Should we clone Neanderthals?

Quote: Mosca

Let's put aside for a moment the fact that we can't, and consider the ethics. I would lean toward, "No". To me there is something unsettling about creating a being for the purpose of research. On the other hand, there's nothing really wrong with it, either.

Well, there is no real objection to creating a sheep for the purposes of research. Presumably we will create a "better sheep" or a "better horse" for some human usage. Does it bother you if we create a cow that is basically a giant udder?

The anatomically modern human sapiens have been around for 150K to 200K years. But behavioral modern human beings have been around for roughly 50K years to the best of our knowledge behavioral modern which is the point when began to demonstrate a reliance on symbolic thought and to express cultural creativity emerged only 50K years ago. I may have been as a result of a major genetic mutation or as a result of a biological reorganization of the brain that led to the emergence of modern human natural languages.Proponents of this theory refer to this event as the Great Leap Forward.

This theory allows for the possibility that our ancestors mated with Neanderthals and they went extinct, but their genes are still with us. If we clone them it may be very little different than cloning homo sapiens sapiens. As a matter of fact we could actually clone homo sapiens sapiens without the genetic mutation. In fact they would be animals with human shape.

Personally, I don't think we should be cloning anything in the same general family as human beings, That includes chimpanzees or even great apes. It would be better off not developing the technology. Once the technology is developed, it would be too easy to use to create humanzees or slaves or organ donation clones.

Quote: weaselman

This is not true. They have indeed interbred, however, "technically", they are still two distinct species.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Quote: weaselman

It does not matter if they have developed language back then. We would teach them our language the way we teach human babies.

There are fundamentally unanswered questions about language. There are some researchers who believe that early homo sapiens sapiens could not talk. They think a mutation occurred which suddenly (in evolutionary terms) gave the species the ability to speak and to develop highly modern behavior.

Partly this theory is based on the fact that there is no continuous archaeological record. It is as if roughly 50 thousand years ago human beings were capable of much more advanced creative thinking.

So the Cro-Magnum's ability to learn language is unknown. It may not even be possible to teach homo sapiens sapiens from before the mutation how to speak.

Quote: Nareed

Would it be ethical to conceive a child for her cord blood cells to treat, say, her father's leukemia, then giving her up for adoption?

I'm certain this is already going on.

Quote: Nareed

I'm sure we'll clone humans some day.

I'm certain this is being attempted now as well, it's just not in the news yet. Once it's successful, that scientist will have $millions in investments and the Nobel prize. It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission.

If I get one as a gardner, and one as a house servant, do
I follow the guidelines in the Old Testament on how to
treat them? I can whip them as much as I like, and keep
whatever children they produce. They have no souls, afterall..

Quote: weaselman

This is not true. They have indeed interbred, however, "technically", they are still two distinct species.

Different species interbreed all the time. The most obvious example is a donkey.

But I personally don't think we should authorize cloning anything close to humans, including chimpanzees and orangutans. I can live with the idea of having to cull the mistakes from cattle and sheep, but it bothers me to have to cull out the errors in chimpanzees. Plus we would be developing technology which someone will eventually build on to clone humans. Once the research is done, and the results published, someone will use those results.

Quote: pacomartin

Different species interbreed all the time. The most obvious example is a donkey.

Exactly. Yet they don't become one. That was exactly my point.

Quote: pacomartin

So the Cro-Magnum's ability to learn language is unknown. It may not even be possible to teach homo sapiens sapiens from before the mutation how to speak.

I don't believe this. And will not, unless you can quote an authoritative source on this.
I could see that prehistoric people might not have had language (I don't believe that either, but I can see how some people could reasonably think that). I could also see how their anatomy could preclude them from speaking contemporary human language (that, probably, is the case).
However, denying the intelligent species, that knew how to make tools and used fire, the basic abilities that is evidently possessed not only by primates, but also, in a more rudimentary form, by many other mammals living in close contact humans, is, I think, way out there.

Quote: pacomartin

Different species interbreed all the time. The most obvious example is a donkey.

A mule is sterile, that's an important difference. A horse and a donkey do not produce fertile offspring.

Quote: s2dbaker

A mule is sterile, that's an important difference. A horse and a donkey do not produce fertile offspring.

Yes, but this is not a rule. Some hybrids are sterile, others are not.
Not all humans have neanderthal genes btw. Blacks (the "pure" ones, without any Caucasian ancestry, however rare that might be) for example, do not.

Modern humans species is Home Sapience Sapience. Neanderthals are Homo Neanderthalensis. They are the same genus - Homo, but difference species.

Quote: weaselman

Yes, but this is not a rule. Some hybrids are sterile, others are not.
Not all humans have neanderthal genes btw. Blacks (the "pure" ones, without any Caucasian ancestry, however rare that might be) for example, do not.

Modern humans species is Home Sapience Sapience. Neanderthals are Homo Neanderthalensis. They are the same genus - Homo, but difference species.

The species designation was assigned before it was known that the two interbred. I don't expect a revision so like I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree.