Should we clone Neanderthals?
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.
Quote: MoscaI would lean toward, "No". To me there is something unsettling about creating a being for the purpose of research.
I'd qualify that as "sentient beings." Animals are cloned for research all the time.
Quote:On the other hand, there's nothing really wrong with it, either.
Yes there is. Neanderthals were sentient and intelligent human beings. There remain many questions about them, but we know they made tools. So cloning them for research would be no different than cloning homo sapiens for research, from an ethical point of view.
Of course that's just for starters...
Quote: MoscaOn the other hand, there's nothing really wrong with it, either.
I bet they would work for almost nothing. When
can you get started?
Quote: EvenBobI bet they would work for almost nothing. When
can you get started?
That is TOO funny. Where did that side
of you come from ?
Quote: EvenBobI bet they would work for almost nothing. When
can you get started?
That does it. You will NOT see me at the pancake social!
I think the question in the title is different from what you have answered. The title does not mention "research". Suppose we just wanted to clone neanderthals simply to restore extinct species, no for any kind of a research, simply to get ourselves a company. Would that be ethical?
On a different note, Nareed, what is it in your view in cloning a homo sapiens for research? I mean we do research on humans all the time, so, obviously, it is not as simple as just doing research that makes it unethical, but, that aside, the act of giving life to a person by itself can hardly be deemed unethical by anyone. What is it then?
Quote: MoscaBut since they aren't humans
Exactly, a soul-less slave race, like Tolkein
had in Mordor. Sounds good to me.
Quote: weaselmanSuppose we just wanted to clone neanderthals simply to restore extinct species, no for any kind of a research, simply to get ourselves a company. Would that be ethical?
No.
For one thing the state of the art in animal cloning produces defective specimens right now. It may be ok to inflict that on animals, but not on people.
Eventually we may correct the process and produce healthy specimens, of course. even then, it wouldn't be right. What kind of family would the Neanderthals be brought into? We don't know they could adapt to this era, either. Conceivably they'd be the same as modern humans in a developmental sense, but there's uncertainty about whether Neanderthals ever developed language or even had the physical ability to. That would eman bringing handicapped children into the world, on purpose.
Quote:On a different note, Nareed, what is it in your view in cloning a homo sapiens for research? I mean we do research on humans all the time, so, obviously, it is not as simple as just doing research that makes it unethical, but, that aside, the act of giving life to a person by itself can hardly be deemed unethical by anyone. What is it then?
Research on human beings is carried out with permission from the subjects. A person yet to be conceived cannot consent. It's true children and babies are sued on research, too, with their parents providing permission. but there's a big difference. Many such studies carry out harmless, non-stressful research on cognition, for example, or other broad subjects. Potentially harmful research, like cross-species transplants, are also measures of desperation to try to save a critically ill child.
So, no, cloning homo sapiens for research isn't right.
Quote: MoscaNareed, I'm asking you to put aside for now the fact that we can't clone mammals, and assume that we can.
We can. Just not well.
Quote: Nareed
No.
For one thing the state of the art in animal cloning produces defective specimens right now. It may be ok to inflict that on animals, but not on people.
Irrelevant. The current state of the art is that we can't clone neanderthals at all, so the question would be moot.
We are discussing a hypothetical scenario where we could clone them, and the process would actually work.
Quote:What kind of family would the Neanderthals be brought into?
A family? I doubt they would be brought into a family, they would be raised in a specialized dedicated facility, with lots of trained personnel to care about them 24/7.
Quote:We don't know they could adapt to this era, either.
If they indeed are intelligent beings, surely, they can adapt.
Quote:Conceivably they'd be the same as modern humans in a developmental sense, but there's uncertainty about whether Neanderthals ever developed language or even had the physical ability to.
It does not matter if they have developed language back then. We would teach them our language the way we teach human babies.
They might indeed lack physical ability to speak or fine motor functions required to write, but they certainly can be taught to communicate in some ways (using a computer, perhaps?).
At the very least, if chimps can understand and use sign language, surely hominids from the homo sapience genus could.
But even if not, so what? Dolphins are kinda-sorta-almost intelligent, and do not (as far as we know) have language skills. Does it mean that any of them would prefer non-existence to life if given a choice?
Quote:Research on human beings is carried out with permission from the subjects. A person yet to be conceived cannot consent.
Fine. How about cloning a person first, then asking for consent. If he does not consent, we leave him alone. Would that be ethical?
Quote:It's true children and babies are sued on research, too, with their parents providing permission. but there's a big difference. Many such studies carry out harmless, non-stressful research on cognition, for example, or other broad subjects. Potentially harmful research, like cross-species transplants, are also measures of desperation to try to save a critically ill child.
Surely, our hypothetical research on a cloned human being would be absolutely harmless too.
I mean, causing harm to people, cloned or not, is unethical, that is not at all what's being discussed here.
Quote: weaselmanA family? I doubt they would be brought into a family, they would be raised in a specialized dedicated facility, with lots of trained personnel to care about them 24/7.
Why not put them in the zoo, then? It would be ethically about the same.
Quote:If chimps can understand and use sign language, surely hominids from the homo sapience genus could.
Maybe, maybe not. There's a lot to be discovered about language yet.
Quote:But even if not, so what? Dolphins are kinda-sorta-almost intelligent, and do not (as far as we know) have language skills. Does it mean that any of them would prefer non-existence to life if given a choice?
Dolphins are not extinct.
Quote:Fine. How about cloning a person first, then asking for consent. If he does not consent, we leave him alone. Would that be ethical?
It depends on a lot of factors. 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?
Quote:Surely, our hypothetical research on a cloned human being would be absolutely harmless too.
Then you could carry such research on any other human, couldn't you?
I'm sure we'll clone humans some day. I'm just as sure it will be either unnecessary, or a result of wishful thinking.
Quote: NareedWhy not put them in the zoo, then? It would be ethically about the same.
Why in the world would you say that?
Are homes for human babies ethically equivalent to keeping them in the zoo as well in your view?
Why would we put a neanderthal in a zoo anyway? Zoo is for animals, which neanderthals are not. What are you talking about?
Quote:Maybe, maybe not. There's a lot to be discovered about language yet.
That's a wonderful argument.
Following your logic, it is unethical for people to give birth to (human) children either. Because "maybe" they won't be able to communicate when they are born.
Quote:Dolphins are not extinct.
Are you implying that neanderthals are extinct by their own choice?
Quote:It depends on a lot of factors. 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 don't know. Perhaps, you should open up a thread to discuss this topic as well.
Quote:Then you could carry such research on any other human, couldn't you?
With consent, yes, of course. Why not?
Quote: weaselmanSuppose we just wanted to clone neanderthals simply to restore extinct species, no for any kind of a research, simply to get ourselves a company. Would that be ethical?
See episode 3, season 5 of South Park - Jakovasaurs. Seriously, if any of you are interested in this conversation you would find this episode down right hilarious.
The most difficult part of this discussion is what level of rights would these neanderthals have. Ideally, they'd be more developed than apes but less than the human beings of today - so which group do they fit in or do we need to develop a whole new caste for them? It's an impossible question to ask without experiencing their intelligence first hand - because we obviously subjugate species that have full sentience and the mass majority of the public has no problem with that (I'm one of them).
I would have absolutely no qualms with resurrecting their species to figure these questions out - I just can't answer anything else without knowing their level of intelligence compared to us.
Quote: weaselmanAre homes for human babies ethically equivalent to keeping them in the zoo as well in your view?
Human babies who are abandoned, or whose parents die, are one thing. Conceiving an orphan on purpose is something else.
Quote:Why would we put a neanderthal in a zoo anyway?
Why would you create orphans?
Quote:Are you implying that neanderthals are extinct by their own choice?
Are you implying no species can reproduce save by cloning? You asked whether dolphins would prefer non-existence.
Quote: s2dbakerThere is evidence that Modern Man interbred with Neanderthals thereby making them, technically, the same species.
This is not true. They have indeed interbred, however, "technically", they are still two distinct species.
Quote: MoscaLet'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.
We'll have to agree to disagree.Quote: weaselmanThis is not true. They have indeed interbred, however, "technically", they are still two distinct species.
Quote: weaselmanIt 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: NareedWould 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: NareedI'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.
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: weaselmanThis 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: pacomartinDifferent 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.
A mule is sterile, that's an important difference. A horse and a donkey do not produce fertile offspring.Quote: pacomartinDifferent species interbreed all the time. The most obvious example is a donkey.
Quote: s2dbakerA 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.
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.Quote: weaselmanYes, 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: weaselmanI 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: pacomartinWell 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: s2dbakerThe 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 :)
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: weaselmanBiological 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: weaselmanThat'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: s2dbakerI 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: pacomartinI 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: weaselmanI 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.
Another potential clone subject which we have a better chance of getting DNA from.
Possibly a new species of human has been found in China near Vietnam. The Red Deer people were said to live 14.5K-11.5K years ago, so possibly overlapping the very beginnings of agriculture. They are not definitively declared a new species.
Guangxi Province contains many ethnic people who we don't normally associate with China.
In 1862, workmen clearing a field in the state of Veracruz, Mexico uncovered a stone sculpture in the shape of an expressionless face with piercing eyes, a flat broad nose, and thick, down-turned lips. The Olmec culture thrived in the fertile jungles of lowland Mexico 1200 B.C.–400 B.C. and is now considered the mother culture of Mexico.
The features of the Olmec heads clearly look African, and in the 19th century there was a lot of speculation about an ancient civilization in Africa capable of sailing across the oceans. Today, many scholars assume that these people were a dark skinned population in Asia that crossed the land bridge from Russia to Alaska with the rest of the nomads. The diversity of people in Guangxi is sited as an example of the variety of people that live in Asia, and how it is possible that there once existed a tribe with features that we associate with some present day Africans.
Quote: MoscaNareed, I'm asking you to put aside for now the fact that we can't clone mammals, and assume that we can.
I watch the PBR (bull riding) anf they use cloned bulls all the time. I don't think there is anything at all wrong with them.
Quote: SOOPOOI watch the PBR (bull riding) anf they use cloned bulls all the time. I don't think there is anything at all wrong with them.
Are they "cloned" or "from the same egg/sperm combo" (in vitro fertized and implanted in a carrier cow)?
Quote: pacomartin
Wow, they sure had good barbers 10K years
ago. Nice trim on the beard. Cutting off the
stash gives that early Amish look so popular
at the time.
Quote: Scotty71No, we shouldn't they dissapeared for a reason. They should clone some damn bees, we need more of them...WTF are we going to do with these guys?
When Red Deer people were alive there was fewer than 1 million of our species. If they really are a different species, they may have been competition with us. If they came back, would they be able to talk? Would they bury their dead? Would they have their own Torah and numerology, or would they watch television with Red Deer Kardashian?
Quote: pacomartinWhen Red Deer people were alive there was fewer than 1 million of our species. If they really are a different species, they may have been competition with us. If they came back, would they be able to talk? Would they bury their dead? Would they have their own Torah and numerology, or would they watch television with Red Deer Kardashian?
I'm suddenly and strongly reminded of Phil Hartman's "Unforzen Caveman Lawyer" sketches on SNL in the 90s :)
PS: this is more fodder for the notion that there was a lot of variation living simultaneously in our Genus up until this 10-20k
