Church wants to clone Neanderthals

[Haggis_McMutton]

I remember reading a couple of articles a few years ago that theorized, from what I recall, that (1) some pops. interbred (this is where green eyes and blonde haired northern europeans are supposed to come from-- like me) and/or (2) H. sapiens were more fertile, producing more offspring on a regular basis. Neanderthals had lower birth rates and longer gestation periods.

Basically we won by being promiscuous. Score!

-TG

This is interesting.(btw. that would mean I'm part Neanderthal too, *high-five*)

If this is true, I wonder if any other differences between people in various corners of the world could be attributed to this interbreeding.
I was gonna say "how come we're all so uniform", but maybe that's cultural programming and the effect of globalization in the past 250 years. I guess aborigines might have seemed as different to europeans as Neanderthals seem to us today.

[thegreekdog]

I remember reading a couple of articles a few years ago that theorized, from what I recall, that (1) some pops. interbred (this is where green eyes and blonde haired northern europeans are supposed to come from-- like me) and/or (2) H. sapiens were more fertile, producing more offspring on a regular basis. Neanderthals had lower birth rates and longer gestation periods.

Basically we won by being promiscuous. Score!

-TG

This is interesting.(btw. that would mean I'm part Neanderthal too, *high-five*)

If this is true, I wonder if any other differences between people in various corners of the world could be attributed to this interbreeding.
I was gonna say "how come we're all so uniform", but maybe that's cultural programming and the effect of globalization in the past 250 years. I guess aborigines might have seemed as different to europeans as Neanderthals seem to us today.

I heard somewhere that neanderthals are as different from humans as chipmanzees are from neanderthals. Or maybe I'm confusing my pre-homo sapien creatures.

[Gillipig]

I remember reading a couple of articles a few years ago that theorized, from what I recall, that (1) some pops. interbred (this is where green eyes and blonde haired northern europeans are supposed to come from-- like me) and/or (2) H. sapiens were more fertile, producing more offspring on a regular basis. Neanderthals had lower birth rates and longer gestation periods.

Basically we won by being promiscuous. Score!

-TG

This is interesting.(btw. that would mean I'm part Neanderthal too, *high-five*)

If this is true, I wonder if any other differences between people in various corners of the world could be attributed to this interbreeding.
I was gonna say "how come we're all so uniform", but maybe that's cultural programming and the effect of globalization in the past 250 years. I guess aborigines might have seemed as different to europeans as Neanderthals seem to us today.

I heard somewhere that neanderthals are as different from humans as chipmanzees are from neanderthals. Or maybe I'm confusing my pre-homo sapien creatures.

Oh man you gave me a good laugh, thanks for that lol. Humans and Neanderthals are more closely related than either one is to Chimpanzees yes. The things people wonder about....

[AAFitz]

In an effort to make every thread an abortion thread, would there be a provision of the agreement indicating that the woman in question could not abort the baby? If so, would that trump her right to privacy?

She no doubt could do what she needed to do, but any monetary compensation would obviously be forfeit, and depending upon the contract, much like non-disclosure contracts, could include hefty penalties.

Sorry for this post, I obviously didnt see it was answered and accepted many times over.

[thegreekdog]

I remember reading a couple of articles a few years ago that theorized, from what I recall, that (1) some pops. interbred (this is where green eyes and blonde haired northern europeans are supposed to come from-- like me) and/or (2) H. sapiens were more fertile, producing more offspring on a regular basis. Neanderthals had lower birth rates and longer gestation periods.

Basically we won by being promiscuous. Score!

-TG

This is interesting.(btw. that would mean I'm part Neanderthal too, *high-five*)

If this is true, I wonder if any other differences between people in various corners of the world could be attributed to this interbreeding.
I was gonna say "how come we're all so uniform", but maybe that's cultural programming and the effect of globalization in the past 250 years. I guess aborigines might have seemed as different to europeans as Neanderthals seem to us today.

I heard somewhere that neanderthals are as different from humans as chipmanzees are from neanderthals. Or maybe I'm confusing my pre-homo sapien creatures.

Oh man you gave me a good laugh, thanks for that lol. Humans and Neanderthals are more closely related than either one is to Chimpanzees yes. The things people wonder about....

At roughly 3.2 billion base pairs,[3] the Neanderthal Genome is about the size of the modern human genome. According to preliminary sequences, 99.7% of the base pairs of the modern human and Neanderthal genomes are identical, compared to humans sharing around 98.8% of base pairs with the chimpanzee.[4]

[AAFitz]

I'm talking about synthetic biologist George Church, of course.

Pretty interesting article: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/george-church-explains-how-dna-will-be-construction-material-of-the-future-a-877634.html

I always thought the great challenge to our definition of personhood and consciousness would come from creating general Artificial Intelligence, but maybe we'll have to deal with Neanderthals first (turns out they might be smarter than us, we don't really know)

Smarter and stronger, iirc. Just think, once the Neanderthal population becomes large enough, it'll galvanize H. sapiens to unite and instead of fighting amongst the species we can actually fight outside the species. Yay!

-TG

So, if they're smarter and stronger how the hell were we the ones to survive? luck?

We were more attractive.

Who are the most successful and popular people in our world today: the smart ones, the strong ones, or the pretty ones... overall?

Look at the bird species alone. The vast amount of energy is placed on looking pretty, and any practicality is almost accidental.

The pretty reproduce and move on. The other traits are useful, but en masse, its pretty clear which is the one trait that rules them all.

NOTE: Rockstars do not fit this theory.

[thegreekdog]

I'm talking about synthetic biologist George Church, of course.

Pretty interesting article: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/george-church-explains-how-dna-will-be-construction-material-of-the-future-a-877634.html

I always thought the great challenge to our definition of personhood and consciousness would come from creating general Artificial Intelligence, but maybe we'll have to deal with Neanderthals first (turns out they might be smarter than us, we don't really know)

Smarter and stronger, iirc. Just think, once the Neanderthal population becomes large enough, it'll galvanize H. sapiens to unite and instead of fighting amongst the species we can actually fight outside the species. Yay!

-TG

So, if they're smarter and stronger how the hell were we the ones to survive? luck?

We are more attractive.

Who are the most successful people in our world today, the smart ones, the strong ones, or the pretty ones... overall?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... nghis.html

Genghis Khan, the fearsome Mongolian warrior of the 13th century, may have done more than rule the largest empire in the world; according to a recently published genetic study, he may have helped populate it too.

An international group of geneticists studying Y-chromosome data have found that nearly 8 percent of the men living in the region of the former Mongol empire carry y-chromosomes that are nearly identical. That translates to 0.5 percent of the male population in the world, or roughly 16 million descendants living today.

Khan's empire at the time of his death extended across Asia, from the Pacific Ocean to the Caspian Sea. His military conquests were frequently characterized by the wholesale slaughter of the vanquished. His descendants extended the empire and maintained power in the region for several hundred years, in civilizations in which harems and concubines were the norm. And the males were markedly prolific.

Khan's eldest son, Tushi, is reported to have had 40 sons. Documents written during or just after Khan's reign say that after a conquest, looting, pillaging, and rape were the spoils of war for all soldiers, but that Khan got first pick of the beautiful women. His grandson, Kubilai Khan, who established the Yuan Dynasty in China, had 22 legitimate sons, and was reported to have added 30 virgins to his harem each year.

Smart and strong. Although I admittedly don't know how pretty the Khan and his progeny were.

[AAFitz]

I'm talking about synthetic biologist George Church, of course.

Pretty interesting article: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/george-church-explains-how-dna-will-be-construction-material-of-the-future-a-877634.html

I always thought the great challenge to our definition of personhood and consciousness would come from creating general Artificial Intelligence, but maybe we'll have to deal with Neanderthals first (turns out they might be smarter than us, we don't really know)

Smarter and stronger, iirc. Just think, once the Neanderthal population becomes large enough, it'll galvanize H. sapiens to unite and instead of fighting amongst the species we can actually fight outside the species. Yay!

-TG

So, if they're smarter and stronger how the hell were we the ones to survive? luck?

We are more attractive.

Who are the most successful people in our world today, the smart ones, the strong ones, or the pretty ones... overall?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... nghis.html

Genghis Khan, the fearsome Mongolian warrior of the 13th century, may have done more than rule the largest empire in the world; according to a recently published genetic study, he may have helped populate it too.

An international group of geneticists studying Y-chromosome data have found that nearly 8 percent of the men living in the region of the former Mongol empire carry y-chromosomes that are nearly identical. That translates to 0.5 percent of the male population in the world, or roughly 16 million descendants living today.

Khan's empire at the time of his death extended across Asia, from the Pacific Ocean to the Caspian Sea. His military conquests were frequently characterized by the wholesale slaughter of the vanquished. His descendants extended the empire and maintained power in the region for several hundred years, in civilizations in which harems and concubines were the norm. And the males were markedly prolific.

Khan's eldest son, Tushi, is reported to have had 40 sons. Documents written during or just after Khan's reign say that after a conquest, looting, pillaging, and rape were the spoils of war for all soldiers, but that Khan got first pick of the beautiful women. His grandson, Kubilai Khan, who established the Yuan Dynasty in China, had 22 legitimate sons, and was reported to have added 30 virgins to his harem each year.

Smart and strong. Although I admittedly don't know how pretty the Khan and his progeny were.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and no doubt in particular cases, strength can force reproduction over choice, but over the course of all humanity, pretty will still shine through, not that I am suggesting that is necessarily a good thing.

In any case, Wilt Chamberlain may still have him beat.....though, that doesn't solidify my pretty suggestion either.

[thegreekdog]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and no doubt in particular cases, strength can force reproduction over choice, but over the course of all humanity, pretty will still shine through, and I am not suggesting that is a good thing.

Perhaps beauty is the main component of reproductive success in 2013 (although I would disagree with that based on nothing scientific), but human males spent a lot of time between 2500 BC and the 18th century or so, fucking any available or unavailable woman, regardless of relative beauty. It wasn't just the Khan and his sons.

So, over the course of humanity, I think strength and intelligence won over beauty.

[AAFitz]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and no doubt in particular cases, strength can force reproduction over choice, but over the course of all humanity, pretty will still shine through, and I am not suggesting that is a good thing.

Perhaps beauty is the main component of reproductive success in 2013 (although I would disagree with that based on nothing scientific), but human males spent a lot of time between 2500 BC and the 18th century or so, fucking any available or unavailable woman, regardless of relative beauty. It wasn't just the Khan and his sons.

So, over the course of humanity, I think strength and intelligence won over beauty.

Well in my opinion that would put you in the pretty category then....but only by default.

[Gillipig]

I remember reading a couple of articles a few years ago that theorized, from what I recall, that (1) some pops. interbred (this is where green eyes and blonde haired northern europeans are supposed to come from-- like me) and/or (2) H. sapiens were more fertile, producing more offspring on a regular basis. Neanderthals had lower birth rates and longer gestation periods.

Basically we won by being promiscuous. Score!

-TG

This is interesting.(btw. that would mean I'm part Neanderthal too, *high-five*)

If this is true, I wonder if any other differences between people in various corners of the world could be attributed to this interbreeding.
I was gonna say "how come we're all so uniform", but maybe that's cultural programming and the effect of globalization in the past 250 years. I guess aborigines might have seemed as different to europeans as Neanderthals seem to us today.

I heard somewhere that neanderthals are as different from humans as chipmanzees are from neanderthals. Or maybe I'm confusing my pre-homo sapien creatures.

Oh man you gave me a good laugh, thanks for that lol. Humans and Neanderthals are more closely related than either one is to Chimpanzees yes. The things people wonder about....

At roughly 3.2 billion base pairs,[3] the Neanderthal Genome is about the size of the modern human genome. According to preliminary sequences, 99.7% of the base pairs of the modern human and Neanderthal genomes are identical, compared to humans sharing around 98.8% of base pairs with the chimpanzee.[4]

Humans and Neanderthals are often classified as subspecies of the same species. That is why Neandrthals are called "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis" and Humans are called "Homo sapiens sapiens". Humans and Neandthals separated about 500 thousand years ago, humans and neanderthals separated from chimps roughly 6 million years ago. Therefore we are more closely related to neanderthals. The base pairs in DNA isn't everything. You have found information but you have not understood it's meaning. That is common among science illiterate people.

[AndyDufresne]

In the NOVA special I linked to earlier, based on DNA studies of people around the world, we all seem to have 1-4% of Neanderthal DNA as part of our genome. Hot, frisky.


--Andy

[AAFitz]

In the NOVA special I linked to earlier, based on DNA studies of people around the world, we all seem to have 1-4% of Neanderthal DNA as part of our genome. Hot, frisky.


--Andy

They died out when the Republican neanderthals outlawed homo-neanderthal marriage.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Relevant:

[thegreekdog]

I remember reading a couple of articles a few years ago that theorized, from what I recall, that (1) some pops. interbred (this is where green eyes and blonde haired northern europeans are supposed to come from-- like me) and/or (2) H. sapiens were more fertile, producing more offspring on a regular basis. Neanderthals had lower birth rates and longer gestation periods.

Basically we won by being promiscuous. Score!

-TG

This is interesting.(btw. that would mean I'm part Neanderthal too, *high-five*)

If this is true, I wonder if any other differences between people in various corners of the world could be attributed to this interbreeding.
I was gonna say "how come we're all so uniform", but maybe that's cultural programming and the effect of globalization in the past 250 years. I guess aborigines might have seemed as different to europeans as Neanderthals seem to us today.

I heard somewhere that neanderthals are as different from humans as chipmanzees are from neanderthals. Or maybe I'm confusing my pre-homo sapien creatures.

Oh man you gave me a good laugh, thanks for that lol. Humans and Neanderthals are more closely related than either one is to Chimpanzees yes. The things people wonder about....

At roughly 3.2 billion base pairs,[3] the Neanderthal Genome is about the size of the modern human genome. According to preliminary sequences, 99.7% of the base pairs of the modern human and Neanderthal genomes are identical, compared to humans sharing around 98.8% of base pairs with the chimpanzee.[4]

Humans and Neanderthals are often classified as subspecies of the same species. That is why Neandrthals are called "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis" and Humans are called "Homo sapiens sapiens". Humans and Neandthals separated about 500 thousand years ago, humans and neanderthals separated from chimps roughly 6 million years ago. Therefore we are more closely related to neanderthals. The base pairs in DNA isn't everything. You have found information but you have not understood it's meaning. That is common among science illiterate people.

Well, what I posted (the quoted language) was from wikipedia. I posted it as backup for what you were saying, not as a point in my favor. In other words, the evidence I quoted shows that, at least from a genome perspective, we share more in common with neanderthals than chimpanzees. I was acknowledging that I either misinterpreted the information I heard or else the information I heard was wrong (it was from a history of the universe lecture I listened to on CD). I suspect it was the former.

That being said, it appears that you were confused as to what percentage is greater, 99.7% or 98.8%. That is common among math illterate people.

[Balsiefen]

Interesting theory I heard a while back was that neanderthals, while about as intelligent as us, were less social. They lived in much smaller groups (5-10) and there is no evidence of trade or extended contact between groups. 55000 years ago there were massive climate fluctuations which devastated the environment so that neanderthals couldn't hunt or survive effectively. Sapiens of the same time however who had made it as far as the north coast of the black sea have evidence of trade with Turkey and the middle east.

So maybe it was death by isolationism.

[Army of GOD]

I read the OP as "Chruch wants to close Netherlands"

That would've been a more interesting thread

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, what I posted (the quoted language) was from wikipedia. I posted it as backup for what you were saying, not as a point in my favor. In other words, the evidence I quoted shows that, at least from a genome perspective, we share more in common with neanderthals than chimpanzees. I was acknowledging that I either misinterpreted the information I heard or else the information I heard was wrong (it was from a history of the universe lecture I listened to on CD). I suspect it was the former.

That being said, it appears that you were confused as to what percentage is greater, 99.7% or 98.8%. That is common among math illterate people.

In other words, homo sapiens were mating more frequently with chimpanzees than neanderthals.

[AndyDufresne]

Interesting theory I heard a while back was that neanderthals, while about as intelligent as us, were less social. They lived in much smaller groups (5-10) and there is no evidence of trade or extended contact between groups. 55000 years ago there were massive climate fluctuations which devastated the environment so that neanderthals couldn't hunt or survive effectively. Sapiens of the same time however who had made it as far as the north coast of the black sea have evidence of trade with Turkey and the middle east.

So maybe it was death by isolationism.

It seems the past understanding of Neanderthal culture has likely suffered from our usual desire to make us the top dog and center of things. Also, I love NOVA so I am just going to point back to that since I thought it was a great program! Ha: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184623#p4032963


--Andy

[AAFitz]

Interesting theory I heard a while back was that neanderthals, while about as intelligent as us, were less social. They lived in much smaller groups (5-10) and there is no evidence of trade or extended contact between groups. 55000 years ago there were massive climate fluctuations which devastated the environment so that neanderthals couldn't hunt or survive effectively. Sapiens of the same time however who had made it as far as the north coast of the black sea have evidence of trade with Turkey and the middle east.

So maybe it was death by isolationism.

It seems the past understanding of Neanderthal culture has likely suffered from our usual desire to make us the top dog and center of things. Also, I love NOVA so I am just going to point back to that since I thought it was a great program! Ha: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184623#p4032963


--Andy

You're killing me. I DVRed this at one point, and then deleted it when it seemed I wouldn't get to it. Im sure I can find it again, but now I just feel stupid for having deleted it, without watching it, and still have 9 episodes of 30 rock recorded.

[notyou2]

Interesting theory I heard a while back was that neanderthals, while about as intelligent as us, were less social. They lived in much smaller groups (5-10) and there is no evidence of trade or extended contact between groups. 55000 years ago there were massive climate fluctuations which devastated the environment so that neanderthals couldn't hunt or survive effectively. Sapiens of the same time however who had made it as far as the north coast of the black sea have evidence of trade with Turkey and the middle east.

So maybe it was death by isolationism.

It seems the past understanding of Neanderthal culture has likely suffered from our usual desire to make us the top dog and center of things. Also, I love NOVA so I am just going to point back to that since I thought it was a great program! Ha: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184623#p4032963


--Andy

I love Nova too. I also really liked Cosmos back in the day.

[Juan_Bottom]

The next stage of Civil Rights.


This doesn't seem politically feasible though. If they wont let us clone a Mastodon why would they let us clone a Neanderthal?

[Crazyirishman]

I thought that homo sapiens survived and the neanderthals died out during the last ice age because the neanderthals had a larger body mass and couldn't find enough food since they needed more calories per day than homo sapiens?

[BigBallinStalin]

I thought that homo sapiens survived and the neanderthals died out during the last ice age because the neanderthals had a larger body mass and couldn't find enough food since they needed more calories per day than homo sapiens?

If you read that in a book authored by God, then Yes, You Are Correct, Sir.

[betiko]

I'm all about this kind of experiment. Imagine what it would be to be that neanderthal... you're basically a representative of a specie extincted over 30 000 years ago (the number might not be correct, but I think it's somewhere around that?), possibly massacred by homo sapiens and reborn as an experiment...

I'd also create a future-sapiens, return to gataca style with super enhanced features.
Oh, and I'll go watch BBS's movie.