LAT op-ed: Isn’t it about time we started breeding with animals?

posted at 12:55 pm on July 18, 2006 by Allahpundit

Not for any compelling scientific or medical purpose, mind you. Just to prove to wingnut evolution skeptics that Darwin was right.

Because if there’s one thing that’ll bring public opinion around to your side, it’s spawning wretched, Lovecraftian beast-men.


[I]n these dark days of know-nothing anti-evolutionism, with religious fundamentalists occupying the White House, controlling Congress and attempting to distort the teaching of science in our schools, a powerful dose of biological reality would be healthy indeed. And this is precisely the message that chimeras, hybrids or mixed-species clones would drive home.

He frames the debate as “reality-based” versus “faith-based” too, in case you’re having trouble finding him on the map.

Imagine my surprise to find a Darwinist squandering his advantage on the merits by adopting a tone of insufferably smug superiority. Why, next thing you know, libertarians will be doing it.

I guess it gets tough having to tote around all that enlightenment.

There’s evolution and then there’s evolution: AI, real AI, is almost here. Pro: cars that drive themselves. Con: sex robots that are smart enough to know they can do better than you.

From mating with monkeys to sex robots. The funk of forty thousand years, as Richard Dawkins once called it.

No, wait. That was Vincent Price in “Thriller.”

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Well, the good professor thought that cross-breeding was a good idea, at least until the manipulation of his own DNA led to an unfortunate butt-sniffing episode that cost him his fellowship.

Bob Owens on July 18, 2006 at 1:05 PM

breeding with animals…
this guys a professor?
inter species can rarely mate together. The horse and the donkey can, but what else?
A man mounting a chimp (or vice versa) will never produce a Chimpansapian (or a Bushy Mchittler, despite liberals most fervant wishes)
Yes, genetic manipulation may be able to create chimeras. But that prooves nothing. With some work you can make a chevy engine run a ford. That does not mean that it is a cross breed. Just means that some one played Auto mechanic.
All this guy can proove is that some smart people can move some stuff around to make a hybrid. It does not proove Darwinism.
(and to put this in perspective, I am not a creationist)

Wyrd on July 18, 2006 at 1:29 PM

The problem with his ‘biological reality’ claim is that it is biologically impossible for most species to mate with each other. Yet another one of those inconvenient truths that idiot libs don’t mind overlooking when coming up with their junk science.

webproze on July 18, 2006 at 1:32 PM

This part of his quote was left out of the article:

“Why else then, am I rooting for the creation of hybrids?

Because I am a freak! A godless freak who wishes anything to just shut up the infernal racket of those pigs who believe in a higher being! If my setting aside my humanity to have sex with an animal will prove to those religious fundementalists that we are all the same as animals then I will eph anything that moves! Two legs good, four legs better! Then, and only then, will I have proof that humans are nothing more than animals who are under the authority of nothing, or rather anything we wish EXCEPT a God who created us in His image!!! Do not question evolution, do not question evolution, do not question evolution, do not question evolution, do not question evolution…!!! It is not JUST A THEORY…”

Greg on July 18, 2006 at 1:32 PM

The problem with his ‘biological reality’ claim is that it is biologically impossible for most species to mate with each other. Yet another one of those inconvenient truths that idiot libs don’t mind overlooking when coming up with their junk science.

Er, I think he knows that. He’s talking about building these things in a lab.

Allahpundit on July 18, 2006 at 1:36 PM

Wow… first Cohen, then this nut bag… the papers have truely lost it…

Romeo13 on July 18, 2006 at 1:38 PM

The desert people are way ahead of us on this one.

bbz123 on July 18, 2006 at 1:39 PM

Building some sort of genetic chimera in the lab does not address evolution at all. Indeed, we already have genetic chimeras all around us (e.g., many GM crops contain a bacterial gene that makes a pesticide). A “real” chimera ala Jurassic Park as inferred is completely beyond our current technology and beyond our understanding of developmental regulation.

Furthermore, advancing an understanding of evolution does not involve ad hominen attacks nor denigration (…know-nothing anti-evolutionism, with religious fundamentalist…). We can see the process of natural selection around us every day, and there are literally a trillion data points to support it. The sequence of every gene in every organism tells a compelling, fascinating story that the sort of rubbish in the op-ed undermines.

Clark1 on July 18, 2006 at 1:49 PM

I think we should let the good professor go ahead and attempt to create a hybrid or a chimera or what have you. But why is he holding out for a cute little chimpanzee? Just because they somewhat resemble humans and may be closer in genetic makeup? No. I think the good prof should prove his theory by checking into a Radisson for a night of steamy lovemaking with a man of war jelly fish or perhaps a crocodile. And we’ll need to see all of this on YouTube.

pistolero on July 18, 2006 at 2:16 PM

Of course, this will then be put forth as a Constitutional amendment–cross species marriage act. And what if some of these hybrid are homosexual….

Oh the humanity….

honora on July 18, 2006 at 2:42 PM

I don’t know what you would get if you cross a tarantula with a horse but if it bites you, you can ride it to the hospital.

pjcomix on July 18, 2006 at 4:09 PM

They once crossed a French Poodle with an Alaskan Timber Wolf. The offspring was named Fifi of the North.

pjcomix on July 18, 2006 at 4:12 PM

I was just in LA and had the privilege of visiting Venice Beach. I can assure you that cross breeding has already happened…

pullingmyhairout on July 18, 2006 at 4:41 PM

Pullingmyhairout, what do you mean “crossbreeding has already happened?”

EFG on July 18, 2006 at 8:35 PM

Perhaps there is a sheep ranch next door to the LA Times…

speed647 on July 18, 2006 at 11:34 PM

Have you ever seen the people who hang out at Venice Beach? My young daughter got an education when she said, “mommy!! look!! that dirty man has his pants down!!” EFG, trust me. cross breeding has happened (of course, not in reality, but theoretically).

pullingmyhairout on July 19, 2006 at 10:09 AM

I was waiting for a few lines like the one PJCOMIX and PISTOLERO let go of. Those thousands of old “I crossed a pig with a sheep and I got a pig that comes with its own blanket” jokes are legion. And fiction, which is where this discussion’s main subjects belong.

The need to take the logic of natural selection and evolution and run it through the strainer of this complete op-ed idiocy just points out that some people couldn’t find “reasonable” if they were dropped into a steaming pit of it. They need the extreme outside. They crave it. It’s as if they hope to move the center far enough over to their side to create a comfort zone.

Leave the sphinxes, griffins and other odd beasties to their useful, happy lives in the pages of fantasy novels. If the world ever REALLY needs them to exist, they’ll show up…Whether it’s a question of evolution, or a supreme being with a wicked sense of humor.

Hell, find another reason for the existence of a platypus.

52Ranger on July 19, 2006 at 11:22 AM

Later-day, decayed Enlightenment opinion has it that every truth is always healthy for everyone, and that this is so, regardless of the means and order of presentation. An entailment of that opinion, if it were true, would be that no beneficent intention would be required on the part of the enlightener. Someone who hates you and wants to hurt you could teach you something just as effectively as someone who cares about your wellbeing. More generally, no pedagogical skill or skillfulness is required.

Obviously, such entailments are destroyed, and their premise with them, as soon as one starts to consider specific cases. But the premise survives as a moral principle, held as it is by later-day warriors of Enlightenment who have more anger than insight.

If anyone on the American Left is so convinced that teaching evolution by the crudest means is healthy, let him start by teaching it first to the Democrats’ most reliable constituency. Let him start by teaching it in black people’s Baptist churches. But it stabs me just to think of the wounded pride and anguish that would cause.

Kralizec on July 19, 2006 at 11:47 AM

I am of the young earth Creationist view and not the least bit ashamed of it :) Too much real scientific evidence not to be.

wytammic on July 19, 2006 at 12:25 PM

wytammic on July 19, 2006 at 12:26 PM

Okay — not smart enough to figure out the dang buttons ;)
Do it the old fashioned way by copy and paste if you want to look.

wytammic on July 19, 2006 at 12:27 PM

This is not about actual breeding but rather sex with animals. Peter Singer, the highly sought after and controversial professor of bio-ethics at Princeton University has penned this review of Midas Dekkers’ book (i)Dearest Pet(/i)

Soyka’s suggestion indicates one good reason why some of the acts described in Dekkers book are clearly wrong, and should remain crimes. Some men use hens as a sexual object, inserting their penis into the cloaca, an all-purpose channel for wastes and for the passage of the egg. This is usually fatal to the hen, and in some cases she will be deliberately decapitated just before ejaculation in order to intensify the convulsions of its sphincter. This is cruelty, clear and simple. (But is it worse for the hen than living for a year or more crowded with four or five other hens in barren wire cage so small that they can never stretch their wings, and then being stuffed into crates to be taken to the slaughterhouse, strung upside down on a conveyor belt and killed? If not, then it is no worse than what egg producers do to their hens all the time.)

If you can’t tell from that sentence in parens that professor Singer is considered the founding father of the animal rights movement.

The modern (animal rights) movement may be dated to the 1975 publication of the book ‘Animal Liberation’ by Australian philosopher Peter Singer.
— Newsweek

About a year ago a Seattle area man died as a result of having sex with a horse. It is suggested that this was not an isolated case of an invididual but that the farm was used by several people for the purpose of sex with animals. As disgusting as that may be consider that now a filmmaker is going to make a movie of it.The movie will be titled (i)In the Forest There Is Every Kind of Bird.(/i)Heh, ain’t it the truth.
I realize that some of this is dated but I put it out there as examples of how the opinion makers buttress their agenda.

tom scott on July 19, 2006 at 12:50 PM

It has already begun.

Kid from Brooklyn on July 19, 2006 at 4:02 PM

BARN AGAIN: Breeding with animals.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on July 20, 2006 at 12:53 PM

What do you get from crossing nutty professors with dogs? CUR-mudgeons.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on July 20, 2006 at 12:59 PM

What do you get from crossing leftest-nutbags with sheep? Ewe guys.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on July 20, 2006 at 1:04 PM


Dr. Charles G. Waugh on July 20, 2006 at 1:10 PM

A BARASH PROPOSAL: PLUTOnic relationships.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on July 21, 2006 at 11:42 AM