature that can fly, breath underwater, and has the lifespan of a sea tortoise... And now cannibalism is a way of life....
Posted by: Scott | March 16, 2007 at 04:12 AM
I wouldn't be too worried about a half cheater-man taking my serving job. If they have a cheaters hind legs, then they wouldn't be able to walk upright, and if they had all four legs then they wouldn't be able to hold things.
Posted by: rob | March 16, 2007 at 04:11 AM
The mystery of Dubya's uncanny resemblance to a chimpanzee is finally revealed.
Posted by: Reader | March 16, 2007 at 04:07 AM
The HR department at one place I worked was definitely run by a hyrbid Dogbert/Wally offspring (Doglly?) Didn't really do or care about anything, but if you got her upset she could really make your life miserable....
Posted by: Doggly | March 16, 2007 at 04:07 AM
Well, you know this is going to fuel all sorts of new creation myths - especially together with your last post. Maybe those distinct traits that make humans human did not evolve on earth, but got introduced by alien visitors that humped around wildly on earth with our ape-like ancestors, thereby leavin their genetic traits in new hybrid species. That would explain how many advantagous/human traits appeared in several different ape-species.
There's probabl an alien culture somehwere, that maybe organizes "sex-safaris" to unknown planets, and customers are allowed to hump around freely. Extrapolating from what's going on here on earth I don't see why this would be implausible. Once homo sapiens got too popular on earth, and they recognized sentience in it, laws were passed that forbid those kind of safaris with the goal of intercourse. This would also explain why the alien-visitors we get know a days only do anal probes and other odd stuff like that - everthing else has been outlawed.
If you think about it long enough and squint your brain cells it sort of kinds of make sense, doesn't it?
Posted by: Republican Conservative | March 16, 2007 at 04:02 AM
I own a piece of land and a little house near a small village on the mountains, now i know why all those old singles in the village look quite the same as the sheeps they have, and how is that, that there is still population being so few females there. Hahahahaha you made my day.
Posted by: T.G. | March 16, 2007 at 04:01 AM
Anyone who believes different species can mate and produce offspring has the intellect of a mule!
Posted by: Sean | March 16, 2007 at 03:57 AM
Well now, talking animals from fables and cartoons should be seen under a whole new light. Who has a guess as to how long it'll take for religious fanatics in the US to ban talking animals for encouraging bestiality?
And I bet Dogbert is part dog and part lawyer.
Posted by: Rod Costa | March 16, 2007 at 03:50 AM
If it's the following things you're after in a relationship..... economics, unconditional love, no complaining, etc. But right at the top of the list had to be “no birth control needed.”.....then try necrophilia. You can find many of their lonelyhearts ads in the obituary column of your local newspaper.
Posted by: ShirtBloke | March 16, 2007 at 03:49 AM
Maaaan! Does this explain a lot of things...
I wonder what kind of pig my boss's mum slept with???
Posted by: Marina-cat | March 16, 2007 at 03:43 AM
Cross breeding already makes it pointless to try to differentiate Black-Capped from Carolina Chickadees in Ohio.
Carolina cattle can't be far behind, just thinking of the Purple Cow poem by Joyce Kilmer or somebody.
Posted by: Ron Hardin | March 16, 2007 at 03:30 AM
A BBC poll long ago found that 50% of people in Britain think dogs should be allowed to drive if the dogs are sufficiently trained.
Posted by: Ron Hardin | March 16, 2007 at 03:27 AM
I knew a guy once who was a bit of a sphinxter. Does that count?
Posted by: Gavin | March 16, 2007 at 03:15 AM