Cloning a Neanderthal

[Political_Chucky]

In light of one of the last threads I posted in this forum about the cloning and resurrection of the Mammoth, me and a couple friends started discussing the possibility of cloning a Neanderthal and what the possible outcomes would be if this would be a reality. What are your opinions if a Neanderthal would be cloned?

I personaly think if a Mammoth is able to be resurrected, the possibilities could be endless for the future. Would a Neanderthal that lived 50,000 years ago in asia, or 30,000 years ago in Europe(reportedly) have the same equal rights as a human being? This would obviously have to take in consideration a Neanderthal that is from that era, who is cloned and raised from an infant to a man? in this type of culture and society. What would be the benefits and consequences to something of this nature?

[EvilRedGuy]

Are you honestly suggesting that it might not have basic human rights? Its A HUMAN, stop contradicting yourself. Anyways im all for this and it would be very good for scinetific research if possible, the only problem is that its not possible. period.

[Widerstand]

You realize that it doesn't really matter when they lived, right? Because cloning doesn't mean you recreate exactly that Neanderthal but simply a being with the same genetic structures.

Also, they might be more intelligent than us (they have a larger brain, and with proper education, I suspect this could lead to them having greater mental capacities than we have). Other than that, they are probably also smaller and slightly more muscular.

None of this matters of course, because, looking at society, they'd most likely be heavily discriminated against and/or locked up somewhere.

What's interesting is the possibility that they might establish as a biological human race and "mix" with homo sapiens (some argue that this is what happened to them in the first place: that they weren't extinct, but simply mixed with homo sapiens).

[Widerstand]

Are you honestly suggesting that it might not have basic human rights? Its A HUMAN, stop contradicting yourself. Anyways im all for this and it would be very good the only problem is that its not possible. period.

There's some debate about how to classify Neanderthals. Some argue they should be classified as a different species (homo neanderthalis), in which case they would not be human, while others argue they should be classified as a human race (homo sapiens neanderthalis).

[Dimentio]

In light of one of the last threads I posted in this forum about the cloning and resurrection of the Mammoth, me and a couple friends started discussing the possibility of cloning a Neanderthal and what the possible outcomes would be if this would be a reality. What are your opinions if a Neanderthal would be cloned?

I personaly think if a Mammoth is able to be resurrected, the possibilities could be endless for the future. Would a Neanderthal that lived 50,000 years ago in asia, or 30,000 years ago in Europe(reportedly) have the same equal rights as a human being? This would obviously have to take in consideration a Neanderthal that is from that era, who is cloned and raised from an infant to a man? in this type of culture and society. What would be the benefits and consequences to something of this nature?

It would be a stupid idea, and an immoral idea as well.

Neanderthals are hominids, which mean that if Neanderthals had survived and existed until this day, they should be viewed as individuals.

Adoptive children often tend to be depressed and feel rejected. This sense of rejection is a cause of intrinsic memories from the toddler years. A Neanderthal grown up amongst Homo Sapiens would feel alone and disadvantaged, because he or she will more likely be bullied and chastised.

Moreover, Neanderthals are adapted for another climate. If you were a Neanderthal, you could step out in ten degrees Celsius cold, and it would feel like if you wore a suit. That would mean that you most likely would sweat excessively.

No matter if you bring the Neanderthal child up in a laboratory or in a "normal" environment, he would be alone and sad.

You are basically bringing up a human being just to torture it.

It would be cruel and childish.

[Political_Chucky]

Are you honestly suggesting that it might not have basic human rights? Its A HUMAN, stop contradicting yourself. Anyways im all for this and it would be very good the only problem is that its not possible. period.

Well, they are not REALLy humans, but either way That is not where I am arguing from. I am not suggesting they should not have equal rights, I was only asking a question as a matter of opinion on the subject. I personally believe that they may have a higher intelligence considering that we are very well connected to them and considering that scientific studies have suggested that they did have a evolved social environment(compared to us and animals), and produced their own tools. I don't know enough information though to really classify whether or not Neanderthals would be capable of being as equally intelligent as a homo-sapien. Why wouldn't it be possible though? That really sounds ridiculous considering we have already discovered 60% of their DNA as of May 2010. Science is always evolving and we are always discovering more. Don't under estimate the credibility of science.


You realize that it doesn't really matter when they lived, right? Because cloning doesn't mean you recreate exactly that Neanderthal but simply a being with the same genetic structures.
Yeah I understand that, but as close as it could get it wouldn't necessarily be the same considering that where it would be raised and what type of environment it would live in would drastically change its perception. I'm only asking this out of a hypothetical, where the answer is really up in the air for anyone to answer.



Also, they might be more intelligent than us (they have a larger brain, and with proper education, I suspect this could lead to them having greater mental capacities than we have). Other than that, they are probably also smaller and slightly more muscular.
I don't necessarily think a larger brain = more intelligent. You would have to study whether their brain works more efficiently then ours and considering we have a longer time span to have evolved our brain and the lack of evidence to their technology, I highly doubt they were more intelligent in the rational sense.


None of this matters of course, because, looking at society, they'd most likely be heavily discriminated against and/or locked up somewhere.I totally agree. That was one of my main points I brought up with my friends. They had larger hands and were considereably stronger then us, where my friend pointed out(I don't know whether this would be the case or not), if they were to be raised in our society(to the point where there was a mass of them), they could easily be a different class in our system where they would be a major work force of laborers(by force, not by choice by his argument).


What's interesting is the possibility that they might establish as a biological human race and "mix" with homo sapiens (some argue that this is what happened to them in the first place: that they weren't extinct, but simply mixed with homo sapiens).If they were able to be recreated, maybe this might put an end to that debate considering we would be able to study the way they interact and whether or not there would be consequences mating with Neanderthals.

[Dimentio]

Neanderthals made musical instruments, tools, buried their dead with flowers and had very similar physical characteristics. Also, all Non-subsaharans are having Neanderthal genome.

Some genes are actually coming from Neanderthals. Like the gene for red/blonde hair and blue eyes.

So Neanderthals were very much humans. Perhaps somewhat cognitively different, but still very much humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_P%C3%A4%C3%A4bo

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8660940.stm

From the archeological evidence regarding Neanderthal culture, the main difference seems to be that they socialised less, lived more isolated and did not use "fashion", rhythm or jewellery (necklaces or piercings) to communicate status.

[Widerstand]

Yeah I understand that, but as close as it could get it wouldn't necessarily be the same considering that where it would be raised and what type of environment it would live in would drastically change its perception. I'm only asking this out of a hypothetical, where the answer is really up in the air for anyone to answer.

Well yes, as mentioned above, their bodies are likely to be adapted to extremely low temperatures. I'm not sure where they could live, maybe Siberia or something.



I don't necessarily think a larger brain = more intelligent. You would have to study whether their brain works more efficiently then ours and considering we have a longer time span to have evolved our brain and the lack of evidence to their technology, I highly doubt they were more intelligent in the rational sense.

It doesn't necessarily mean that, no, but it could mean that (given proper education). But as far as we know, Neanderthals were the first to develop culture and what could be called spiritual believes (burying their dead with rites and grave gifts; arranging the bones of dead animals to signify graves, etc.).



I totally agree. That was one of my main points I brought up with my friends. They had larger hands and were considereably stronger then us, where my friend pointed out(I don't know whether this would be the case or not), if they were to be raised in our society(to the point where there was a mass of them), they could easily be a different class in our system where they would be a major work force of laborers(by force, not by choice by his argument).

Yeah, I thought of something similar. It seems likely, to be honest.



If they were able to be recreated, maybe this might put an end to that debate considering we would be able to study the way they interact and whether or not there would be consequences mating with Neanderthals.

Oh hell, I can already imagine how they would forcibly fertilize female Neanderthals with homo sapiens sapiens sperm to see if offspring can be produced.

[Manic Impressive]

You are basically bringing up a human being just to torture it.

It would be cruel and childish.

AH-HA-HA! CIAO! :lol:
Your sig makes everything you say seem like a joke however grim the subject :laugh:

If it were possible I would be more concerned about the woman who had to bring the Neanderthal baby to term. There would probably be multiple miscarriages and deformed births before they got it right and while this may not really effect a sheep or something it would be traumatic for the mother.

I don't think education significantly effects how much of the brain we use otherwise gorillas would be geniuses.

[Dimentio]

Neanderthals had slightly larger brains than us, and obviously if you are making tombs or flutes, you are somewhat more cognitively advanced than a chimpanzee.

[Widerstand]

Neanderthals had slightly larger brains than us, and obviously if you are making tombs or flutes, you are somewhat more cognitively advanced than a chimpanzee.

Average brain sizes are 1700cm³ for Neanderthals and 1400cm³ for homo sapiens sapiens, as far as I recall. That's 121% of our brain size, after all :p

Another interesting thing is that, although Neanderthals were physically able to articulate speech and use language, they were most likely less adapted to it than homo sapiens sapiens. This would be a definite hindering for their population, a way to suppress them, and a possible ground of discrimination.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080421154426.htm

[Dimentio]

Average brain sizes are 1700cm³ for Neanderthals and 1400cm³ for homo sapiens sapiens, as far as I recall. That's 121% of our brain size, after all :p

Another interesting thing is that, although Neanderthals were physically able to articulate speech and use language, they were most likely less adapted to it than homo sapiens sapiens. This would be a definite hindering for their population, a way to suppress them, and a possible ground of discrimination.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080421154426.htm

Like Finns in Finland then :laugh:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It would be a stupid idea, and an immoral idea as well.

Neanderthals are hominids, which mean that if Neanderthals had survived and existed until this day, they should be viewed as individuals.

Adoptive children often tend to be depressed and feel rejected. This sense of rejection is a cause of intrinsic memories from the toddler years. A Neanderthal grown up amongst Homo Sapiens would feel alone and disadvantaged, because he or she will more likely be bullied and chastised.

So a cloned Neanderthal is inevitably going to end up miserable because... why? "Humans are bastards"? For fuck's sake. Why do you think it's remotely appropriate to compare the experiences of ordinary orphans with what would be a very exceptional case?


Moreover, Neanderthals are adapted for another climate. If you were a Neanderthal, you could step out in ten degrees Celsius cold, and it would feel like if you wore a suit. That would mean that you most likely would sweat excessively.

How on Earth is this an insurmountable problem? A Neanderthal would probably just wear less clothing and/or live in colder climes.


No matter if you bring the Neanderthal child up in a laboratory or in a "normal" environment, he would be alone and sad.

I don't agree that sadness and loneliness is inevitable. Appropriately raised children can be very undiscriminating, and would happily play with a Neanderthal child in my estimation.


You are basically bringing up a human being just to torture it.

It would be cruel and childish.

Your argument could be just as easily be made in support of the thesis that racial and ethnic minorities should not have children, because they will grow up miserable through discrimination.

However, in both cases I think the argument misses the point. The opportunity to study a Neanderthal develop in vivo is well worth the effort of raising a special child with particular needs.

Hell, it might do the world some good to have Neanderthals return as a viable clade.

[Dimentio]

Seriously though, disadvantaged children should not be euthanasied - never. All humans have an equal right to exist.

But to actively create a child that would be disadvantaged and completely alone would be an atrocity.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Seriously though, disadvantaged children should not be euthanasied - never. All humans have an equal right to exist.

But to actively create a child that would be disadvantaged and completely alone would be an atrocity.

Disadvantaged? How? A cloned Neanderthal would probably have a better start in life than the vast majority of human children, and that would include a circle of carefully-screened playmates.

[Manic Impressive]

Don't be dissing chimps they use tools as well.

5Cp7_In7f88 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Cp7_In7f88)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X7WaUi3POk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X7WaUi3POk)

but my point was that we evolved to use more of our brain which I believe is still only about 10% of it. Neanderthals would be less developed and would probably use a lower percentage but I reckom they would be more evolved than chimps

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Dimentio

Have you any source for the thing that they could surviva easely in minus ten degreds? I never heard that before and it seems strange considering that neanderthals also survived during the warm periods of the ice-ages.

[Manic Impressive]

They would also create more than one Neanderthal so it wouldn't feel completely unique.

NoXion I agree that it wouldn't necessarily be cruel to the Neanderthal but what about the human that had to give birth to it, is it fair to put someone through that even if they want to?

[Dimentio]

Dimentio

Have you any source for the thing that they could surviva easely in minus ten degreds? I never heard that before and it seems strange considering that neanderthals also survived during the warm periods of the ice-ages.

Saw it on a programme on Kunskapskanalen. But if you are looking at their physique, it is clear that their more compact shape would help them survive the cold climate.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

They would also create more than one Neanderthal so it wouldn't feel completely unique.

NoXion I agree that it wouldn't necessarily be cruel to the Neanderthal but what about the human that had to give birth to it, is it fair to put someone through that even if they want to?

If they want to go through with it, the question of fairness doesn't apply. Poking holes in unwilling people is never fair, but if I were to willingly get a piercing then the question would never arise.

[EvilRedGuy]

They would also create more than one Neanderthal so it wouldn't feel completely unique.

NoXion I agree that it wouldn't necessarily be cruel to the Neanderthal but what about the human that had to give birth to it, is it fair to put someone through that even if they want to?


Well, if the person REALLY wanted knowing the pain and suffering she had to go through i dont see why not, providing they get ALL THE knowledge about giving birth to a different specie. Saying that, i don't think anyone would. :laugh: :blink:

[Dimentio]

Human beings should not be treated as guinea pigs (guinea pigs should also not need to be treated like guinea pigs). It could be okay to breed individual human cells and organs, but to actively create humans just because we could sounds incredibly intrusive.

[28350]

but my point was that we evolved to use more of our brain which I believe is still only about 10% of it.

Common misconception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10%25_of_brain_myth

[Dimentio]

As for my comment 'bout the Finns, it was just a joke. I am apologising if I have insulted any Finns.

[Manic Impressive]

Common misconception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10%25_of_brain_myth
Wow more bourgeois lies, literally nothing they tell us is true is it?

Thanks for enlightening me :thumbup1:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Human beings should not be treated as guinea pigs (guinea pigs should also not need to be treated like guinea pigs). It could be okay to breed individual human cells and organs, but to actively create humans just because we could sounds incredibly intrusive.

I don't think anybody has ever asked to be born. I also doubt that most people were born after careful planning by their parents. So how is bringing a Neanderthal child into existence, fully knowing of and prepared for potential pitfalls, any worse than that?

Also, there's nothing wrong with using humans in experiments as long as one does so ethically. Just because bringing back the Neanderthals would be of considerable scientific interest, doesn't necessarily mean they would be our property.

[Political_Chucky]

Common misconception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10%25_of_brain_myth


Either way, whether they have a larger brain or not,(an also highly doubt their brains were more efficient then ours compared to today) they still may have interacted and seen the world differently. It would be a very interesting hypothetical in my opinion if we were indeed to have a chance to interact with them. Also, on the matter of their brain vs. ours


Neanderthal newborns had similar brains to human infants, though just after birth stark changes began to set in, so that by 1 year old the two children would've had very different noggins and may have even viewed the world differently, researchers now say.
These new findings could shed light on how our closest extinct relatives might have thought differently than us, and reveal details about the evolution of our brain (http://www.livescience.com/health/baby-brain-growth-evolution-100712.html).
Past studies of Neanderthal skulls revealed their brains were comparable in size to ours (http://www.livescience.com/history/080908-neanderthal-skulls.html). This suggested they might have possessed mental capabilities similar to modern humans.
Still, the brains of adult Neanderthals were a different shape than ours — theirs were less globular and more elongated. This elongated shape was actually the norm for more than 2 million years of human evolution, and is seen in chimpanzees as well.
http://www.livescience.com/culture/neanderthal-modern-humans-brains-101108.html

[Amphictyonis]

Adoptive children often tend to be depressed and feel rejected. This sense of rejection is a cause of intrinsic memories from the toddler years.





Zeitgeist? Is that you? :)

[The American]

I'd feel terrible for the poor guy, harassed for his entire life by scientists and media...

[Princess Luna]

i would have no problem with it so long as s/he was treated like a human being and not forced to spent his entire life locked away in a laboratory.

[bcbm]

I don't think anybody has ever asked to be born. I also doubt that most people were born after careful planning by their parents. So how is bringing a Neanderthal child into existence, fully knowing of and prepared for potential pitfalls, any worse than that?

the difference is that most people are not born to be science experiments.


Also, there's nothing wrong with using humans in experiments as long as one does so ethically. Just because bringing back the Neanderthals would be of considerable scientific interest, doesn't necessarily mean they would be our property.

humans can be used ethically in experiments if there is consent involved. there is no consent involved in cloning a person and bringing them into the world as a "scientific interest."

[Rss]

As for my comment 'bout the Finns, it was just a joke. I am apologising if I have insulted any Finns.

It's funny because it has basis in reality. :)

I can definitely see how cloning of long lost subspecies would bring up many ethical problems (especially in reigning socio-economic environment), but I can't see these problems as insurmountable. Living environment and upbringing could be carefully managed, as well as people close to him/her.

[bcbm]

Living environment and upbringing could be carefully managed, as well as people close to him/her. because bringing a person into the world and micro-managing their entire existence isn't fucked up at all

[Widerstand]

because bringing a person into the world and micro-managing their entire existence isn't fucked up at all

you're a nihilist, what are you doing making moral judgments?

[Manic Impressive]

the difference is that most people are not born to be science experiments.
humans can be used ethically in experiments if there is consent involved. there is no consent involved in cloning a person and bringing them into the world as a "scientific interest."
What about parents who have kids in order to provide an organ for a sibling that needs one?

Neanderthals may have immunities to diseases that we don't bringing them back could save lives.

[Widerstand]

What about parents who have kids in order to provide an organ for a sibling that needs one?

Such things exist?

[Manic Impressive]

Having a Child to Save a Child Anissa
Ayala was diagnosed with leukemia when
she was 15 years old. Anissa’s doctors told
her parents that 80 to 90 percent of patients
with her type of leukemia have a life
expectancy of five years unless they have a
bone marrow transplant. Anissa’s parents
launched a nationwide search for a compatible
donor, but they were unable to find one.
Anissa’s parents then decided to conceive
another child in the hope that he or she
would have the same tissue type as Anissa.
The Ayalas were lucky—prenatal tests
showed that the fetus could be a bone marrow
donor. Anissa received a bone marrow
transplant from her little sister, Marissa,
when Anissa was 19 and Marissa was 14
months old.
Arecent survey of bone marrow transplant
centers turned up at least 40 cases in which
families admitted that they had conceived a
child to be a bone marrow donor. One couple
had conceived three children in an effort to
get a donor. In another case, a woman who
had been divorced and remarried was artificially
inseminated with the sperm of her first
husband when a child from her first marriage
was diagnosed with leukemia

http://www.pearsonsuccessnet.com/ebook/products/0-13-203512-X/bris0038.pdf

[bcbm]

you're a nihilist, what are you doing making moral judgments?

"nihilist" can be used in a number of ways but even from that perspective not believing in any inherent morality doesn't mean not believing in any sort of moral system, but simply recognizing that any such system is our own creation. i think this idea raises very serious ethical issues that need to be addressed though and i'd rather talk about that then whether i'm a true nihilist or not

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Er, didn't they do this a few years back?

It was called 'Operation George W Bush' if I remember right...

[bcbm]

lol good one

[Widerstand]

"nihilist" can be used in a number of ways but even from that perspective not believing in any inherent morality doesn't mean not believing in any sort of moral system, but simply recognizing that any such system is our own creation. i think this idea raises very serious ethical issues that need to be addressed though and i'd rather talk about that then whether i'm a true nihilist or not

lol I was kidding, sorry.

[bcbm]

joking around is really not cool

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Is that inherently not cool, or are you just saying?

[bcbm]

i am inherently just saying

[Widerstand]

I'm inherently not-cool, therefore I'm by-the-act-of-being hot.

[Blackscare]

the only problem is that its not possible. period.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up once and for all. Glad we have these expert opinions backed by plausible scientific fact floating around.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

bcbm:


i am inherently just saying

So, it might still be cool, you are just out of step...?

[bcbm]

nothing is cool, everything is permitted

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Is that 'inherently nothing is cool and everything is permitted', or are you just saying?

[ChrisK]

Er, didn't they do this a few years back?

It was called 'Operation George W Bush' if I remember right...

That is an insult to Neanderthal's everywhere.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ture, but then I did not initiate the programme.:)