Any ladies want to give birth toa Neanderthal baby?

[ThunderChunky]

Originally Posted by Libra

The article read : "Professor Church’s plan would begin by artificially creating Neanderthal DNA based on genetic code found in fossil remains. He would put this DNA into stem cells.

These would be injected into cells from a human embryo in the early stages of life.

It is thought that the stem cells would steer the development of the hybrid embryo on Neanderthal lines, rather than human ones."

Agreed on the rights issue.

That's not how cloning works. If they do it that way what they are creating is a chimera, not a pure neanderthal.

[Jodie]

That is true, but either way, it seems unethical unless both HSS and the recreated chimera/cloned neandertal benefit from the experiement. Since there is no way to know I say let sleeping dogs lie.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by ThunderChunky

That's not how cloning works. If they do it that way what they are creating is a chimera, not a pure neanderthal.

Doesn't give you much hope for the rest of Jodie's analysis, does it?

Originally Posted by Jodie

I can't understand the reasons for why this would be a good thing to do.

How much research have you done in this field? If it's "None", then I'm sorry but it's almost certain that your inability to figure out why this would be a good thing is due to your ignorance. I've done a little research, and can think of several benefits (for example, simply observing their prenatal ontogeny would provide an enormous amount of information). Remember, some of us (I'm almost certainly in this group, from what I've read) have Neanderthal DNA; understanding more about those ancient humans can be very informative about modern ones as well.

This actually also proves your whole "We know nothing about them" line wrong--humans and Neanderthals obviously interbred. Unless you assume, on the basis of absolutely no data, that all the interbreeding was done via rape, that means that humans and Neanderthals were around each other long enough for some sort of social interaction. It's almost certain that in at least some cases they would have interacted over extended periods of time (human babies take a while to raise). That means that, unless you assume that all interbreeding between these organisms was via rape, we can conclude that humans and Neanderthals are more than capable of getting along. It may be a bit rough, but frankly a lot of people have rough childhoods--and even the worst childhood a Neanderthal clone could expect would be, by any objective measure, so superior to those that previous Neanderthals experienced that there's no comparison. Remember, those guys lived in an untamed world, where parasites and predation were common causes of death. Our world is fairly obviously better.

[ThunderChunky]

Originally Posted by Jodie

That is true, but either way, it seems unethical unless both HSS and the recreated chimera/cloned neandertal benefit from the experiement. Since there is no way to know I say let sleeping dogs lie.

Same could be said about normal procreation.

Certainly humanity would benefit, scientifically, from this. There's an immense amount of knowledge to be gained by studying living neanderthals. Assuming the neanderthal is healthy, given the same rights as everyone else, and a parent, it seems perfectly ethical to me.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by ThunderChunky

Assuming the neanderthal is healthy, given the same rights as everyone else, and a parent, it seems perfectly ethical to me.

Hi! You're six years old now and facing questions noone has ever faced. Are you the same species as all your class mates? Yeah, Yeah, don't worry about the 2+2=4 thing right now. We really need to know if you have religious ritual and art. And can you reproduce with any of the kids you know?

[Eric D]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

Any ladies want to give birth to a Neanderthal baby?

I've used that pick-up line on women before. It doesn't work most of the time.

[Eric D]

Originally Posted by Frankenstyle

It's an interesting topic, but I'm mostly just annoyed that you stole the expression "Any ladies want to give birth to a Neanderthal baby?"

It's my go to pick up line.

Damn you. Beat me to the punch.

[Libra]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Sorry, but that's later than I was talking about. I was talking about a fertilized egg cell; at all other times I've been careful to discuss the fetus or blasotcist.

What I'm essentially asking is, do you consider human life to start at the point where the sperm and egg unite?

I am aware that the manipulation would occur prior to this period. I mentioned it to demonstrate the unacceptability of your proposition that we should consider a human to come into existence post-birth only (for the sake of this discussion).

You posess more knowledge than what I do on this topic. The Wiki article on human Prenatal development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_development) states that the zygote, resulting from fertilization of the ovum, is "a new and genetically unique human organism". Is this correct ?

Originally Posted by Dinwar

I've provided places to look for how to deal with it without collateral damage.

Both land restitution and reserves would be a violation of the principle of granting them the same rights as others.

I fail to see from the information you provided how we can introduce Neanderthal onto earth, give him/her rights and expect ZERO cultural, ethical or legal issues to arise.

Originally Posted by Dinwar

What this says is that for all practical purposes you do not want such analyses to take place.

What this says is that we can not create a Neanderthal without manipulating human life.

[Libra]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Hi! You're six years old now and facing questions noone has ever faced. Are you the same species as all your class mates? Yeah, Yeah, don't worry about the 2+2=4 thing right now. We really need to know if you have religious ritual and art. And can you reproduce with any of the kids you know?

We will not learn anything about their religious ritual and art, as they would have been subjected, exposed and greatly affected by our own religious ritual and art. How will we distinguish ?


I think we know the answer of the reproduction question, don't we ?



What I'd like to see is the result of the whole Neanderthal extinction story when this is discussed / explained to him/her at a time when he/she can fully appreciate the gravity thereof. (14/15 years old?)

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Libra

We will not learn anything about their religious ritual and art, as they would have been subjected, exposed and greatly affected by our own religious ritual and art. How will we distinguish ?

That part of my response was a joke. Most of the details of my response were jokes, the main point being that there is no way any child that comes from this will have a normal life. I don't think the ethics of this are addressed properly merely by promising a Neanderthal the same rights as the rest of us.

Originally Posted by Libra

I think we know the answer of the reproduction question, don't we ?

Last I checked it was still being hotly debated. They are still classified as a separate species most of the time, but not always. Some evidence suggests they mated with us with a low success rate, but there's plenty of debate around that.

If we create a Neanderthal, we would be creating someone who we expect will have a lot of trouble reproducing with us. Or if we create multiple Neanderthal and they mate amongst themselves, they'll be mating with virtual siblings (assuming the DNA samples we have now).

Anyone know if we have enough samples to produce both sexes? Google foo is failing me now. ETA: I can't find any claim of having an intact male Y chromosome, but I don't see any explicit declaration that we haven't found one.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Furthermore, the ethics concerns are not about 'benefit' to the child, it's about consent. An embryo and the child that would form cannot consent to being so altered, no ethics board would approve it. That's why genetic engineering a la Khan isn't going to happen.

[Hungry81]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

That part of my response was a joke. Most of the details of my response were jokes, the main point being that there is no way any child that comes from this will have a normal life. I don't think the ethics of this are addressed properly merely by promising a Neanderthal the same rights as the rest of us.

Last I checked it was still being hotly debated. They are still classified as a separate species most of the time, but not always. Some evidence suggests they mated with us with a low success rate, but there's plenty of debate around that.

If we create a Neanderthal, we would be creating someone who we expect will have a lot of trouble reproducing with us. Or if we create multiple Neanderthal and they mate amongst themselves, they'll be mating with virtual siblings (assuming the DNA samples we have now).

Anyone know if we have enough samples to produce both sexes? Google foo is failing me now. ETA: I can't find any claim of having an intact male Y chromosome, but I don't see any explicit declaration that we haven't found one.

There are homosapiens born every day who have trouble mating with other homosapiens. Should they not be born? Does that mean they can't intermingle? can't get married and can't live a fulfilling life?
Then of course there is also the possibility that they can breed with no problem if that's the case your misplaced concerns are meaningless.

As for if they will have a normal childhood, probably not but that doesn't mean that they would have bad childhoods.

If current data is correct they were taller, stronger and had a larger brain size. There are many fields that they could be quite successful in. (Neanderthal football star maybe?)

Arguing against it purely on emotion is not a good idea.

[Jodie]

Why not? Works for me.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Hungry81

There are homosapiens born every day who have trouble mating with other homosapiens.

Created that way intentionally?

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Jodie

I am aware that the manipulation would occur prior to this period. I mentioned it to demonstrate the unacceptability of your proposition that we should consider a human to come into existence post-birth only (for the sake of this discussion).

I'm not aware of making such a proposition. I've thus far only criticized your position (ie, dodging around the issue of when a we should consider something a human). The closest I've come is saying that the only justification for your position is the belief that a fertilized egg is, at that moment, a human being.

Quote:

You posess more knowledge than what I do on this topic. The Wiki article on human Prenatal development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_development) states that the zygote, resulting from fertilization of the ovum, is "a new and genetically unique human organism". Is this correct ?

The fertilized egg--meaning the single cell, before dividing--constitutes a genetically unique entity. That's not the question, however: the question is whether it's a human or not. That one, I don't know. It's devilishly difficult to define.

Quote:

I fail to see from the information you provided how we can introduce Neanderthal onto earth, give him/her rights and expect ZERO cultural, ethical or legal issues to arise.

First, no regular human comes into existence with zero cultural, ethical, or legal issues, so this is a fallacy. Second, I've specifically mentioned how to ADDRESS, not how to eliminate, said issues. Test-tube babies provide a great model for this.

Quote:

What this says is that we can not create a Neanderthal without manipulating human life.

If you understand how this process works, you would realize that you are saying that an UNfertilized human egg is a human. If you can't figure out why that is a necessary conclusion from your statement, that says a lot of things--all of them bad--about your knowledge of the process under discussion.

[Jodie]

Originally Posted by Jodie
I am aware that the manipulation would occur prior to this period. I mentioned it to demonstrate the unacceptability of your proposition that we should consider a human to come into existence post-birth only (for the sake of this discussion)

Originally Posted by Dinwar

I'm not aware of making such a proposition. I've thus far only criticized your position (ie, dodging around the issue of when a we should consider something a human). The closest I've come is saying that the only justification for your position is the belief that a fertilized egg is, at that moment, a human being.

Thanks for the credit, but I don't remember saying this, I'm much more blunt in my wording. Did I say it somewhere else in a moment of sanctimonious self righteousness?

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Jodie

Originally Posted by Jodie
I am aware that the manipulation would occur prior to this period. I mentioned it to demonstrate the unacceptability of your proposition that we should consider a human to come into existence post-birth only (for the sake of this discussion)



Thanks for the credit, but I don't remember saying this, I'm much more blunt in my wording. Did I say it somewhere else in a moment of sanctimonious self righteousness?

Sorry about that--I was quoting Libra, not you. Slip of the mouse, is all I can say.

[Hungry81]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Created that way intentionally?

The idea is to create a Neanderthal person. They would not be created because they can or cannot procreate with homo sapiens. That is a side issue and one that can be circumvented by creating multiple Neanderthals of both sexes (what happens if its gay or polyamorous?)
Also yes there are many homosapiens with genetic issues or diseases that still elect to have children despite the possibility that they will not have a normal life.

[Libra]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

I'm not aware of making such a proposition. I've thus far only criticized your position (ie, dodging around the issue of when a we should consider something a human). The closest I've come is saying that the only justification for your position is the belief that a fertilized egg is, at that moment, a human being.

I must have mis-understood your position in post#33 when you said : "(for the purpose of this discussion, any post-birth human counts as an actual human)". Hard for me to see where the mis-understanding came in, as it does seem like a proposistion to me.

Just to add, I was not dodging anything, as I made it quite clear that resolution on when a human is deemed to be a human would not be forthcoming in this thread.

Originally Posted by Dinwar

The fertilized egg--meaning the single cell, before dividing--constitutes a genetically unique entity. That's not the question, however: the question is whether it's a human or not. That one, I don't know. It's devilishly difficult to define.

An entity, as in something that exists by itself, although it need not be of material existence ? Sounds a bit vague to me.

The Wiki article takes the position that it is rather "a new and genetically unique human organism". With this I agree.

Originally Posted by Dinwar

First, no regular human comes into existence with zero cultural, ethical, or legal issues, so this is a fallacy. Second, I've specifically mentioned how to ADDRESS, not how to eliminate, said issues. Test-tube babies provide a great model for this.

No regular human does, I agree, but this occurs by means of socially accepted methods and the subsequent impact thus involves social consent.

I am of the stance that social consent for the impact of bringing Neanderthal into this world would be much more difficult to acquire.

Originally Posted by Dinwar

If you understand how this process works, you would realize that you are saying that an UNfertilized human egg is a human. If you can't figure out why that is a necessary conclusion from your statement, that says a lot of things--all of them bad--about your knowledge of the process under discussion.

I have already pointed out in my previous post that you poses more knowledge than I do on this topic, so there's no need to demonstrate this by your "if you can't figure out . . . that says a lot . . . about your knowledge . . blahblah" statement. Your efforts in proving something I have admitted to made you miss my point.

I am saying that if a process of bringing Neanderthal into this world WITHOUT manipulating a human is not yet in our ability, then it shouldn't be done.

This then leads to the question, so when exactly is a human a human, something that you admitted is "devilishly difficult to define" and have not attempted other than your unacceptable proposition(?) of post birth.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Hungry81

The idea is to create a Neanderthal person. They would not be created because they can or cannot procreate with homo sapiens. That is a side issue and one that can be circumvented by creating multiple Neanderthals of both sexes (what happens if its gay or polyamorous?)

It isn't clear to me that we can create both sexes or have enough material to produce individuals that wouldn't effectively be siblings.

Originally Posted by Hungry81

Also yes there are many homosapiens with genetic issues or diseases that still elect to have children despite the possibility that they will not have a normal life.

And isn't that considered a question of ethics?

[Hungry81]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

It isn't clear to me that we can create both sexes or have enough material to produce individuals that wouldn't effectively be siblings.

I am also unsure of the genetic diversity if a group of Neanderthals were to be created but if they are genetically close relations then they can still provide companionship with each other, whilst trying their luck with homosapien partners if they so wish.

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

And isn't that considered a question of ethics?

Yes but that leads down another garden path full of issues that can eventually lead to things like eugenics and impinging on people's right to reproduce.
Who determines which disabilities or conditions are or are not acceptable when it comes to reproduction?

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Libra

I must have mis-understood your position in post#33 when you said : "(for the purpose of this discussion, any post-birth human counts as an actual human)". Hard for me to see where the mis-understanding came in, as it does seem like a proposistion to me.

Ah. Thanks for the correction--some other stuff came up and this slipped my mind. You are correct, I did say that.

Quote:

An entity, as in something that exists by itself, although it need not be of material existence ? Sounds a bit vague to me.

The Wiki article takes the position that it is rather "a new and genetically unique human organism". With this I agree.

What do you mean, "need not be of material existence"? Any definition of human I use will be biological, and it's hard to have etherial biology. My point was more that mere fertalization cannot be the criteria--otherwise, every spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, absorption of a twin, etc. necessarily must be considered at least manslaughter. For that matter, cancer is typically caused by a mutation, making it genetically unique as well. There has to be a line between "fertalized egg" and "human", and a unique genetic code is insufficient. Unlike you, I've demonstrated WHY your stance is problematic (more on that below).

Quote:

No regular human does, I agree, but this occurs by means of socially accepted methods and the subsequent impact thus involves social consent.

I am of the stance that social consent for the impact of bringing Neanderthal into this world would be much more difficult to acquire.

Collectivised eithics are irrelevant to me.

Quote:

I have already pointed out in my previous post that you poses more knowledge than I do on this topic, so there's no need to demonstrate this by your "if you can't figure out . . . that says a lot . . . about your knowledge . . blahblah" statement. Your efforts in proving something I have admitted to made you miss my point.

I am saying that if a process of bringing Neanderthal into this world WITHOUT manipulating a human is not yet in our ability, then it shouldn't be done.

WRONG. Purely, entirely, and unmitigatedly WRONG. Cloning is done via UNFERTALIZED egg cells--which even by the most insane definitions (meaning ones even more anti-abortion than yorus) are not humans. That is the crucial data you persist in ignoring. This is no minor point; it represents a deep contradiction in your arguments, and indicates that your arguments are mere post-hoc justifications for your stance.

Either unfertalized eggs are humans, or they aren't. If they aren't, cloning BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION does not manipulate a human (or, rather, not without their consent--I suppose it does involve manipuatling the mother). If you insist that cloning DOES manipulate humans, you are re-defining "human" to include unfertilized egg cells. This is moving the goalposts to an absurd degree. It also leads to even more complications than the notion that a fertalized egg is a full human--for example, most sperm (well over 99%) die. Those are the equivalent of an unfertalized egg. Those deaths constitute, by this new absurd definition of "human", manslaughter--as does every menstration cycle a woman has that doesn't end in pregnancy. Condums represent premeditation, which makes it murder.

You didn't need to know about cloning to see this; you just had to be consistent in your definitions, and use the data provided in this thread.

Quote:

This then leads to the question, so when exactly is a human a human, something that you admitted is "devilishly difficult to define" and have not attempted other than your unacceptable proposition(?) of post birth.

If you consider my definitions unacceptable, without having the courtesy of providing arguments for that stance, there's no point talking to you. You're not talking at that point, but rather preaching.

[Libra]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Ah. Thanks for the correction--some other stuff came up and this slipped my mind. You are correct, I did say that.

What do you mean, "need not be of material existence"? Any definition of human I use will be biological, and it's hard to have etherial biology. My point was more that mere fertalization cannot be the criteria--otherwise, every spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, absorption of a twin, etc. necessarily must be considered at least manslaughter. For that matter, cancer is typically caused by a mutation, making it genetically unique as well. There has to be a line between "fertalized egg" and "human", and a unique genetic code is insufficient. Unlike you, I've demonstrated WHY your stance is problematic (more on that below).

I agree, there has to be a line. Where this line lies, I am not equipped to say, and therefore I take "a new and genetically unique human organism", as exactly that, a new and genetically unique human organism. I am willing to be educated on the deeper thruth if this is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Collectivised eithics are irrelevant to me.

Might be to you, but it's not irrelevant to the discussion of introducing Neanderthal on earth, is it ?

Originally Posted by Dinwar

WRONG. Purely, entirely, and unmitigatedly WRONG. Cloning is done via UNFERTALIZED egg cells--which even by the most insane definitions (meaning ones even more anti-abortion than yorus) are not humans. That is the crucial data you persist in ignoring. This is no minor point; it represents a deep contradiction in your arguments, and indicates that your arguments are mere post-hoc justifications for your stance.

Either unfertalized eggs are humans, or they aren't. If they aren't, cloning BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION does not manipulate a human (or, rather, not without their consent--I suppose it does involve manipuatling the mother). If you insist that cloning DOES manipulate humans, you are re-defining "human" to include unfertilized egg cells. This is moving the goalposts to an absurd degree. It also leads to even more complications than the notion that a fertalized egg is a full human--for example, most sperm (well over 99%) die. Those are the equivalent of an unfertalized egg. Those deaths constitute, by this new absurd definition of "human", manslaughter--as does every menstration cycle a woman has that doesn't end in pregnancy. Condums represent premeditation, which makes it murder.

You didn't need to know about cloning to see this; you just had to be consistent in your definitions, and use the data provided in this thread.

I take your point, and as I have acknowledged that you have more knowledge on this topic than what I do, I have to ask a daft question here.

Would the process of bringing a Neanderthal into the world be identical to that of conventional cloning ? The original article mentioned that Neanderthal DNA would be put into stem cells and that these would be injected into cells from a human embryo in the early stages of life. This is what I was objecting to. This specific situation might be that, like thunderchunky said, if they do it that way what they are creating is a chimera, not a pure neanderthal. Would they be doing it in that fashion ? I don't know, do you ? This uncertainty is also the main reason why my statement had the IF in there, so that IF NOT, then I have no objection on the biological front. Was it that unclear ?

What are condums ?

Originally Posted by Dinwar

If you consider my definitions unacceptable, without having the courtesy of providing arguments for that stance, there's no point talking to you. You're not talking at that point, but rather preaching.

Not definitions. One definition. The only unacceptable definition that I made mention of was your proposition to only consider a post-birth human an actual human. Do you honestly require an argument for that stance ? I was under the impression that you acknowledged that a human becomes a human somewhat prior to birth but somewhat after fertilization, and that the exact point is "devilishly difficult to define". I agree with this.




This would normally be the part in my face-to-face discussions where another beer would be proposed. The "there's no point in talking to you" normally comes much much later. Now where's that beer icon when you need it ?