Scientist seeks surrogate mother for Neanderthal baby

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

 

That's just a bad idea. Women have trouble having kids as it is. That would most certainly have to be a c-section. And this is assuming the body even takes it considering the difference in genetic material.

Ethically this wouldn't pass the muster. There are very few boards who would be ok with this kind of scheme. It wouldn't be a craze, the poor child would be treated a freak. Not ok, don't play with people's lives like that.

edit on 20-1-2013 by antonia because: added a thought

The thing is...the baby is rejected by the immune system of the woman. That's what the womb is for. To protect the baby from getting destroyed from the immune system because the fetus is recognized by the immune system as a foreign object.

Its only crazy until she is offered millions of dollars and a reality TV show.
It would be a lie to say the idea isn't interesting, but Id rather pass on this happening.

I mentioned bring back Ancient Sumerians earlier on but I'm now thinking maybe bring back the Pharoahs could be a better option or bring both back...

Whats the name of that Trilogy of Films??

Anyway as long as they didn't behave like in those Films but actually gave us answers to the Questions we;ve been asking then i'd be all for it....

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist


What if, instead of answers, the only answer you get is your own extinction?

Best not be too triger happy with science, if we are to learn from our mistakes, as provened by our juggarnaut advancement in science and tech such as nukes and biological weapons, correct them to progress and evolve.

I am not for the hindering of science, but only that we take more time to consider carefully its implications deeper, akin to risk management in economics, which was absent in economies that led to our financial worldwide disaster in '08 that led to almost our doom, as the suffering greeks will tell you today with its austerity packages dished out to make up for the heavy corruptedness and mismanagement of wealth it once had.

Disasters often starts with something 'small' and seemingly 'neglible' that one would laugh at any considerations as 'fertile wild imagination of nutcases'. But a mind blowing sneeze was all it needed it start the mustard bio-weapon. A bulb lighting up was all it needed to start on the journey to nukes. 'Cheap loan Homes for all' was what started world wide recessions.

Originally posted by antonia
There are animals with brains larger than ours yet they are not intelligent.

Umm those larger brained animals ARE intelligent, then again I don't know what you define as intelligent (Which is a big problem with people talking about this sort of thing).

Find and watch the 2 part doco from the BBC called 'Super Smart Animals' then come back and tell me animals arent intelligent.

Only reason we as humans consider alot of other creatures unintelligent is because we our selves are to damn unintelligent (and arrogant) to recognize this intelligence in anything other than a fellow hominid, then again that's what you get when its been us defining just what is intelligence for hundreds of years. We arent the top of the brain tree (and by brain I mean thought, emotion, cognitive ability) we're just one of hundreds of other branches, ours just sticks out a little more than the rest (on first inspection).

Did someone in this thread really say with a straight face that a neanderthal kid would be fine because they could beat up bullies then eat them?... behold man, the intelligent ape! **facepalms**

(movies and antiquated century old ideas about fellow hominids dont make a good base of knowledge people, hell do they even know if a neanderthal was more hairy than us?, then again maybe they were... might explain me from the waste down...)

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
We, homo sapiens, would bring along pest poison to kill the rat and fire/weapons to take out the lion. That's what we are, and why we homo sapiens are dominant, not other species or races, not because of of our tech, but rather, our gift of intelligence to overcome all odds.

I agree our intelligence has brought us to where we are today but biological differences are just as important. It's possible we were little more than a newer improved model. Just more adaptable to an ever changing environment.

I've read people living at altitude, lower oxygen, produce more red blood cells than lowlanders. I believe sickle cell anemia is tied to malaria resistance. The body shape of the Inuit helped them survive a cold environment. None of these things had anything to do with intelligence but were important for survival.

I don't think we outsmarted Neanderthal it was our evolutionary differences that allowed us to out-survive them. Intelligence may not have played as big a role as we like to think. Lots of "dumb" animals still exist despite our best efforts to eradicate them. You'd poison my whole world trying to get rid of all the pack rats out here. I'm sorry but I don't see that as being the least bit intelligent.

reply to post by Morningglory

You know what I think it was? I think the abundance of food in africa and in the more southern latitudes like the middle east allowed the homo sapiens to diversify. Neanderthals, by comparison, were almost exclusively hunters. This led to advances in civilization and a natural pressure for social genes and teaching. Eventually led to agriculture and other modern things.

Research on chimpanzees shows they have better short-term memory:
And they learn differently; they're more individualistic than humans:
Homo sapiens and Neandertals splitted some 600,000 years ago. They had a common ancestor with chimps. I could argue that Neanderthal had less language complexity and/or social ability because recent research into the skulls of Neanderthal show that their olfactory system and temporal lobes (including orbitofrontal cortex) were likely smaller. I linked to this in my previous posts. The reason this is important is because these areas of the brain are tied to language and emotions and decision making. Or, stated another way, they're somewhat tied to long-term memory. Additionally, their children developed more rapidly into maturity. This indicates not a preference for school and early learning, but a preference for physical mobility at a young age to supplement hte adults. Thus, I have hte beginnings of an idea. But it still doesn't tell me what Neanderthal's brain was like, since I don't think they were dumber. My guess is since Neanderthal lived in a society that was mostly based on hunting, natural selection favored areas of the brain that're in that direction. A hunter has to be able to outsmart his prey. It's not so much about going to school and learning all the complexity of growing a seed and farming it. That's just a lot of knowledge. Rather, a hunter has to be dynamic to respond to his prey. So my guess is Neanderthal focused on his own individual intelligence. Neanderthal had just enough social intelligence to coordinate as a group to better hunt.

I think also think that the souther climate that homo sapien lived in benefited him. While Neanderthal had a strong selection pressure to out compete prey, it may not have been enough. So while Neanderthal was a superior hunter with a strong individual intelligence, the social intelligence and potential of homo sapien to father civilization turned out to be more dominant. So what we see here is a crossing of social selection pressure and climatology benefiting homo sapien.

(please note there's evidence that Neanderthal did indeed eat plants. however, the amount of plant species in their living ranges were much too low to constitute significant portions. this is clear when you compare the climate of europe to africa and/or middle east during the ice age. so what the evidence shows is the bulk of their diet was meat, but they did occasionally eat plants. later on in time there's even recent research showing that they cooked plants. this was a surprise because most researchers believed that only homo sapien had that capability. Neanderthal continues to surprise.)

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


I am unable to hide my sense of intrigue and almost excitement for the possibility of encountering an extinct ancestor in present day. However, I don't suppose I would have as much excitement after hearing humans wanted to clone another human. I thought most people hated the idea of human cloning. I suppose maybe some people wouldn't mind so much since it's not "totally homo sapien" but, that's not right (in my own opinion.)

Also, how long would the child even live? Would the fetus even make full term? If i were going to be pregnant with a clone child, my own child, or in vitro child I'd be quite attached to him/her even in the womb and this would be risky (emotionally) not knowing the life expectancy of a cloned neanderthal.

And I would never be able to subject my child to the sheer amount of testing you would be signing him/her off to just by birthing him/her.

Another point, and correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't neanderthals the link to Alzheimer's? I'm probably wrong on that but wanted to check.

I hate that they add it could gain popularity. As if there aren't enough poor abandoned children in the world.

The last line of Dr. Malcom's rebuttle says it all

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by zedVSzardoz

 

Brain size does not indicate intelligence. Brain structure is what does that.

en.wikipedia.org...

There are animals with brains larger than ours yet they are not intelligent.

This would depend on how you define intelligence. Would a truly intelligent species systematically wipe itself out? One must wonder just how intelligent human race is as compared to say.....dolphins?

If this is actually possible, I find it hard to believe it hasn't already been accomplished in a government lab somewhere. Just because we don't know about it doesn't mean it hasn't been tried and maybe accomplished. The government could already have squads of neanderthal super soldiers in the Middle East as we speak. Not that I think they do but it is possible.

I think Neanderthals would make humans seem like the sub species. They would be much stronger and probably smarter.

Strict

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


It would be interesting if they can accomplish such and I wouldn't worry about the differences in birth canals because if they're smart they will just give the volunteer a c section to prevent complications caused by genetic differences such as that.

Ok, so not only would the child be an "experiment" but also the mother as well. There is no guarantees that the child would be carried safely. Since she is acting as a surrogate that means it wouldn't be a cross breed it would be just them using the womb with a full Neanderthal baby. Size, development speed, ECT. No one knows how any of this would go or how the mother would react to a different species developing inside of her.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Neanderthals were supposedly pretty stupid people, this is why i'd rather bring back the Pharoahs... at least they were intelligent and could talk!!

A lot of questions to ask those guys!!

Originally posted by oonkala
Ok, so not only would the child be an "experiment" but also the mother as well. There is no guarantees that the child would be carried safely. Since she is acting as a surrogate that means it wouldn't be a cross breed it would be just them using the womb with a full Neanderthal baby. Size, development speed, ECT. No one knows how any of this would go or how the mother would react to a different species developing inside of her.

What you just said reminds me of the Alien Films!!

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
I also want a star child baby....

I want to have a star child too, except unlike V, the human in the human-alien intercourse would be male aka me. But the alien's got to be one of those beautiful looking.

As for the topic.. neanderthal.. in 21st century, I doubt they will recreate and make it think and act like the real once, they can only make him look like one lol

reply to post by bottleslingguy

think of the existential conundrum the poor thing would suffer?

After all the time I spend pondering the existential corundum I suffer, I'm not sure if I have any to spare

I thought that was a plight we all shared

Better to live then to have never suffered? That's the question. If there is one thing I have learned about life is that it can glow in the darkest conditions. Even a little bit of love and happiness is worth the journey. I believe anyways.

Why cloning Neanderthals if there are plenty walking the Earth...

Don't bring back live that already failed evolution.. If we should not survive evolution . the next of kin shouldn't bring us back either...

reply to post by skitzspiricy

That's an incredibly optimistic view you have there but unfortunately not one that is based in reality.

To believe incredible benevolence doesn't exist in reality is not based in reality.

There is so much wrong with our world. But ignoring the good in it is a part of what's wrong.

Of course there are those that would want to put "it" in a cage.

There are others that would fight for his or her equal worth.

I believe with the amount of media attention he/she would receive, and the likely scenario of a "normal" human child developing, a strong support for his/her rights would lead to said person being protected under Law.

Perhaps that's also too optimistic for you, but be damned sure there would be people fighting for equality. Myself among the ranks.

reply to post by 0bserver1

If we should not survive evolution . the next of kin shouldn't bring us back either...

What constitutes failing it?

What if we were wiped out due to natural disaster and an alien race, or perhaps sentient machines we made, wanted to bring us back as an act of compassion. Is it really that wrong? When animals are near the brink of extinction sometimes we make strides to bring back the population. Why? I don't think it matters whether it was them 'failing evolution', or a byproduct of harm to habitat, the point is we feel a moral imperative to prevent extinction.