Should we clone Neanderthals?

Quote: weaselman

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.

Well obviously there is no authoritative source since no one was around. We know that from the Tower of Babel, the origin and diversification of languages has always been a source of myth and speculation.

I can quote an article that discusses this theory. In The Upper Paleolithic Revolution says: We can also look at symbolism in art and equate that with the symbolic nature of language. The fossil record of artistic symbolism in humans doesn't run further back than 50,000 years ago, so perhaps, as Alan Walker argues, language doesn't either.

It is clear that the fossil record goes back from 150,000 to 200,000 years showing homo sapiens of the same species as modern humans.

The Toba catastrophe theory states that an asteroid hit roughly 70,000 years ago and reduced the homo sapiens population to possibly as few as 2000 breeding pairs. It also may have wiped out all competition except for homo sapiens and Neanderthals. The Toba catastrophe does not directly equate the asteroid with the mutation that made language possible, but clearly the mutation came after the catastrophe.

The older theories simply assume that the ability to speak in versions of humans is related to anatomical differences in the throat and vocal chords.

The control of fire is conclusively shown to be at least 125,000 years ago with some sketchier evidence that goes back much further. It shouldn't be confused with modern behavior which includes making jewelry, cave paintings, etc. etc.

My point is the timeline is very speculative, and I would find it disturbing to try and clone someone from the period. The intial trial and error period is most likely to produce some monstrosities, and it bothers me to not know how close they would be to sentient humans.

Quote: pacomartin

Well obviously there is no authoritative source since no one was around.

That's not what I meant. An authoritative source would be some sort of a scientific research concluding what you suggest based on more or less solid evidence as opposed to something like "everything is possible".

Quote:

The older theories simply assume that the ability to speak in versions of humans is related to anatomical differences in the throat and vocal chords.

Yes, that is indeed a logical assumption, lacking evidence (not "theory") that would suggest otherwise.
If human language ability is related to a mutation we would have to assume that the same kind of a mutation (but to a lesser degree for some reason) had also occurred in most higher primates and some other animals, which is, in my opinion, would be way too much of a coincidence.

Quote:

My point is the timeline is very speculative, and I would find it disturbing to try and clone someone from the period. The intial trial and error period is most likely to produce some monstrosities, and it bothers me to not know how close they would be to sentient humans.

Well, sure ... But that is exactly what makes it interesting! Otherwise it would be no different than cloning a humane ... or a chimp (depending on what those neanderthals really turn out to be).

Quote: s2dbaker

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.

Biological classifications get revised all the time (but only when it is actually the correct thing do ;)).
It's fine that you disagree ... just know , it is not me you are disagreeing with :)

Quote: weaselman

Biological classifications get revised all the time (but only when it is actually the correct thing do ;)).
It's fine that you disagree ... just know , it is not me you are disagreeing with :)

I guess I like standards, not double standards. If Neanderthals and Modern Man are considered separate species then Grey Wolves and Chihuahuas should also be considered separate as well but they are both Canis Lupus.

Quote: weaselman

That's not what I meant. An authoritative source would be some sort of a scientific research concluding what you suggest based on more or less solid evidence as opposed to something like "everything is possible".

I gave you a popular paper from NewArcheology (not a new age publication). There wouldn't be one single scientific paper, but a whole body of research supporting this theory. For example Harvard University paper (cost $$$). You can goole "Upper Paleogical Revolution" and find thousands of books and papers about the theory.

I do think the idea of cloning a Neanderthal is interesting. One of the interesting aspects would be to test the language theory. But because it is interesting doesn't make it ethical.

I also think the idea of cloning a human, or gene splicing a humanzee would be interesting. Once again, interesting, but not ethical.

I may change my mind at some point. It's clear that we use environmental factors to modify human body types for all kinds of purposes (including sport). Maybe at some point it will make sense to genetically modify humans so that they are better suited to life in low or no gravity environments for colonization of the moon.

Quote: s2dbaker

I guess I like standards, not double standards. If Neanderthals and Modern Man are considered separate species then Grey Wolves and Chihuahuas should also be considered separate as well but they are both Canis Lupus.

Yeah ... there are not very many standards in Biology (not even double ones :)) There is actually no one commonly accepted definition of the term "species" to begin with. The interbreeding idea is popular, but, first, it does not always work (think hermaphrodites or asexuals for example or horizontal gene transfer, and, again, interspecies breeding is not really as uncommon as one might think), and second, it is traditionally applied to typological species, not evolutionary.
The thing is, this is not like in math, where a triangle is either a right triangle or not. There is no objective way to answer these questions, so they are usually decided by something similar to a majority vote on scientific conventions. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, of course, but in this area, the definition of the "right" opinion is simply the view held by a scientific governing body such as Global Taxonomy Initiative or European Distributed Institute of Taxonomy, not by any particular individual, however smart or enlightened (s)he might happen to be.

Quote: pacomartin

I gave you a popular paper from NewArcheology (not a new age publication).

I did not read the whole paper, but the quote you suggested seems to be orthogonal to the discussion: first, 50,000 years ago, neanderthals were still around (and they have in fact left behind some evidence of their own symbolic art), and second, it does not talk about any mutations, that are required to pick up language skills.
Besides, the fact that ancient humans have not discovered language (that I did not dispute BTW) does not mean at all that they could not be taught to communicate. Once again, chimps do not have a language (or art) of their own, but they certainly do have an ability to pick up human language.

Quote: weaselman

I did not read the whole paper, but the quote you suggested seems to be orthogonal to the discussion: first, 50,000 years ago, neanderthals were still around (and they have in fact left behind some evidence of their own symbolic art), and second, it does not talk about any mutations, that are required to pick up language skills.
Besides, the fact that ancient humans have not discovered language (that I did not dispute BTW) does not mean at all that they could not be taught to communicate. Once again, chimps do not have a language (or art) of their own, but they certainly do have an ability to pick up human language.

A derived form of MCPH1 called haplogroup D appeared about 37,000 years ago (any time between 14,000 and 60,000 years ago) and has spread to become the most common form throughout the world except Sub-Saharan Africa; this rapid spread suggests a selective sweep. However, scientists have not identified the evolutionary pressures that may have caused the spread of these mutations. Modern distributions of chromosomes bearing the ancestral forms of MCPH1 and ASPM are correlated with the incidence of tonal languages, but the nature of this relationship is far from clear.

I am trying to make a simple point. The timeline as to when modern humans were capable of communication and symbolic thought is not clear. Many people theorize that the original modern humans that existed more than 150K years ago did not have the capability. There is a theory that it is related to the microcephalin mutation.

It is not clear if Neanderthals were capable of symbolic art or language skills. There is evidence either way. We don't even know what happened to them. They may be absorbed into our genetic pool.

My thesis is that we don't even know if our early direct ancestors were human beings in the modern sense, let alone if Neanderthals are a type of human.

It is all scientific speculation. But these theories have been circulating among the journals, and are not just mindless claptrap.

"Mitochondrial DNA extracted from ancient Neanderthal remains have been typed and found to differ significantly from human mitochondrial DNA. While the results do not indicate a common ancestry, a team of scientists in Germany have recovered and sequenced Y-chromosome DNA from a 49,000 year-old Neanderthal. The team estimates that Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis may have shared a common ancestor in the Homo genus several hundred thousand years ago." http://www.isogg.org/neanderthaldna.htm

Theres no need, they are among us already.