Should We Clone Neanderthals?

reply to post by Aquarius1

There seems to be some sort of madness in humans.
We can't even look after our own species, or any other for that matter.
Assembling bits and pieces of dna, from here and there doesn't mean we can clone something.
Although we could probably resurrect a mammoth. Why we would, who knows.

Even if it were posslble, which I'm sure it isn't, how would we educate such an unfortunate creature.
I mean, to what level. Shall we send him to university, or keep him barerfoot and savage.
Someone mentioned an island, sort of like a zoo? Smashing!

Haven't read the article, only the headline.

I think we should clone them by the millions, and teach them how to work. Just like the gods created us, to serve them. It is ethical in my eyes.
Come on we got monkeys working in the zoo, tis is a small step to take

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Sure. First it starts with, "Hey, look at the guys with the heavy unibrow."
Then the screaming starts.

You're talking about "observing" creatures which could likely be as intelligent as humans.

edit on 10/3/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Is it Bert or Ernie? No ahhh its Capitan caveman.
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Aeons
My main concerns are for the person created. This isn't multiple people - this is ONE person they are looking at.

According to your source:

The clone would also have to have a peer group, which would mean creating several clones, if not a whole colony.

Originally posted by MrOrange82
Haven't read the article, only the headline.

I think we should clone them by the millions, and teach them how to work. Just like the gods created us, to serve them. It is ethical in my eyes.
Come on we got monkeys working in the zoo, tis is a small step to take

I sense some sarcasm here, yet its pretty valid. Noone to this day can explain the 'missing link'. Like phage posted, maybe they were more intelligent than are given credit or are even a more barbaric, devastating parasite than we are. We could only hope to know the truth, but that would cost extra.

Most of what I've read about neanderthal man is that they were shorter, stockier, less intelligent, and limited to hunter/gatherer status. Compared to us modern day homo sapiens. WE(modern man) are the exact same. We just hunt/gather different things. We have technology as well. Maybe they did too?

The one thing that gets to me is the heavy brow ridge, that it denotes lesser intelligence. Look at the pics from the op. The skulls are the same size with some deviation from neanderthal to homo sapien. Only difference is the heavier brow ridge structure, really. I have this saying in my family, 'you can't hurt a good norwegian by hitting them in the head'. Its true in my experience.

I could totally see how this research will result in military application. The whole super-soldier agenda is not a myth. It is a priority since the beginning of time. Would the public ever even accept that some shadow corp developed a humanoid weapon of mass destruction and wantonly developed and unleashed that threat with zero culpability? Of course it would be dismissed, just a tad too sci-fi.

So far, all we got is that we really don't know how they lived. There is in your face speculation as to how they did live, that is taken for gospel, ie, schoolbooks and such, but how is that different from the rest of us who have fresh perspectives and don't cling to official stories?

Bringing back the neanderthal man has too many unknowns where it shouldn't be attempted. Of course, its not our decision, even if it were, it shall still remain business as usual. I don't like that idea.

One more thing, if you had the technology to ressurect your pet who died, would you do it? I think that question could tie into the moral dilemma posed by this thread. What you think?

reply to post by dfens

Most of what I've read about neanderthal man is that they were shorter, stockier, less intelligent, and limited to hunter/gatherer status.

According to the OP source:

The Neanderthals broke away from the lineage of modern humans around 450,000 years ago. They evolved larger brains and became shorter than their likely ancestor, Homo heidelbergensis. They also developed a wider variety of stone tools and more efficient techniques for making them.

No, we shouldn't clone neanderthals. Study the DNA by all means but don't create a living breathing neanderthal.

I personally don't fancy a clone of myself being created as a plaything 1000 years hence by whatever we evolve in to. Lets set the ground rules now eh? :-)

reply to post by D.Wolf


Like I said, its gospel according to 'them'. In fact, this is just theory or speculation. We have no way of knowing, lest we find some 500,000 year old guy who still lives to give us the skinny.

The way CTs get debunked, why aren't the pure speculators debunked in the same manner? Who they get funded by tells the agenda.........

I strongly oppose cloning a Neanderthal.

Non African humans have showed up to 4 % of their genes originally came from Neanderthal.

Source: Neanderthals live on in DNA of humans

They buried their dead and there is evidence they lived in small communities not unlike we have today.

New studies suggest an even more amazing possibility. Neanderthal created their own tools for hunting without ever being in contact with modern man.

Source: Neanderthal innovation surprises archaeologists

The Neanderthal skull was in fact slightly bigger then that of the modern man. This could mean that they were just as or even more intelligent as we are. But... It could also mean absolutely nothing.

There is evidence for humans as well as Neanderthals to be wiped off of Europe, do to a active volcanic period.

Source: Volcanoes Killed Off Neanderthals, Study Suggests

So...

Whe know some % of Neanderthal lives on in us. This must mean we interbred in the past. This can be through rape of Neanderthal women or because they were considered equal enough for some to have an affair with.

Fact remains that they are really a lot like us for our both species to even be able to reproduce and actually have mixed offspring.

The above is also posted in my last thread, which you can read here : Neanderthal... New studies suggests they were more like us then we thought/think.,

Anyway...

I'm against cloning them because any clone would be held captive and used as a lab rat. That is just wrong.
Even if it was just an animal...
I don't think bringing any old, extinct species back to life is OK without actually understanding what is done and what can be the result of it.

I was actually taught that DNA quickly breaks down do to all kinds of stuff. This even happens while still alive.
Without a complete and damage free specimen it can only fail, does it not ?

Hasn't anyone seen Encino Man???

Surely cloning a cave person will result in hilarious results and something that looks like Brendan Fraser. For this reason we should avoid doing it, since his movies after Encino Man were pretty average ...

But no, really ... I would only be up for doing this if someone could suggest a reasonable benefit from the resulting data. It might answer some questions regarding the differences between us and some of our near ancestors sure, but will it really be a big step? I think we could have 100% proof of evolution and just about everything else and the same debates would continue so why would we really bother with this?

Are there any other benefits beyond historical curiousness?

Originally posted by tomdham
reply to post by Aquarius1

 

Here is a free e-book by a friend of mine Jeff Inlo that describes this phenomena on a stellar scale.
It is an interesting read as they put a "cloned" species on another uninhabited planet, not just an island for
"observation".
Check it out, let me know what you think of this experiment.

www.sitelane.com...

Thank for the link tomdham, I will certainly check it out when time permits. This is pretty scary stuff in my opinion, it would be like robots running around.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Do "animals" ceremonially bury their dead?
Do "animals" make jewelry?

edit on 10/3/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Ants bury their dead, along with chimps and elephants (sometimes).
and humans

jewelry...define jewelry. chimps have been known to toss stuff on themselves..some humans will shove stones and bits on themselves also for various reasons

(humans = animals also...keep it a secret though)

incidently, I agree...neanderthals are theoretically supposed to be a pretty clever animal...sorta why I am in favor of bringing them back. if history is correct, it was our bad that took em out...we should resurrect their species

who knows...in a few thousand years, we will have progressed to such an extent (if your a fan of kurzweil, you will know what I mean) that we no longer need this planet..clean it up, and let neanderthals have free reign as we simply watch out of sight. Perhaps this has all been done before but with us. If that is the case, I am glad they decided to bring our species out of extinction.

the implications of what we do does not escape me...it actually makes me feel pretty good about a potential circle going on

Originally posted by dfensI sense some sarcasm here, yet its pretty valid. Noone to this day can explain the 'missing link'. Like phage posted, maybe they were more intelligent than are given credit or are even a more barbaric, devastating parasite than we are. We could only hope to know the truth, but that would cost extra.

Although it is possible, nature favors aggressive behavior. Neanderthals would have made easy work of homo sapians if they were as ruthless as us. We instead destroyed most of em, raped some, and ultimately wiped out them as a species. Sounds to me like they were not overly aggressive, however this is open to speculation.

Their brains were equal to our brains...they were as intelligent as us...so what gave us the advantage comes down to nature.

reply to post by Aeons

They are humans.

Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis. Anyone claiming otherwise with finding their DNA in ours is a racist masquerading as an academic.[quote/]
I agree with that, scientists today are out of control, it reminds me of Dr. Frankenstein and just as scary.

They were human enough that all of you who aren't from Africa are carrying some of them in you.

I believe that are human like us, take a look at the aborigines of today, they may look slightly different then us but human.

My main concerns are for the person created. This isn't multiple people - this is ONE person they are looking at.

They need a family. They may not function like modern humans in terms of intelligence. If some of the autism community is correct, they may function like a high functioning autistic. And how likely are they to die of modern viruses? Are immunizations enough? It seems that they developed into adults faster - that could be a ball of trouble. How about sexuality? There will be only one of them - how are you going to stop that behaviour, and it certainly isn't ethical to do so. That leads to what if they want to marry? Have children? Go to the PTA.

These are all good observations Aeons, I highly doubt these scientists are giving this a second thought, since most of them don't believe in a creative force and look at us a freak of nature.

There would be no "isolated" island. People of modern human origin will begin a mass assault to get there. For reasons of curiosity, celebrity, religious, political, gender, humanitarian, racial, identity issues, just to name several off the top of my head.

You couldn't do enough to isolate an "island" of people from the rest of us.

Yes, it one become a circus and the sad thing is that most people would think it would be alright, we are living in a time where humankind is devolving in my opinion.

Thank you for your thoughts and posting.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


Actually

I think the question should be posed "should cloned neanderthals be made aware to the public?"

You know there is a lab somewhere that has already done this and is studying now. At least when we as a public allow for it to be opened up, we can then moniter and insist on some aspects of treatment in the testing.

Lets not be nieve now...if it can be done, you can bet it has been done somewhere...the question should always be posed "should the public know"...that certainly changes perspectives on the subject into a more realistic argument.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Aquarius1

 

We don't need to clone neanderthals.

We have Republicans. They're very similar.

Now that as given me something to laugh at today, always good to start out that way, the most important thing you wrote was "We don't need to clone Neanderthals."

reply to post by SaturnFX

You know there is a lab somewhere that has already done this and is studying now. At least when we as a public allow for it to be opened up, we can then moniter and insist on some aspects of treatment in the testing.

That is my feeling, it more then likely has been done and being studied, do you honestly think they want us to monitor it, what we think isn't important, history has proved that over and over.

Thanks for posting.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
reply to post by Phage

 

Its an animal...just an animal. cloning animals out of extinction = good.

there should be no religious uproar about cloning neandertals...because..well, they aren't man and therefore who cares. So, it simply comes down to us simply doing it.


and in regards to them developing nukes...well, we took em out once, we will take em out again if they get silly.


Actually, wasn't there some research done suggesting neanderthals didn't go extinct but rather just interbred with homo sapians and made french people?

add:Yep, they did. Link - neanderthal gene found in some humans

edit on 3-10-2010 by SaturnFX because: added a link

Well, since they aren't human.....I think we should clone the crap out of them and then we can institute slavery once again! This time with a clear conscience!

reply to post by SaturnFX


Well, yes when you look at it that way... you are right. But,,, Do we need to know, should we be told, and if they don't tell us and keep it a secret. Who will be deciding what's acceptable and what is not ?

How long would it take for the unacceptable to be accepted ?

I think when you start with secret projects with vague and unknown boundaries, we can pretty much assume these boundaries will be moved or even crossed. Eventually... It seems us humans have a tendency to be attracted to the dark side of the force.... Especially when nobodies looking.

Try it yourself and put some sunglasses on...

Anyway...

Accept for moral, animal and/or human love this would be the main reason for me to be against keeping it a secret.

I do agree tho what you don't know can't really bother you, but is that how it should be ?