Playing God with Neanderthals

The article mentions some potential that the Neanderthal may have immunities that we don't.However, there are a whole host of other things I can think of. For example, this would be a huge boon to neurology to see how a different kind of human brain functions. Ditto psychology. That about nature vs nuture, this would open doors we didn't even know were their.Neanderthals also had some physical adaptation which we infer but can not prove from the bone record. Things like massive pain tolerance - most, if not all Neanderthal skeletons - have multiple bone breaks which have healed. I seriously doubt anyone will get paid to do this apart from what money they would earn publishing their story, etc.I suspect there will be at least 20 women working in the fields of biology who'd be willing to do this.I see no reason why you would need to take the child away from the mother. Well, yes and no. If you do genetic testing which reveals the child will be disabled and choose not to abort it, you are deliberately bringing a disabled baby into the world. How about NYC? Apart from a prominent brow and a weak chin, they wouldn't look very different at all. In fact, there is a large Armenian population here in S. California. They've got brow ridged that would put Neanderthal to shame.

As many as 20? I reckon only about 17-18. We have a town over here called Great Yarmouth, where I'm sure they'd be equally at home. I'd love to see a Neanderthal in a shell suit and Burberry cap.

Well if it comes to that, so are we.

I disagree. The difference being we have had an additional 50k years of evolution. If reproductive success is a sign of a species well suited to its environment, then I think Homo sapiens sapiens qualifies in this present environment. Some would say too well.A single Homo sapiens neanderthalensis resurrected from 50k years ago would be well out of its element. What we consider a bothersome though harmless rhinovirus is better adapted to today then this poor guy would be.

Hi AZPaul, In what way exactly? I think that for the most part they would fit in just fine; socialisation would take care of them. They would grow up in a human society, never knowing anything else.There is one area where I suspect a Neanderthal would struggle; language. I've read about key genes regulating language use/acquisition being associated with severe linguistic learning difficulties in modern humans. I've also read that these key mutations may have played a role in giving Homo sapiens that survival edge. Now I don't doubt that Neanderthals had language, but if we were to suppose that they lacked these genes, it would seem reasonable to suppose that our modern Neanderthal child would have difficulties picking up language, especially written language. That would be a real obstacle.Otherwise, I think they would cope. One of the key skills that makes apes successful is the ability to learn new tricks and adapt. What would prevent them from doing so?Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : The word pixies keep stealing words from my posts today, in an effort to make it look like I'm writing nonsense. Damn you word pixies!

It's not quite as simple as that. Native Australians were pretty much isolated from the rest of humanity for around 50k years. (Neanderthals were around until 30k years ago.) I believe it's the case that any modern homo sapien baby born anywhere in the world can be adopted and grow up in a completely different culture from its birth with no direct social implications. (Some physiological implications can apply though, such as lactose and alcohol tolerance - which can of course indirectly lead to social problems.)The main problem would be if the Neanderthal could understand that is was very different to everyone else (which is likely) and this could give it psychological problems. Also, it is widely speculated that the demise of the Neanderthals was caused by their not being nearly as adaptive as we are. So, if they found it hard to fit in with modern homo sapiens when we were all still hunter gatherers, it seems likely they'll find it even harder to fit into most societies today.

Social adaptation, certainly. Except for the psychological strain of learning the facts around ones existence, being a scientific experiment, the only one of your species in existence, etc., though maybe proper pshrynk counseling could help. I'm not well versed in pshrynk so I cannot address this area.I'm more concerned with the physical aspects. In 50k years our species has evolved physiology to deal with this environment. Imagine going back 50k years and asking your physiology to deal with all the foreign bugs and parasites it's never seen before. Or 50k years from now.Our resurrected friend's physiology is not prepared to fend off the massive assault of modern bugs since natural selection had no population in which to weed out the weakness. And our modern medicines are geared towards our evolved physiology. Can we even treat such an onslaught to keep the kid healthy other than total environmental isolation?Diet can be adjusted, eventually. But at what harm?We do not know what 50k years of physiological evolution has done. And I can't get over the fact that this experiment is being considered on a sentient human being.Goodwin be damned, I see specters of Mengele here, until we're damn sure of what we are doing.Edited by AZPaul3, : The usual speling stuf.

In my opinion, the knowledge we stand to gain by successfully bringing back the Neanderthal vastly outweighs whatever slight discomfort the first individual may experience trying to fit in. If we could set up a breeding population of these people I suspect the general public would eventually accept them as just another modern human race, even if we can't interbreed with them.As for the first cloned individual, I think the situation should be handled delicately. Keep him separated from common society and the paparazzi ('cause face it, this guy (or girl) would be something of a celebrity). Let the researchers raise him within a comfortable environment, taking note of whatever differences might make it hard for him to integrate with society. Sure, he may not get to live a public life, but he would never have to work, and he'd be provided with everything he could possibly need.I don't really see why we should worry so much now about what psychological problems this creature will have while trying to fit into modern human society. Most likely it won't have to on a larger scale anyway. It's not like we're going to bring a Neanderthal into the world and just throw him out on the streets.Respectfully,-Meldinoor

Hi, Chimp. Honestly, Chimp, this statement tells me that you don't know enough women. I'm quite confident that I have met several women who would be very interested in the position.And, I know quite a few people who think that they are part Neanderthal, anyway.----- How can you make a statement like this? Do all Homo sapiens "fit in," in your mind? Who gets to decide who "fits in"? And, on what basis is "fitting in" assessed? Do autistic people "fit in"? Do shy people "fit in"? Do very tall people who hit their heads on doorframes "fit in"? Do people who can only speak Sami "fit in"?Who's to say Neanderthals wouldn't "fit in" here? And, by what criteria?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

You make some fair points. Certainly the experiment angle would be important. The kid's life would be a bit too Truman Show... That would be a concern, but how much of our disease resistance is genetic? Wouldn't it gain some resistance from the mother during pregnancy? I agree. Just to be clear, I regard this as a thought experiment only. Apart from anything else, I don't really see what is to be gained from actually doing it. I'm sure sure what it would really tell us about the original Neanderthals, if anything. No, as you say, the unknowns are too great. It is interesting to consider though.Mutate and Survive

Most of which our ancestors spent as hunter-gathers. Frankly, we're way out of our league. Specifically, it's well-adapted to us.

And we to them which is why they are just bothersome instead of fatal.

Sorry, Dr. A. I forgot the first part. As goes social structure you might be right. I'm not concerned with social structure.But consider. There are more of us. We live a hell of a lot healthier and longer. No major predators except ourselves. Hunting is a relatively safe drive to the market. Entertainment, rather than survival, is the main concern of the day. Etc.You may have philosophical objections to our present plight but physically, survival-wise, reproduction-wise, not a bad showing for an ape.Edited by AZPaul3, : Again with the speling!Edited by AZPaul3, : More error, what else?

Hi, Paul. What is the logic behind this argument? Are you arguing that something should not be brought into existence if it is likely to contract a disease that could potentially kill it?So, should we prevent Tasmanian devils from reproducing, because their babies are very likely going to die of facial tumor disease anyway?----- We didn't evolve in supermarkets, Paul. We aren't any more suited for supermarkets or airplanes or televisions than Neanderthal was. There is no meaningful biological distinction to be made here, so all of this is irrelevant.-----On the other hand, I’m not sure what the point of resurrecting Neanderthals would be. I don’t know how much we’d be able to learn about them from it, so I’m not sure I can justify the funding.Personally, I don’t understand why the concept should evoke such strong reactions or opinions as it does: it seems like such a neutral issue, that the only reason to react at all is to think it’s either really cool or a big waste of time and money.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hey, Bluejay. Sort of. I see a sentient human being, even at 50k years old, as more than just a "something." Since this creature is a sentient human being, my opinion is that the bar of assurances against gross harm must be set at a higher level than for some chicken or some Australian marsupial.The reason is admittedly personal and subjective. That reason is because I am a sentient human being and I have seen human suffering. I can extrapolate that to myself. Empathy. Sympathy.I cannot sympathise to the same level with a chicken that is about to become my dinner or with a Taz with facial tumor disease because I do not recognize that same level of sentience.I cannot be comfortable that we know enough about genetics and proteomics to recreate the genome of a long gone sentient human, have it gestate in a foreign womb 50k years more advanced in physiology and carry it to term without any assurance of avoiding a gross error.I would expect that most such errors would lead to natural early termination. However, can we be assured that our fiddling with the genome has any kind of low probability of gross error if brought to term? Since we are speaking here of a human being I think we need that level of assurance before we proceed.The physiological environment into which we would bring this child is more foreign and potentially more lethal to him than the white man's diseases in the New World. That went over well, as I recall. And again, I do not have any assurances we know enough about the physiology of this long extinct species to assess any risk level at all let alone assume an "acceptable" one.My travels and experiences jade me to be sure. But to go forward with an experiment on a fellow human being with such a lack of knowledge on probable impact to quality of life is and should be abhorrent to us all.As for supermarkets, airplanes and TV, Dr. A and I were having a somewhat off-topic sidebar. Totally irrelevant to the OP.But, if you want in, I’ll play.We use our intellect to make supermarkets in the same way a chimp makes a probe for sticking into an ant mound. Our intellect is the evolutionary characteristic. With it we create the tools to enhance our survival. Supermarkets make it way easier to hunt than being in some small band of guys with pointy sticks. Supermarkets are not the environment which we could evolve into or from. They are the result of intellect used to enhance survival. So are modern medicine, government, airplanes, The Met and the Lake Pontratrane Causeway. And IMHO, we are indeed well adapted to supermarkets since we made them for our benefit and they work so well for us.But, this is sooo off-topic.Edited by AZPaul3, : syntax