"Adventurous woman" sought to serve as surrogate mother to Neanderthal clone baby

  • #21
Thanks for all the info about Nethanderthal people, I did not know that we were not direct descendants from then, that is insane!!! I read the entire wiki page on them. I will have to try to find a documentary when I have some spare time.

However I disagree about this "species", not sure what to call them, being more elite than today's humans.

Neanderthal was a different species but because of a small amount of crossbreeding many modern humans have small amount of Neanderthal mixed in.

Cromagnon (the supermen) were the early modern European humans that developed 50,000 years ago, Cromagnon did NOT go extinct, they survived and thrived and we are their descendants. A cromagnon man would blend right in with a modern human population, they would probably be smarter and stronger than the average modern male but that would just make them more popular with the ladies, it would not seem odd.
 
  • #22
Neanderthal was a different species but because of a small amount of crossbreeding many modern humans have small amount of Neanderthal mixed in.

Cromagnon (the supermen) were the early modern European humans that developed 50,000 years ago, Cromagnon did NOT go extinct, they survived and thrived and we are their descendants. A cromagnon man would blend right in with a modern human population, they would probably be smarter and stronger than the average modern male but that would just make them more popular with the ladies, it would not seem odd.

my word you are making me want to do so much research!! LOL. i have 2 exams coming up next in medical school. I don't have time for this. So interesting. I will be looking this up in my spare time.

Sketches of neanderthal men were more hairy than humans now, that wouldn't be very attractive, as well as there differently formed skulls. What about cromagnons?
 
  • #23
I actually thought the brain was larger for Neanderthals. Also, I remember learning that Neanderthals had lesser abilities in language due to their skull/jaw and throat anatomy. Neanderthals are humans, 🤬🤬🤬🤬 neanderthalensis from what I remember. I don't know why a living clone needs to be created, what's the purpose. I'm feeling a bit sick and I'm a "let's try this" liberal science teacher.

Actually, while there was speculation that Neanderthals did not have the ability to vocalize, since many of the structures needed are soft tissue, evidence would not have survived.

Recently, with more complete Neanderthal DNA studies, it has been found that they did have the gene associated with human speech.
Neanderthals Had Important Speech Gene, DNA Evidence Shows
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: October 19, 2007

Neanderthals, an archaic human species that dominated Europe until the arrival of modern humans some 45,000 years ago, possessed a critical gene known to underlie speech, according to DNA evidence retrieved from two individuals excavated from El Sidron, a cave in northern Spain.

The new evidence stems from analysis of a gene called FOXP2 which is associated with language. The human version of the gene differs at two critical points from the chimpanzee version, suggesting that these two changes have something to do with the fact that people can speak and chimps cannot.
More: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/science/19speech-web.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 
  • #24
And seeing as 2/3 of the world's kids don't have enough food or clean water, and a good percentage of the remainder will suffer child abuse of some kind before they reach 18, being a weird little Neanderthal clone with a pile of people interested in keeping him happy and healthy would not be all that bad in comparison, imo.

I think this thread has made me clucky.
Shades of "The Ugly Little Boy" by Isaac Asimov!

While that was not a cloned child, I wonder what problems a child so genetically different might have?

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ugly_Little_Boy"]The Ugly Little Boy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

A Canadian adaptation of the story:
http://youtu.be/LFQHMCDFEzQ

I would just hope that the child would be treated and valued as all children should be. Studies of his/her development would be interesting, but only if their environment and treatment are 'normal'. Not only would the studies show us some about Neanderthal children, it could cast a lot of light on the development of modern human children.
 
  • #25
Thanks for all the info about Nethanderthal people, I did not know that we were not direct descendants from then, that is insane!!! I read the entire wiki page on them. I will have to try to find a documentary when I have some spare time.

However I disagree about this "species", not sure what to call them, being more elite than today's humans. There is usually a reason that a group of a species dies out. Evolution favors species that are more equipped for survival. Survival of the fittest as they say. They may not have been intelligent enough to fight back, immune system may not have been equipped to handle certain diseases, diseases may have ran in their genes. Scientist do not believe they were just breed out since just a small percentage have Neanderthal genes. I still stand by thinking it is cruel bringing a Neanderthal baby into this world. It's genes would not have the immunity to the diseases of today. Most children do not do well in the spot light - just look at child movie stars so I disagree with the post above that all the attention would be fine. I think it's cruel on multiple levels. Would they bring back dinosaurs or other species that have been extinct? What's the difference with a Neanderthal? Are you going to allow him or her to have children? Then there will be a different gene pool then we ever would have had on this earth. How could you possibly deny another human being that right regardless of different genes. The consequences of this one clone are far reaching.
The death of the Neanderthal branch of humans could be as simple as disease.

Human populations early along would have been very small, possibly in isolated groups, which would make them more vulnerable.
Neanderthals Were Few and Poised for Extinction
Jeanna Bryner
Date: 16 July 2009 Time: 10:02 AM ET

Neanderthals are of course extinct. But there never were very many of them, new research concludes.

In fact, new genetic evidence from the remains of six Neanderthals (🤬🤬🤬🤬 neanderthalensis) suggests the population hovered at an average of 1,500 females of reproductive age in Europe between 38,000 and 70,000 years ago, with the maximum estimate of 3,500 such female Neanderthals.

More: http://www.livescience.com/5570-neanderthals-poised-extinction.html

When Europeans began contacting Native American populations, the die off from disease was as high as 90% in some areas. (No link, this info is from studies of the immediately period post Columbus in the Caribbean and Central/South America. Later sources in North America may not be accurate - the native populations had already survived one wave of disease so they would have a slightly higher rate of survival.)

If the population of Neanderthal was as much as four times the number of females of reproductive age, there would have only been between 6 and 14 thousand Neanderthals in Europe. 10% survival of introduced diseases would mean there would only be 600 to 1400 survivors, whose support systems would have been completely disrupted, making individual survival very difficult.

I could see how those few survivors when possible would take refuge with incoming modern humans, but the number left who could/would have contributed to human DNA would have been very low.

Of course, estimates of modern human populations are pretty low, too. One I heard just last night on a National Geographic story about their DNA studies was that modern humans numbered as few as 2,000 just prior to 70,000 years ago! That was 10-20,000 years before the migration out of Africa occurred, so some rebound would have happened, but the numbers reaching Europe would not have been huge, at any rate.
 
  • #26
That was 10-20,000 years before the migration out of Africa occurred, so some rebound would have happened, but the numbers reaching Europe would not have been huge, at any rate.

The "Out of Africa" theory that says all modern humans evolved in Africa and then spread to other areas is quickly being replaced by the "Regional Continuity Theory".

Ancient human remains that predate the "Out of Africa" modern human migration theory have been discovered in various places as science advances. Modern humans were supposed to have originated only in Africa and then migrated to other parts of the world 60,000 years ago, finding human fossils that date back 100,000 years in other parts of the world call that theory into question. The fact Neanderthals split off from modern humans 400,000 years ago and never evolved in Africa yet had nearly the same characteristics, including tools and jewelry and even boats, raises even more questions:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpsKbyyI7iE"]Modern Human NOT from Africa - YouTube[/ame]
 
  • #27
I'm glad this thread is getting some serious discussion as, after posting the OP, the only thing I could think to add was, to use Scots slang, "This Church character sounds like a right bell-end." (Which is what Ausgirl said in the third graf @ post 3, actually.)
 
  • #28
The last Ice Age could therefore have wiped Neanderthals out.

Still, others believe Neanderthals were simply absorbed into the modern human populations due to the two groups mating.
http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/neanderthals-died-out-humans-120329.htm

Julien Riel-Salvatore of the University of Colorado Denver worked on another recent Neanderthal study. He shared that "sequencing of ancient Neanderthal DNA indicates that Neanderthal genes make up from 1 to 4 percent of the genome of modern populations -- especially those of European descent. While they disappeared as a distinctive form of humanity, they live on in our genes."
 
  • #29
I'm pretty sure my French teacher was part Neanderthal.
 
  • #30
I'm pretty sure my French teacher was part Neanderthal.
There was nothing even vaguely 🤬🤬🤬🤬 sapiens about my gym coach, Col. Callahan.
 
  • #31
Yes, I was wrong. Don't know where I heard the wrong information. Glad we have people hear on WS that know the truth. I've read up on it a little this morning. I wonder if larger brains equated to higher intelligence or not?

Larger brains indicate higher intelligence, but only in terms of the species as a whole. The size of an individual's brain may not signify anything. (IIRC, Einstein's brain was average size or slightly smaller.)

In the first chapter of Gerald Diamond's excellent COLLAPSE, he talks about friends in remote parts of New Guinea. (Diamond is a botanist by trade and spent a great deal of time studying tropical plants.) His New Guinea friends would be considered "primitive" by modern standards, yet when Diamond details how much knowledge they have to have to secure healthy food and avoid poisonous plants and dangerous animals, etc., it's clear a surviving tribesman must be at least as smart as your average suburbanite.

🤬🤬🤬🤬 sapiens' (us) great advantage seems to lie in our social abilities. Would a Neanderthal clone have the same genetic disposition?

(I certainly agree with the poster above who questions a clone's resistance to modern diseases. Big problem, I expect.)
 
  • #32
(I certainly agree with the poster above who questions a clone's resistance to modern diseases. Big problem, I expect.)

Sheesh you are right. When you aren't being overly PC you say brilliant things.

You, sir, have a sharp mind!
 
  • #33
I have an interesting book, ""Eve Spoke: Human Language and Human Evolution," by Philip Lieberman, 1998. - which in part examines reconstructions of Neanderthal organs of speech and concludes that they may not have had the capacity to make some of the same sounds modern humans can.

Along with Dennis Klatt, the author returned to the study of Neanderthal SVTs, from which they formed a computer program that simulates the Neanderthal vocal tract based on the fossils available, and X-rays of living humans speaking. After testing the procedure against previous acoustic analyses, the scientist began analysis of the possible sounds that could be uttered by Neanderthals. Surprisingly, they discovered that the Neanderthal SVT could produce virtually every human vowel except , , and [a]. These vowels also happen to be the "universal" vowels, since some form is found in every known language. Also, the Neanderthal speech would have had a nasal quality quite dissimilar to humans. Gordon Peterson, of Bell Telephone Laboratories, had conducted research while developing devices which could recognize human speech. One of his experiment's involved having listeners write down the words they believe they had heard spoken by anonymous speakers. When the results were tallied, the vowel sounds and had been heard correctly nearly 100% of the time. These happen to be the vowels that Neanderthals were incapable of producing. Other vowels sounds, such as [e] had much higher error rates.


from this review: http://voices.yahoo.com/a-review-eve-spoke-human-language-human-evolution-8403405.html?cat=58

Here's chapter one of the book: http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/l/lieberman-eve.html

Interesting stuff, though Lieberman is pushing the 'out of Africa' theory hard. I found the reconstructions and analysis of possible sounds made by Neanderthals riveting.

As for my weird little clone boy: I believe I would call him "Rutiger". Unless he couldn't pronounce it..(but hey, at least we'd know for sure)... in which case, I may name him "Otto".
 
  • #34
(I certainly agree with the poster above who questions a clone's resistance to modern diseases. Big problem, I expect.)

I don't think that would be such a big problem, actually.
No one is born with immunity to modern diseases. It is not really in our genes, apart from the non-specific immunity that is due to the cell membrane properties and inflammatory responses etc. - but a Neanderthal would have all that, I presume. We haven't changed all that much.

Microbes mutate so quickly that it would be impossible for our genes to keep up with the specific immunity to specific modern microbial strains. Luckily our genes have been programmed with the ability of the immune system to learn to defend itself against the microbes it encounters. Therefore, IMO, a member of an ancient species who was born and brought up in modern times and encounters modern microbes would develop resistance to modern diseases, not ancient ones.
If a Neanderthal child would grow up normally with 🤬🤬🤬🤬 Sapiens humans (as opposed to a sterile lab somewhere) his situation would be different from the Native Americans who encountered previously unknown microbial strains when the Europeans came. During his childhood the Neanderthal child would be exposed to the same microbes 🤬🤬🤬🤬 Sapiens children are and I think he would develop immunity the same way they do.
 
  • #35
I don't think that would be such a big problem, actually.
No one is born with immunity to modern diseases. It is not really in our genes, apart from the non-specific immunity that is due to the cell membrane properties and inflammatory responses etc. - but a Neanderthal would have all that, I presume. We haven't changed all that much.

Actually it likely would be a real problem. We do have inherited immunity which is why, as the poster above noted, the American Indian populations suffered very high mortality rates when foreign diseases from the Old World were introduced. Scientists estimate 10% of the European population is has some natural resistance to HIV (1% is immune) thanks to the devastating Black Plague outbreaks hundreds of years ago, some of the plague survivors had a cell mutation which protected them and as a result a higher percentage of the following generations have that mutation too which can protect them hundreds of years later when facing new diseases like HIV.

Even today when "killer flu" epidemics strike the indigenous populations have a much higher death rate, on average 4 times higher than other ethnicities. The Americas were only cut off from the other human populations for about 10,000 years. A Neanderthal would have been cut off for 30-50,000 years, plus I am sure there were FAR fewer diseases back then as the populations were tiny and didn't mingle much.

The neanderthal may have a good immune system BUT system has to be able to recognize and fight invading organisms and much of that ability is inherited.
 
  • #36
I will try and find a link for this info but I remember reading that cloning has many problems and one of these is the idea that the cloned being's cell "remembers" its age. Once a clone is created, the "biological age" is actually the age at which the cell had already reached.
 
  • #37
Actually it likely would be a real problem. We do have inherited immunity which is why, as the poster above noted, the American Indian populations suffered very high mortality rates when foreign diseases from the Old World were introduced.

Even today when "killer flu" epidemics strike the indigenous populations have a much higher death rate, on average 4 times higher than other ethnicities. The Americas were only cut off from the other human populations for about 10,000 years. A Neanderthal would have been cut off for 30-50,000 years, plus I am sure there were FAR fewer diseases back then as the populations were tiny and didn't mingle much.

The neanderthal may have a good immune system BUT system has to be able to recognize and fight invading organisms and much of that ability is inherited.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR2009121003937.html
The death rate from pandemic H1N1 influenza is four times higher in American Indians and Alaska natives than in the rest of the U.S. population, government epidemiologists reported Thursday.
...
The cause of this difference in mortality is not known. Thomas R. Frieden, director of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told reporters that the findings are more likely "a reflection of environmental factors and underlying conditions . . . [and] access to health care rather than genetics or ethnicity."

Also:
Rate of Flu Shots Among American Indians among lowest in U.S.
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwo...-american-indians-among-lowest-in-u.s.-134312

Whenever an isolated population is suddenly introduced to new microbial strains they have not encountered before, there may be epidemics because the population as a whole has not been able to develop immunity after previous encounters with those microbes.

However, it does not necessarily mean that there is anything lacking in their genes that would prevent them from developing immunity after such encounters. After the initial epidemics you might find that the members of those populations who survived the first attack of the disease have developed immunity much like anybody else.

One reason that isolated populations exposed to new microbial strains are in trouble is because the whole population is lacking immunity and therefore the infection spreads rapidly. The immunity of the older generations serves to partially protect the younger generations who have no immunity, or the immunity of the vaccinated people may protect the unvaccinated too because they don't spread the disease. This is called herd immunity. A Neanderthal child living in the community of 🤬🤬🤬🤬 Sapiens would have the benefit of that population-based protection.
 
  • #38
One reason that isolated populations exposed to new microbial strains are in trouble is because the whole population is lacking immunity and therefore the infection spreads rapidly. The immunity of the older generations serves to partially protect the younger generations who have no immunity, or the immunity of the vaccinated people may protect the unvaccinated too because they don't spread the disease. This is called herd immunity. A Neanderthal child living in the community of 🤬🤬🤬🤬 Sapiens would have the benefit of that population-based protection.

Yes infections spread FASTER when no one has prior exposure or immunity but if diseases like smallpox were killing 90% of indigenous Americans then those diseases should have STILL been killing 90% of the European populations that were exposed as well but that wasn't the case anymore.

In the case of a neanderthal, germs that we don't even consider dangerous after thousands of years of adaptation could be very deadly to them. There are several gene mutations that became wide spread SPECIFICALLY to protect against disease, Sickle Cell Anemia is a classic example (malaria), Delta-75 is another (Plague/HIV), resistance to TB is also an inherited trait. Scientists are just now scratching the surface, who knows how many gene mutations occurred as a result of disease but are seen as "normal" now .

For thousands of years, the people of Eurasia lived in close proximity to the largest variety of domesticated mammals in the world – eating, drinking, and breathing in the germs these animals bore. Over time, animal infections crossed species, evolving into new strains which became deadly to man. Diseases like smallpox, influenza and measles were in fact the deadly inheritance of the Eurasian farming tradition – the product of thousands of years spent farming livestock.

With each epidemic eruption, some people survived, acquiring antibodies and immunities which they passed on to the next generation. Over time, the population of Europe gained increased immunity, and the devastating impact of traditional infections decreased.

Yet the people of the New World had no history of prior exposure to these germs. They farmed only one large mammal – the llama – and even this was geographically isolated. The llama was never kept indoors, it wasn't milked and only occasionally eaten – so the people of the New World were not troubled by cross-species viral infection.

When the Europeans arrived, carrying germs which thrived in dense, semi-urban populations, the indigenous people of the Americas were effectively doomed. They had never experienced smallpox, measles or flu before, and the viruses tore through the continent, killing an estimated 90% of Native Americans.

http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/smallpox.html
 
  • #39
Yes infections spread FASTER when no one has prior exposure or immunity but if diseases like smallpox were killing 90% of indigenous Americans then those diseases should have STILL been killing 90% of the European populations that were exposed as well but that wasn't the case anymore.


Smallpox was interesting in that there were two different forms of the variola virus. One was highly dangerous and the other produced a milder, less dangerous disease that had lower mortality. One could also develop immunity to smallpox by contracting cowpox (the vaccination was made from cowpox viruses). In all likelihood the indigenous Americans had a lower rate of immunity from these sources as cowpox is not endemic in America.

In the case of a neanderthal, germs that we don't even consider dangerous after thousands of years of adaptation could be very deadly to them. There are several gene mutations that became wide spread SPECIFICALLY to protect against disease, Sickle Cell Anemia is a classic example (malaria), Delta-75 is another (Plague/HIV), resistance to TB is also an inherited trait. Scientists are just now scratching the surface, who knows how many gene mutations occurred as a result of disease but are seen as "normal" now .


All of these examples are germs that we as 🤬🤬🤬🤬 sapiens tend to consider dangerous, even after we have had 30 000 years to adapt after Neanderthals went extinct. We are not immune to their dangers yet as a population imo so I don't see any reason to be particularly upset if a Neanderthal baby wouldn't be. There are a lot of people in the 🤬🤬🤬🤬 sapiens population who don't have the sickle cell mutation and yet are fine JMO.

In any case, the human immune system evolves much slower in response to the microbial environment than the microbes evolve in response to their carriers, due to the longer generation time.

Many infections are treatable or preventable. I would be far more worried about the mental state of the Neanderthal child than the microbes he encounters. It wouldn't be easy to find out he was born as a scientific experiment and is always going to be regarded as different from everybody else.
 
  • #40
Year Zero by Jeff Long also includes a Neanderthal child, one of several clones.

This book does not center on the child. An Ugly Little Boy does revolve around the the captured Neanderthal child. How does one capture a Neanderthal child??? Read Asimov and find out!

Laughing
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
68
Guests online
3,222
Total visitors
3,290

Forum statistics

Threads
632,656
Messages
18,629,738
Members
243,235
Latest member
MerrillAsh
Back
Top