Neandralthal Cloning

[tombstoner139]

Elephants have larger brains then humans, I don't see them building skyscrapers.

Also, the fact that humans cooperated shows they were smarter. If the neantherthals did not... then they weren't. Because it doesn't matter if 1 was smarter then 1 human if humans work together but they did not.

Termites in Africa build mounts that scale larger relative to there size then the empire state building. Brain size is an indirect / in precice indicator of intellectual capacity. social interaction is also not an indicator of intelligence: as we quantify it. We have a systemic problem of ingrained arrogance the we as humans are some how superior and the masters of our world. We are not.

[Phlegethon]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknap...a-neanderthal/

What do you guys think? If we did it in an ethical way where it was treated like a human?

It is human, so you should treat it like a human.
Afaik it's not legal to clone humans.

[Thes]

It is human, so you should treat it like a human.
Afaik it's not legal to clone humans.

Depends where you actually clone one..

[TidesOfBlood]

Pretty sure they did stuff like folding the deceased arms in a certain position and stuff. Seems ritualistic.

Seems=/=Is

You can never know 100% what stuff actually was back then. Just because they did something that seemed similar to what we do today doesn't mean thats what it was.

[Stir]

What you say is interesting. I didn't know they excarnated their bodies. They say that's why the first religious figures of mankind are birds/vultures, when they left corpses to be excarnated by vultures, seeing them as vessels to the other world.
In any case, i am not an expert, so i can only say what i have read in popularization magazines. I have read that the ritualistic burial of Neanderthals is found only around the time when the Cromagnon begin to settle nearby. Is this correct? it it were, it would hint more like a copycat behaviour, imitating those who are having more success.

I honestly don't know. I certainly don't have sources to back up my personal opinions or hypotheses on it.
Copycat behaviour is absolutely a good possibility, though I'm not convinced who copied whom. Seeing as Cro-Magnon did not settle for extended periods of time like the Neanderthal did, it seems equally likely that Cro-Magnon actually copied ritual behaviour from Neanderthals rather than the other way around. Ritualist behaviour seems to me to be a very settled affair; places of power and worship do much better within a settled culture, and demands on jewelry and other forms of outfit also favour the settlers (since it's a lot to carry around. If you've ever worn a siberian Shaman's ritual outfit, you'd know two things: A: It's smelly. B: It weighs a ton). Then again, while the Neanderthals were possibly renown for their stone-work in terms of knives, axes, hammers and pestles, they're not terribly famous for their skills at jewellery or tailoring. Which is a point against the copycat behaviour going from Neanderthals to Cro-Magnons. On the other hand, it is quite possible that the adaptable and impation Cro-Magnon took an idea, got bored with it (which is pretty much our staple state, and main drive for progress), and expounded upon the original ideas. Just throwing some alternatives out there, but there's no evidence either way.

Seems=/=Is

You can never know 100% what stuff actually was back then. Just because they did something that seemed similar to what we do today doesn't mean thats what it was.

Absolutely true. However, in light of current context, there are two things you must consider before making such a statement.
The first one is that of common courtesy. It would simply not do for someone on a forum, during such a discussion, to state something like this in absolutes. It is incredibly bad form.
The second consideration you must take into account is: When things seem a certain way, there is reason for an assumption. Whereas vice versa, this is not the case. You cannot make an assumption based on negative evidence.
You imply to make the assumption that the expectation of ritual behaviour in this scenario is false. Which is a much larger fallacy than to assume it is true.

[semaphore]

You can never know 100% what stuff actually was back then.

This is really an oft-repeated but meaningless garbage pseudo-intellectualism. "You can never know 100%" anything. That is neither a persuasive nor even particularly valid argument for claiming that they do not have ritualistic burials - which was the point I was replying to. You cannot be selectively solipsistic.

[Deleted]

Termites in Africa build mounts that scale larger relative to there size then the empire state building. Brain size is an indirect / in precice indicator of intellectual capacity. social interaction is also not an indicator of intelligence: as we quantify it. We have a systemic problem of ingrained arrogance the we as humans are some how superior and the masters of our world. We are not.

Well, we are actually. We are unique in the universe till proven otherwise. I'll probably get swarmed by the UFO nuts but we can only rely on what has been proven and fact. And the fact is that so far we are the only intelligent species in the universe so we have every right to be arrogant and proud. However that doesnt mean we can exaggerate things and paint some of our characteristics better than they actually are.

It's true larger brain doesnt mean more intellect but it is generally true that brain size compared to body does indicate intelligence unless the large brain size is a result of some other function that requires it(for example very good sight or memory or just large body). Being social doesnt show anything either. Even among humans there are those who are very social but couldn't even pass 4th grade and also complete loners who can barely buy their own food but are extremely intelligent.

[GennGreymane]

i think its a bad idea, they are people after all. just separate by evolution, not a devolution or something we evolved from

would they get rights? etc

[Deleted]

Seems=/=Is

You can never know 100% what stuff actually was back then. Just because they did something that seemed similar to what we do today doesn't mean thats what it was.

Doing anything to a corpse other than getting rid of it because of the putrefaction smell/diseases means that you care about what happens to that corpse. You are assigning to it a value that is beyond its objective value. You are wasting energy, even if it's very little in something that isn't anything but useless matter. You might or might not have a trascendent view on death, but you are assigning subjectively a higher value than it objectively has. That is the beginning of faith, and rituals.

[Tauren]

no they are hidious

all it would do is cause weird people to cross breed and create ugly ass fucked up hybrids and eventually we will look more like those fucked up things..... god no

anyone who voted yes wouldnt want to live with those creatures so why do uwant them. its like u wanted to live in planet of the apes

[Deleted]

What if sapiens neanderthalis really were more intelligent and mixed genes with sapiens sapiens, eventually being out bred as a race but with their genes being mixed to the Europeans.

Wouldn't explain why east Asians average higher IQ than Europeans though. Not very water proof theory. :P

the environment factor is the decisive factor in IQ, and asians did probably mixed to different local human cousins like Denisova hominin.

[Deleted]

Nope - simply a PR/ethics disaster waiting to happen.

People bitch and moan about our own species rights, lets sort that out before we bring in another type of human.