Should We Clone Neanderthals?

Originally posted 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. Compared to us modern day homo sapiens.

If a scientist suggested that neanderthals were less intelligent, then I would suggest that the line between science and personal conjecture had been blurred.

I have not seen any evidence to suggest that neanderthals are more or less intelligent than humans.

Originally posted by dfens
The one thing that gets to me is the heavy brow ridge, that it denotes lesser intelligence.

And it was this physical feature, amongst others, that made early British settlers to Australia claim that aborigines were less than human.

Surely we've moved on in the last 300 years ?

So a bigger brain, with more bone over the eyes means less intelligence?

Only hunter-gathers? That's what ALL humans at that time were.

Oh, and there are STILL many human hunter-gathers amoungst us "modern humans."

BONE isn't BRAINS. What you taking up reading the bumps on people's heads next?

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

This isn't reflection.

Neanderthals are humans.

Period.

Not a debatable point.

YOU are part neanderthal.

Shall we experiment on you? Afterall, you're just a smart animal, and assigning human emotions, or intelligence to you is just an example of some people's need to anthropomorphize.

Your ability to decide "humanness" is somewhat disturbing. A trait that has to be taught to soliders, and something that comes naturally to sociopaths.

en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you for a voice of reason, how arrogant is it to think that Neanderthals are not human and should somehow be treated differently, we have come a long way as a species to go backward. It seems we have learned nothing from history, is it built into our DNA to be non-caring of the past or non-caring in the present,

Originally posted by Hefficide

I don't think that we should clone any extinct species. It's irrational to revive evolutionary dead-ends, IMO.

I'm sure that immunologists, and any number of other specialized scientists, on the other hand, probably have a laundry list of justifications for wanting to do so.

I guess if we cross this bridge, as a culture, only hindsight will tell if it was a wise choice or not.

Calling them "evolutionary dead-ends" is unfair IMO. There are many reasons why species go extinct, it doesn't make them a "dead end", as if it was survival of the fitest, and those that didn't make it were flawed and didn't deserve to exist. It could just be a survival of the most ruthless and blood-thirsty, survival of those lucky enough not to be in the middle of a geological distaster or upheaval, etc, etc.

I say do it, and bring back a few dinosaurs too. With all the black ops and underground projects etc, don't we all think it's at least crossed the minds of TPTB to do these and more already?

Originally posted by Aeons
So a bigger brain, with more bone over the eyes means less intelligence?

Only hunter-gathers? That's what ALL humans at that time were.

Oh, and there are STILL many human hunter-gathers amoungst us "modern humans."

BONE isn't BRAINS. What you taking up reading the bumps on people's heads next?

Even better - let us extend out the idea that humans that aren't intelligent enough aren't fully humans.

I assume then that all the people under a certain IQ level qualify as not being human enough. They are "less human" than a smarter human.

Those with high IQs are allowed to experiment on other "lesser" human by virtue of the fact that being smarter makes you "more" human.

"Lesser" animals, which smarter better humans are merely projecting onto. Anthropomorphizing the retarded.

Originally posted by rival
I believe a cloned neanderthal would possess similar intelligence to humans.

By that I mean, if raised from birth as a human, there wouldn't be a significant
difference--maybe -20 IQ points. I think the brain power was there 50k years ago
for the capacity to learn. Just not the resource or leisure.

I agree. Actually the Neanderthal brain was somewhat larger than Homo sapiens. Brain size alone does not equate to greater intelligence, but there's no reason to believe that Neanderthals were less intelligent than us. If they were raised in our culture, other than there being a little more robust than us, there would be no difference in their capabilities. An important point is that their physical stature is WITHIN the range found in us. They are bigger than our average, but there are plenty of humans that are bigger than their average. They would probably be pretty good linebackers. Since it has been shown previously that we carry Neanderthal genes already anyway, I don't see what the big deal is. BTW there are many anthropologists who believe separating Neanderthal out as a separate species is a taxanomic mistake.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
so you would be in favor if they were created and then given the island senario then...no medical tests, no physical tests..just created and dropped off to observe?

otherwise, your saying no just because its a new and odd idea...and that is illogical.

No. I'm saying "no" because it's unethical.

In science (as the article explained), there is a whole body of laws on what is considered ethical research. This violates a whopping lot of the principles of ethical research.

Also, knowing how people tend to treat those of other races and other faiths, I can see little good in creating a group of them. Issac Asimov summed it up well in the short story, "The Ugly Little Boy": en.wikipedia.org...

In an ideal world, where humans treated each other equally, it would be interesting to revive this ancient race. I think the interbreeding might do h. sapiens some good. But in today's world -- no.

Actually the Neanderthal brain was somewhat larger than Homo sapiens. Brain size alone does not equate to greater intelligence, but there's no reason to believe that Neanderthals were less intelligent than us. If they were raised in our culture, other than there being a little more robust than us, there would be no difference in their capabilities

reply to post by schuyler


The best explanation I've seen is that there is a major anatomical difference in their Larynx and vocal cords, and was the deciding factor in their demise.

They did not have the range of sounds that homo sapian could produce, and thus whilst they could interface with one another effectively, they could not communicate and articulate a proposition as well as homo sapien.

The consequence to this was that we developed elaberate ways to hunt through discussion. Neanderthal on the other hand had the intelect but a far a less sophisticated " Monkey see Monkey do " approach to communication which ultimately led to us just plain and simple out adapting them in the search for food and land.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Its an animal...just an animal. cloning animals out of extinction = good.

Why is cloning an extinct animal ''good'' ?

because knowledge is good...subjective statement, but I find gaining knowledge as a society = good for the society

Don't be obtuse.

Because you cannot comprehend something does not make that something obtuse...that simply means you fail to comprehend.

A species is a group of animals that can produce fertile offspring amongst themselves upon mating.

Are you saying that it would be ok to exploit and experiment on a living being purely because it wouldn't produce a fertile baby if we had sex with it ?

I said no such thing. observation is not exploitation and experimentation...the experiment is giving them life..a biological experiment involving dna strands and a zygote..are we not allowed to experiment on zygotes now?
equal rights for zygote movement...never heard of it.

Is that how you would seriously, ethically justify your suggestion of dumping some hapless neanderthals on an island ?

adjectives certainly paint a picture.
Lets say" lovingly carefully place them on a untouched virgin land isolated from the corruption of society.
ya...that sounds better.

How would the neanderthals cope after being ''created'' without any parents or tribe to guide them through their formative years ?

Good question...what do you suggest? it would be fascinating to watch the first generation carve out a life, breed, etc. or I suppose we could give them some understanding...nurture some for a few formulative years so they can eat and learn to stay away from the elements, breed, and then phase out any interactions and let them develop...
I wonder how our ancestors did it when there was a loss of parents in some accident and the young one had to survive.I would be in favor of a controlled camp for the first generation...try to keep it as natural as possible, but institute some basic learning practices for the basics...such as how to make a fire, how to extinguish a fire, how to find food, the absolute basics of root language..1 grunt yes, 2 grunts no kind of thing, then let them develop from there..,problem is, you don't want the appearance of a human as the parent...so, some cosmetics would need to happen before any interaction, and only briefly.


It would be a truly horrific experience for these unfortunate neanderthals.

Have you not got a conscience ?




my conscience tells me that making life is good. a horrific experience? life is horrific?
they are dead now...all dead...extinguished...what your saying is that saving them is somehow evil? I see your logic as flawed.

by that defination, life saving surgery is also horrific, as it keeps someone alive unnaturally. I am glad I don't see the world through your eyes.

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

This isn't reflection.

Neanderthals are humans.

Period.

Not a debatable point.

YOU are part neanderthal.

Yes, about 4%
I am also part lizard, part mouse, part chimp, etc...the human has a ton of related ancestors, yet that doesn't make them the same as myself.

Shall we experiment on you? Afterall, you're just a smart animal, and assigning human emotions, or intelligence to you is just an example of some people's need to anthropomorphize.

humans have been well studied in every possible...not seeing the point.
I am now a statistic and still studied, just like you and everyone else. I don't feel my life is somehow lesser because of this simple knowledge.
I attributed no emotion to the neanderthal...you are however

Your ability to decide "humanness" is somewhat disturbing. A trait that has to be taught to soliders, and something that comes naturally to sociopaths.

Again, your the one that is claiming racism and all sorts...your the one that is deciding they are more or less human than anyone else. I see them as a seperate species of primates (like us) that is worthy of resurrecting due to a number of factors. sorry if you feel different, ultimately neither you nor I will be making the decisions however, so, my speculation has little consequence overall beyond academic curiousity.

The conclusions of the previous mtDNA analysis were flawed. Over-reaching, over generalized. The science was good, the conclusions blew chunks. Assuming that all mtDNA sequences in modern humans are the only mtDNA groups we ever had - none have disappeared. Assuming from ONE sample group that you can generalize about all neanderthals. That mtDNA precludes nuclear DNA contribution. Or even Y-DNA contribution. And that's just the problems I can assess off the top.

edit on 2010/10/4 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

So you say the tests show we are neanderthals sort of, then you say the tests are falty...hmm

Originally posted by Aquarius1
It seems we have learned nothing from history, is it built into our DNA to be non-caring of the past or non-caring in the present,

so, in your opinion, caring people keep things dead verses attempt to revive a lost species.

I love you, which is why I will kill you.

this logic is very amusing to me.

Originally posted by Aeons
Those with high IQs are allowed to experiment on other "lesser" human by virtue of the fact that being smarter makes you "more" human.

Yes, we call this higher education.

We don't allow the local moron to teach intellectual studies to gifted, do we.

Are you now anti-schooling?

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by SaturnFX
so you would be in favor if they were created and then given the island senario then...no medical tests, no physical tests..just created and dropped off to observe?

otherwise, your saying no just because its a new and odd idea...and that is illogical.

No. I'm saying "no" because it's unethical.

In science (as the article explained), there is a whole body of laws on what is considered ethical research. This violates a whopping lot of the principles of ethical research.

Also, knowing how people tend to treat those of other races and other faiths, I can see little good in creating a group of them. Issac Asimov summed it up well in the short story, "The Ugly Little Boy": en.wikipedia.org...

In an ideal world, where humans treated each other equally, it would be interesting to revive this ancient race. I think the interbreeding might do h. sapiens some good. But in today's world -- no.

The valid point you make is simply who we are as a species for now.
Yes, chances are, these beings would not be treated as ideally as my vision would have for them...perhaps in a couple hundred years we may mature as a species enough to run such an experiment.

What your saying is the concept itself isn't bad, but the reality would be a disaster...I accept that version of reality as a truth for now...but still fun to contemplate overall

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Aquarius1
It seems we have learned nothing from history, is it built into our DNA to be non-caring of the past or non-caring in the present,

so, in your opinion, caring people keep things dead verses attempt to revive a lost species.

I love you, which is why I will kill you.

this logic is very amusing to me.

Don't put words in my mouth, you know exactly what I am saying, if we haven't evolved what would be the point of bringing back a species that may not evolved either, it is obvious we are a war mongering people who always have been and the way things are going, always will be. My philosophy is let sleeping dogs lie.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
because knowledge is good...subjective statement, but I find gaining knowledge as a society = good for the society

Knowledge is good.

But ''knowledge'' gained by the exploitation of unwilling subjects is not good.

What ''society'' ?

Humanity has a broad section of societal norms, that span the globe...

What particular society are you thinking of ?

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Because you cannot comprehend something does not make that something obtuse...that simply means you fail to comprehend.

Don't be stupid.

There is nothing in this discussion that I don't ''comprehend''.

You are obtuse, because you cannot ( or will not ) understand the counter-points that are made.

A species is a group of animals that can produce fertile offspring amongst themselves upon mating.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I said no such thing. observation is not exploitation and experimentation...the experiment is giving them life..a biological experiment involving dna strands and a zygote..are we not allowed to experiment on zygotes now?
equal rights for zygote movement...never heard of it.

Of course you said that.

Once again I'll ask you: do you think that it's ethically or logically acceptable to experiment upon other living beings, purely because you can't create a fertile offspring when you have sex with them ?

Originally posted by SaturnFXGood question...what do you suggest?

Yes, it was a good question, wasn't it ?

reply to post by SaturnFX


Love it, really I have thought alot about this. And stand by my first answer in short to your query. However if they did clone a set, would you be a fan? Would you pay to observe?

reply to post by Seeker PI


I believe the jury is still out regarding the neanderthal's capability of speech. It was once the conclusion that they could not talk, but look here: sjohn30.tripod.com...

Originally posted by antar
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Love it, really I have thought alot about this. And stand by my first answer in short to your query. However if they did clone a set, would you be a fan? Would you pay to observe?

I think "meet the neanderthals" would be the only reality TV worth watching frankly.
like animal planet really..love nature shows.

animal planet meets the truman show...not a bad concept.

Originally posted by Aquarius1

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Aquarius1
It seems we have learned nothing from history, is it built into our DNA to be non-caring of the past or non-caring in the present,

so, in your opinion, caring people keep things dead verses attempt to revive a lost species.

I love you, which is why I will kill you.

this logic is very amusing to me.

Don't put words in my mouth, you know exactly what I am saying,

not really...I am not you, and your point is not getting to me.

if we haven't evolved what would be the point of bringing back a species that may not evolved either,

define "not evolved"....my cell phone would disagree with you.
Are you talking about physical evolution? Our bodies have somewhat changed over the years. we grew taller, our hair has become thinner, we now have redheads, etc..granted, we haven't sprout wings, but I think that the evolution for our physical has ultimately hit its peak..now its about developing and refining the brain that evolution is on..our bodies perfectly suit the environment.
I also believe that our toolmaking is a natural process of our evolution...be it external tools like a hammer, or future nanobot swarms in our mostly artifical bodies..but thats just my view.
I would suspect they would follow a similar path to humans...not fully sure, but I think that they would compete for resources, expand out, and ultimately start technological advancements in their tool making. I would find it absolutely fascinating to see a race of neanderthals grow up...cross a ocean in a few thousand years or however long it is, explore the new world, and follow the path we followed indirectly. I can think of no greater project actually as an advanced species than to start sentient life...and perhaps thats exactly what happened to us.

it is obvious we are a war mongering people who always have been and the way things are going, always will be. My philosophy is let sleeping dogs lie.

Yes, but our war mongering attitude has actually allowed us to advance..sadly, this is a day/night thing. if it wasn't for the highly competitive nature of mankind, we would simply not have evolved much beyond cave dwellers...most significant changes in society has been to advance warfare and keep an edge over the enemy. the fact that your on the internet today comes from a warfare tool...a decentralization of government so in case of nuclear war, the government would not lose control....the internet is born.

As sad as it is, war...at least historically, is our friend. If we watch neanderthal island and they divide up over time and start bonking each other over the head for a shiny rock or some hunting grounds, it would be a moment to celebrate...not for the death, but for the fact that this nature will fuel them to become advanced.

It is a distasteful truism of our sentient life...to compete mercilessly, but also to learn wisdom from that hopefully so once the society is truely advanced, we don't wipe out our entire planet...growing pains.

I believe Neanderthal was able to speak. A source I posted earlier in this thread talks about them making complex tools and weapons, without any contact with modern man. To build complex tools you will have to get an idea, test it, exchange ideas etc...
They were humans, not humanoid or something, but actual human.

News studies show Neanderthal to be the victim of an intense volcanic period... Modern man only survived ( according to the article, which I posted before in this thread.) because they had several populations spread out across the globe.