Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Resurrecting Neanderthal Man
I don't wish to drag the evolution question out longer than readers of this blog will endure, but there is an interesting question posed by the NY Times in an article about using DNA to resurrect a Neanderthal. Read the article if you have time and then respond to the poll on this page.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
At first I thought this was Alan's addition of himself to Kim's post of our respective inflight pictures. I will read the article on my way back to Atlanta this morning and post a response when I get home.
This will be my second of three or more posts on this. I have read it but not given it much thought. First thoughts are humorous. What woman would want to carry and bear such a child? He or she would have a face that only a mother could love. (of course many of us today have that same problem). Secondly, would GEICO sponsor such a venture to cover the costs? No tax, dollars involved.
I will post again after thinking more on the subject on a non humorous tone.
When they say resurrect...are they talking...bringing a dead one back to life? ....or creating a neandrathal with DNA from scratch.
I don't see them being able to resurrect one in the true meaning of the word resurrect. How do you bring back to life something that has been dead for thousands of years and it is all decayed. Unless they are God...who already knows how to do that....I would think they mean create a new one from DNA.
I would be curious...but not sure about the ethical ramifications...and what would else would it kickstart? Everyone with any DNA from what ever may want to experiment and create a new something too. Do we really want a jurassic park here with us???? I am not so sure it is a good idea. I would only agree to something like that if it were highly regulated by the scientific community and government alike. That's not something we would want to get out of hand.
I know that the poll response options are very limited. Everyone would like to know more before making a decision. If not a Neanderthal man, what about a Saber Tooth Tiger? or a Woolly Mammoth?
Now that produces an interesting question! If one says no to a man-like, but yes to an animal-like creature, are we then saying the Neanderthal is similar enough to modern man to upset our religious thinking about evolution?
This one is a tough one. I get ready to post a yes vote and then hold back for some reason beyond my understanding. I want to say yes but then I think let well enough alone. I am leaning towards yes as I think about this one.
I am going to have to vote no...because I think creating something might cause a frenzy of scientists to create and experiment in ways that might not be ethical...like trying to cross a human with the neandrathal(which I personally beleive is animal, not human...might be crossing a line and a scary idea.
(Raising an eyebrow while thinking....) Have they not already used DNA to clone a Neanderthal man? If not how did they get this picture I wonder? Did they have advanced photography in his day? Hum. Just one of my deep thoughts.
Hmmmm, Brian, current day make up and artistry can do that. I'll bet you would make a pretty good looking Neandrothal with a little bit of help from Hollywood.
Some of your comments were really funny. I laughed out loud, oops, I mean I lolled.
We are considered part of the animal kingdom by the way. The old notion of one single line of man's evolution has been discarded. There is no longer a search for THE missing link. Our evolutionary tree is more like a bush. There have been several varieties of man identified, all extinct, Neanderthals were one of them. Homo Sapiens, it appears firmly, existed in Europe in the latter part of the Neanderthal period. We have already co-existed. They died out, we didn't. Did we contribute to their extinction? That is a question researchers are trying to answer.
I am assuming, perhaps falsely, that any Neanderthal man/woman brought to life would be used in order to further our knowledge of the past and of us. We are extremely closely genetically related. It is impossible to imagine what the Neanderthal individual might experience emotionally and therefore it is impossible to pass a moral judgment. We don't know if the individual would be constantly frightened and confused or elated to exist and curious. I assume as well that the individual would be treated humanely.
One fear is that the experiment would go bad and that the individual created would suffer. But assuming for the sake of argument that there would be a healthy N. individual, I vote for it. To vote for it is to vote for knowledge with unimaginable consequences. To vote for it is an act of optimism.
I was going to wait for the last day to vote but after reading Doug's posting, I have come to the conclusion that I just really don't know how I feel on this one. I therefore voted accordingly. I was waiting to see opinions on both sides but decided I still won't know 4 days from now. Tough one and a good question/post from Alan.
Well, I am one of those voting no because I think science is not quite advanced enough to do it right and I am a bit leery about messing with life when we have just barely cracked the human genome. I am open to voting yes in the future when we have more knowledge (and perhaps more wisdom).
Post a Comment