Could Neanderthals live again?

reply to post by xenchan`

If the alien seeding theory is true, then they were a related but outdated model of ourselves.
There are/or were until recently other "manimals", like the Almasti (I believe), and that has never been admitted or officially exposed. From available skeletal and DNA research we now know these were not Neanderthals (although this view was popular in the 1970s).
To be quite honest, I'd like to see what colour they were in regards to current racial classifications. If they were dark, and lived in cold climates for 40 000 years, it could point to my "Nordic" Homo Sapiens origin elsewhere in the universes. But then, they could have varied in color regionally.
If it became public the Catholic Church would proclaim that our Neanderthal cousins are free from "original sin", since they are too naturally brutish to understand the concept. They were also extinct when Christ supposedly died, but creationists dismiss them as a fraud in any case. As such any Neanderthal will be immediately Catholic from birth, and icons will appear of a robust nativity scene. I would not be surprised!

Originally posted by UberL33t
I think the whole Neanderthal/Alien splice theory has validity.

Then you may want to brush up your knowledge on the hominids.

reply to post by halfoldman

Of course we view Neanderthal through politically correct lenses - maybe they had a gene that didn't make them very nice to be around. Apparently they were physically much stronger than us.

We don't have a lot to go on when it comes to how the Neanderthals were. What we do have is pretty positive.

* They buried their dead. This indicates an emotional attachment and respect for the dead...or avoided attracting heavy predators to the carrion. Either way shows consciousness, intent and abstract thought.

* They looked after the weak. A burial was found in the Shanidar Caves. The guy was handicapped by a serious head injury that had healed, but left him with poor sight in one eye. His face was disfigured by the bone damage. He had a malformed leg and would have walked with a conspicuous limp. He was basically a cripple. He lived to middle age at a time when predators were bad ass. This evidence indicates he was looked after.

* They *possibly* had an afterlife concept. Flowers were discovered in the grave of a Neanderthal. He was interred with them. Draw your own conclusions

* They had music *possibly* A bone fragment was found that has holes bored into it. It looks like a flute. Music implies a leisure and usually goes hand in hand with communal or spiritual activities.

reply to post by Kandinsky

Last I heard somewhre on the Discovery/Nat Geo channels is that those "burials" are challanged by some. There's no real evidence that the burials were not accidental and the pollens blown in.
I agree and grew up with your view however. They had music and the belief in an afterlife, but no visually representative art - on second-thoughts they'd be better of Lutheran or Calvinists.

I'd definitely want to see Neanderthals revived.
I understand the doubts of people as to what their new status would be. Neanderthals are humans, but not sapiens, would they be considered persons?
But I disagree with those who think Neanderthals would automatically become sub-humans. I think that, brought up in our culture, they could be just as functional as us. The truth is, we have no idea how their brains worked. We can only extrapolate from their cranial cavities.
Those who see Neanderthals as people who couldn't progress/adopt new ideas may be influenced by Jean Auel's novels, which picture the Neanderthals in this light. But until we have actual, living Neanderthals to study, we'll never now what though processes they were capable of.

reply to post by Kandinsky


I was referring to a woman's vagina.

Here is a link to a page with an illustration of a neanderthal skull and a human skull. I will choose c section please.

Neanderthal Skull

reply to post by halfoldman

Last I heard somewhre on the Discovery/Nat Geo channels is that those "burials" are challanged by some.

Discovery Channel is shallow BS and hardly cares about evidence. NatGeo is better, but could hit us with more detail...I think we can take it.

All that said, there is some debate about the presence of pollen and flowers in the grave. The overall consensus tends to support a flower burial. Here's some links so people can draw their own conclusions...

Shanidar Cave is also famous for one burial that appears to have the pollen from wildflowers associated with the soil around the skull. Although it could have been a coincidence, this association of flower pollen and burial has led some researchers to speculate that some Neanderthal groups adorned the bodies of their dead with gifts and ornamentation that were symbolically important to the social group. The association of the pollen with the grave has been challenged from the very beginning. While it is clear that Neanderthals buried their dead, whether they adorned the bodies with culturally significant symbols is debated and strongly doubted by some researchers.

Shanidar Burials

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE SHANIDAR CAVE NEANDERTHAL FLOWER BURIAL

This site is excellent for providing an idea of the location of the caves, but who knows why it keeps mentioning Jean Auel's Cave Bear books? All that information and he keeps referring to a novel? Why!?

The (male) skeleton was found buried with many different species of flowers and herbs, evidenced by pollen remains. He was laid to rest sometime between late May to early July. There were at least eight different species of flowers, mainly small brightly coloured wild flowers. There were relatives of the grape hyacinth, bachelor's buttons, hollyhock, and a yellow flowering groundsel. The flowers were probably woven into a pinelike shrub. The most numerous of the flowers were: members of the daisy family, the yarrow or milfoil, St Barnaby's thistle, groundsel, grape hyacinth, joint pine or woody horse tail, hollyhocks.

Shanidar, the cave in Iraq with Neandertal remains discovered by Dr Ralph Solecki

Soil samples taken near the burials contained an abundance of pollen from several kinds of flowers, including the modern herbal remedy ephedra. The pollen abundance was interpreted by Solecki and fellow researcher Andre Leroi-Gourhan as evidence that flowers were buried with the bodies. However, there is debate about the source of the pollen, with some evidence that the pollen was brought into the site by burrowing rodents, rather than placed there as flowers by grieving relatives.

Link...ahem.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
reply to post by Kandinsky

 

I was referring to a woman's vagina.

Here is a link to a page with an illustration of a neanderthal skull and a human skull. I will choose c section please.

Neanderthal Skull

Yeah, C-section might be the healthier option

The source I looked at suggests that the baby Neanderthal was similar in size to a human baby... Neanderthal Brain Size at Birth Sheds Light on Human Evolution.


They both seem realistic...

reply to post by Kandinsky

As I said: there are debates on what these discoveries mean, I think that is stated in both the links you provide.
Particularly with the Madrid evidence (the so-called last Neanderthal outpost) there is much debate on paints and shells and so forth.
People can take very little evidence very far indeed.
The spread-out hearths of the Neanderthals are compared to the "central" campfires of Cro-Magnons, and this is supposed to show less organized thinking amongst the Neanderthals.
It appears that just as we "construt" the other in sociology, so we "construct" the "other" historically.
The wierd thing is that the final Madrid/Spain group had no contact with modern humans. Whatever killed them was something else.
My Christian feelers tell me that they suddenly realized how ugly their women were, and they bonked themselves into oblivion with sterile homosexuality.

reply to post by halfoldman
Debate is healthy....usually. I'm not sure there's as much debate about the shells as you might think. On the other hand, no, there are no conclusions as yet. I favour the idea that Neanderthal wore ornamental shells and buried their dead for abstract concepts of afterlife or spirit. I think the evidence that we have supports theories that they were social and engaged in similar practices to early man. They used a techniques of point-making very similar to us. Hunting requires communication, organization and leadership.

Burials, tool use, protecting the weak and probable use of jewellery? These are characteristics of intelligent humans...why should we minimise the possibility that Neanderthals were closer to us in complex thought than detractors like to think?

reply to post by Kandinsky

What's wrong with getting a human woman to bear the Neanderthal child--always supposing the immunological problems could be solved?

I bet there'd be plenty of volunteers.

The only reason I'd be reluctant to help this happen is sympathy for the child, which would almost certainly grow up maladjusted and unhappy in some way.

But that may not be enough of a reason.

reply to post by Astyanax
Hiya Asty, you've partially answered your own question. A woman being a surrogate to a science experiment might be questionable. Creating a semi-Neanderthal for purposes of research is likely unethical. They were sentient people. Any plans to 'resurrect' would need to take into consideration quality of life.

Plus there's the 'B-Movie Effect' to consider....it could end really badly for us if the Neanderthals claim indigenous rights to Central Europe (France etc) and war breaks out.

Personally I don't think that any species that became extinct pre-humans should be brought back. Yes I think there is a very valid arguement for each and every species that has died out since humans took over as they were nearly all wiped out by us in the first place.

Originally posted by Dragon33
Personally I don't think that any species that became extinct pre-humans should be brought back. Yes I think there is a very valid argument for each and every species that has died out since humans took over as they were nearly all wiped out by us in the first place.

So far bringing back Neanderthal seems like an exercise in idle curiosity. For some of our imaginative members it's a chance to bring back a beautiful, peace loving race that can show us the 'Truth!'

These Neanderthals overlapped with us...we shared the planet for a short period of time. There's also a question about whether homo heidelbergensis was lingering on around China...speculation and little evidence.

reply to post by Astyanax


Maladjusted and unhappy? Sounds like your average suburban teenager.

Just thought I'd point out that we are not directly evolved from Neanderthals, as some are implying. We did coexist at one point, and very minimal interbreeding happened, but not enough to affect our gene pool in any noticeable way. It's pretty well accepted by the scientific community that we are not direct descendants of neanderthals.

Originally posted by Haydn_17
In my opinion something which is extinct should stay extinct, nature sorted it so we Homosapies inherit the Earth, they died out for a reason, they couldn't adapt the changing climate, i think bringing them back would be unfair on us and them.

If you are trying to say it is "destiny", then if we re-create the species I guess that would also be "destiny".

It is what it is.

Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer

Do we dare?

Humanity can and will bring back many extinct creatures in time, from simple animals to various primate links of our past...however, I think the best time to do this is when we ourselves no longer require the earth...be it in 10 thousand years or less.

But for now, we are currently using it and barely have enough resources to sort ourselves out

I think the moral issue weighs here more than anything.

Not the morality of the concept. More the morality of the execution.

Would this person (yes a person) be able to live a free life after they are brought back?

I think it is more likely they will be treated like a caged animal hence my moral disagreement.