Ethical Question: Cloning Neanderthal

Taft2016 said:
Developing evidence suggests that Neanderthal was a separate and distinct species from modern man.

Developing technology suggests it may someday be possible to clone a Neanderthal from recovered DNA.

Even though human surrogates would be used for the cloning process, would the ethics of human cloning come into play?

Or because they are a separate species, would it simply be a matter of the ethics of cloning extinct species, such as the woolly mammoth?

Once cloned, would it be ethical to use Neanderthals as a workforce for modern man, much as we used other livestock for labor?

They would be pretty handy to have around. Higher intelligence than other livestock, and probably a capacity to even understand our languages, perhaps even communicate intelligently.

Opinions?
Click to expand...

liberals will need some source of labor once illegal immigration shuts down.....
 
TheDonald said:
Actually one theory is that Neanderthals are not truly extinct, but were overthrown by modern man and in the process have become interbred with modern homo sapiens.

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/ In fact Europeans are 1 to 2 percent Neanderthal.

neanderthals-extinct-1.jpg
Click to expand...

Well, that could answer the question of where did Democrats come from.....;)
 
Taft2016 said:
Developing evidence suggests that Neanderthal was a separate and distinct species from modern man.

Developing technology suggests it may someday be possible to clone a Neanderthal from recovered DNA.

Even though human surrogates would be used for the cloning process, would the ethics of human cloning come into play?

Or because they are a separate species, would it simply be a matter of the ethics of cloning extinct species, such as the woolly mammoth?

Once cloned, would it be ethical to use Neanderthals as a workforce for modern man, much as we used other livestock for labor?

They would be pretty handy to have around. Higher intelligence than other livestock, and probably a capacity to even understand our languages, perhaps even communicate intelligently.

Opinions?
Click to expand...

You obviously haven't tried to hold a conversation with Grind. Neanderthals are alive and well.

Using them for forced labor is a terrible idea. They don't listen, communicate poorly, smoke too much weed and eat far too many Cheetos.
 
Taft2016 said:
Developing evidence suggests that Neanderthal was a separate and distinct species from modern man.

Developing technology suggests it may someday be possible to clone a Neanderthal from recovered DNA.

Even though human surrogates would be used for the cloning process, would the ethics of human cloning come into play?

Or because they are a separate species, would it simply be a matter of the ethics of cloning extinct species, such as the woolly mammoth?

Once cloned, would it be ethical to use Neanderthals as a workforce for modern man, much as we used other livestock for labor?

They would be pretty handy to have around. Higher intelligence than other livestock, and probably a capacity to even understand our languages, perhaps even communicate intelligently.

Opinions?
Click to expand...

If they were/are a different species, then surrogates would not work; because it would be like transplanting fertilized eggs from one species into another.
The host body would reject the eggs and they would die.

Then even if it was possible, it be the same as breeding a species of slaves and ethically this would be wrong.
 
Taft2016 said:
Yes it is.

Unless the theory is they mated further back in the evolutionary process and that they evolved into different species?

Would this be enough to apply the ethics of human cloning to Neanderthal cloning?

PS: there is the liger (lion + tiger) exception to the producing fertile offspring rule. So, it's not inconceivable (hey! best pun ever!)
Click to expand...

I believe that the designations between species and genus are being considered.

What is the difference between genus and species?

Genus and species are part of the biological classification system for living things.
A genus encompasses a group of species that are closely related.
Species is the most specific level of scientific classification, which typically groups animals that are so similar that, when they breed, they produce fertile offspring.

All species are given two-part scientific names.
The first word identifies the organism's genus.
For example, the scientific term for Monarch butterfly is Danaus plexipus.
This indicates that it has been placed in the genus Danaus, along with similar species.
The second part identifies the species distinction.
As the levels of classification progress, organisms become more and more alike.
Species is the most specific scientific classification, however, some members of the same species appear very different even though, scientifically, they are the same.
For example, wolves, Chihuahuas, a Beagles and Great Danes are classified within the species Canis lupus.
Genus and species are used in relation to modern humans, or Homo sapiens, as well.
The genus "Homo" first appeared on Earth between 1.5 and 2 million years ago.
Other well-known species, such as Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons, fall within the "Homo" genus.
Genus is the sixth level, out of seven, in the organizational system.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I believe that the designations between species and genus are being considered.

What is the difference between genus and species?

Genus and species are part of the biological classification system for living things.
A genus encompasses a group of species that are closely related.
Species is the most specific level of scientific classification, which typically groups animals that are so similar that, when they breed, they produce fertile offspring.

All species are given two-part scientific names.
The first word identifies the organism's genus.
For example, the scientific term for Monarch butterfly is Danaus plexipus.
This indicates that it has been placed in the genus Danaus, along with similar species.
The second part identifies the species distinction.
As the levels of classification progress, organisms become more and more alike.
Species is the most specific scientific classification, however, some members of the same species appear very different even though, scientifically, they are the same.
For example, wolves, Chihuahuas, a Beagles and Great Danes are classified within the species Canis lupus.
Genus and species are used in relation to modern humans, or Homo sapiens, as well.
The genus "Homo" first appeared on Earth between 1.5 and 2 million years ago.
Other well-known species, such as Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons, fall within the "Homo" genus.
Genus is the sixth level, out of seven, in the organizational system.
Click to expand...

Dude he proposed a hypothetical question based on a false pretense. DNA analysis of Neanderthal's and Homo Sapiens has revealed that we are the same species as Neanderthal DNA is found in the modern human genome. The THEORIES put forth before DNA sequencing and analysis thus are proven UNSCIENTIFIC
 
TheDonald said:
Dude he proposed a hypothetical question based on a false pretense. DNA analysis of Neanderthal's and Homo Sapiens has revealed that we are the same species as Neanderthal DNA is found in the modern human genome. The THEORIES put forth before DNA sequencing and analysis thus are proven UNSCIENTIFIC
Click to expand...

Wrong again.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2014-11-neanderthals-sub-species-modern-humans.amp

http://www.sci-news.com/otherscienc...eanderthals-separate-human-species-02284.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ge...04/were-neanderthals-a-different-species/amp/
 
domer76 said:
Wrong again.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2014-11-neanderthals-sub-species-modern-humans.amp

http://www.sci-news.com/otherscienc...eanderthals-separate-human-species-02284.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ge...04/were-neanderthals-a-different-species/amp/
Click to expand...

Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1% to 4% to the genomes of non-African modern humans. This evidence of interbreeding sheds light on how we think of the expansion of modern humans out of Africa. It refutes the strictest scenario in which anatomically modern humans replaced archaic hominins completely without any interbreeding. However, even with some interbreeding between moderns and archaic hominins, most of our genome still derives from Africa.

If modern humans and Neanderthals were truly different species, we would not be sharing this DNA as different species can not interbreed. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/sequencing-neanderthal-dna
 
TheDonald said:
Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1% to 4% to the genomes of non-African modern humans. This evidence of interbreeding sheds light on how we think of the expansion of modern humans out of Africa. It refutes the strictest scenario in which anatomically modern humans replaced archaic hominins completely without any interbreeding. However, even with some interbreeding between moderns and archaic hominins, most of our genome still derives from Africa.

If modern humans and Neanderthals were truly different species, we would not be sharing this DNA as different species can not interbreed. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/sequencing-neanderthal-dna
Click to expand...

Wrong again. Different species can and do interbreed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top