Rebuilt DNA Could Lead to Cloned Neanderthals

[citizen k]

http://www.lycaeum.org/~sputnik/McKenna/Evolution/ (there's many good links here)

Terence McKenna's "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

    Perhaps the most intriguing of Terence McKenna's fascinating theories and observations is his explanation for the origin of the human mind and human culture.

    To summarize: McKenna theorizes that as the North African jungles receded toward the end of the most recent ice age, giving way to grasslands, a branch of our tree-dwelling primate ancestors left the branches and took up a life out in the open -- following around herds of ungulates, nibbling what they could along the way.

    Among the new items in their diet were psilocybin-containing mushrooms growing in the dung of these ungulate herds. The changes caused by the introduction of this drug to the primate diet were many -- McKenna theorizes, for instance, that synesthesia (the blurring of boundaries between the senses) caused by psilocybin led to the development of spoken language: the ability to form pictures in another person's mind through the use of vocal sounds.

    About 12,000 years ago, further climate changes removed the mushroom from the human diet, resulting in a new set of profound changes in our species as we reverted to pre-mushroomed and frankly brutal primate social structures that had been modified and/or repressed by frequent consumption of psilocybin.

    McKenna's theory has great appeal and intuitive strength, but it is necessarily based on a great deal of supposition interpolating between the few fragmentary facts we know about hominid and early human history. In addition, because McKenna (who describes himself as "an explorer, not a scientist") is also a proponent of much wilder suppositions, such as his "Timewave Zero" theory, his more reasonable theories are usually disregarded by the very scientists whose informed criticism is crucial for their development.

    This page links to resources that should help to fill in some of the gaps with data from the sciences and with other theories and myths about human origins.

[Viking]

Viking--I'm just contesting the idea that there is a scientific consensus. Some of the few characteristics we can trace the past 10,000 years we know have changed. Although humans have been separated for extended periods, the only large group without knowledge of agriculture is the australian aborigines, and a couple centuries beyond first contact I don't know what they prove, if anything.

If there were genetically based behavoral (or other types of mental) changes, I don't know why you would expect to see them in skulls--we don't see a skull change with increased language capability, for example.

There was a consensus, now there are new ideas being introduced. These Ideas are being studied, they have not yet been disproved and they may not be. I agree with that.

As to the Aboriginies, what do they prove. Well, to get back on point, they show that Homo Sapiens, separated from the rest of the species genetically for 40,000 years have the same mental capabilites as the other Homo Sapiens. Their level (as a group) of intelligence (or other measurable mental qualities) is not substantially different from the rest of the groups of humanity. You can take an aboriginie and raise him as a "white man" and get a person with the same culture and capabilites as you would expect from a "white man"  raised in the same manner.

This is not thought to be the case with a Neanderthal. There is consensus on that. That was my point. You can adopt a kid from a Sapiens stone age culture at birth and raise that kid to be a modern sapiens. You can not do the same with a Neanderthal. That difference and my view that cloned Homo Neanderthalis would still be human recieving all human rights and citizenship of whatever nation he/she was born in has consequences for my view of the morality and the ethicalness (is that a word?) of the cloning. Do not bring a Neanderthal to life unless you are sure can treat him/her like a human.

[alfred russel]

Viking--I'm just contesting the idea that there is a scientific consensus. Some of the few characteristics we can trace the past 10,000 years we know have changed. Although humans have been separated for extended periods, the only large group without knowledge of agriculture is the australian aborigines, and a couple centuries beyond first contact I don't know what they prove, if anything.

If there were genetically based behavoral (or other types of mental) changes, I don't know why you would expect to see them in skulls--we don't see a skull change with increased language capability, for example.

There was a consensus, now there are new ideas being introduced. These Ideas are being studied, they have not yet been disproved and they may not be. I agree with that.

As to the Aboriginies, what do they prove. Well, to get back on point, they show that Homo Sapiens, separated from the rest of the species genetically for 40,000 years have the same mental capabilites as the other Homo Sapiens. Their level (as a group) of intelligence (or other measurable mental qualities) is not substantially different from the rest of the groups of humanity. You can take an aboriginie and raise him as a "white man" and get a person with the same culture and capabilites as you would expect from a "white man"  raised in the same manner.

You are more hung up on the mental capabilities, I was interested in everything else. And at the end of the day, aboriginal groups die younger and have more social problems. I'd never say that is because they are genetically different--there are clearly a lot of cultural factors at work--but they aren't proof that differences haven't emerged.

[jimmy olsen]

Anything with Homo in it's species name gets human rights. Morality on this issue, I think, should be determined by whether the person would be capable of being human. If the Neanderthal would be a mere curiosity or "programmed" to fail then creating this person would be unethical.

What would be interesting is a clone of a person from 10-15,000 years ago. Would the person behaviorally be able to cope with civilization, or have we silently evolved since the agricultural revolution to cope with societies more complex than hunter gatherers?

1) Homo Neanderthalis is NOT our ancestor. The last common ancestor we have with them is during one of the Erectus emigrations from Africa or Heidelbergensis, this places our last common ancestor around 300 to 600 thousand years ago.

2) Cultural evolution. It is not genetic or morphological. It is cultural. We should be able to take a Homo Sapiens from most of the period of the speicies and raise it as a modern human. Neanderthal is different both genetically and morphologically.

Neanderthalis separates from us about 1/20th of the distance between us and Afarensis (Lucy) and seems to be significantly different from us not only culturally but also in the brain functions that allow cultural adaptation (since we lived in contact for about 50 thousand years in europe before they went extinct), they did not learn from us, they did not adopt culture or technology from Sapiens. They kept their own technology unchanged throughout their existence.

If we did clone one I suspect he or she (not it) would appear to us to be a heavy set mentally handicapped stable and capable of simple tasks person. He or she would learn language and would being able to do what he or she were taught, but might not be able to understand the concepts "red" or "hope".

Internet wasn't working at school, so this is a bit late and abbreviated. Lots of the topics I mention can be found at the following blog.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog

While it's true that modern man has not descended from Neanderthal man, that does not mean they have had no influence on our genepool. It would be extremely unusual for there to have been no incidents of cross species mating between such closely related species. If offspring result and they are fertile, you only need one that carries a beneficial gene that's passed on to significantly effect a species. There has been some evidence of intergression of genes between the Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens. The release of the entire genome will provide a lot of evidence for or against.

#2 is totally wrong and has been known to be wrong for decades. The Châtelperronian culture was a radical advancement from the Neanderthal's previous Mousterian culture (though not as advanced as the Cro Magnon culture) , and has universally been viewed as a reaction to the migration of Homo Sapiens into Neanderthal territory.  Moreover recent research has indicated that the lack of symbolic thought that has traditionally been ascribed to Neanderthals as been false.

First of all, they had the Fox2P gene which indicates they had the ability to speak. Secondly, I just posted this week on a discovery of Neanderthal art that's 50,000 years old, and thus an indigenous development, not a reaction/copying of Cro Magnon culture. There have also been more recent discoveries of art and musical instruments for the Neanderthals from the period of interaction of with Cro Magnons. How much of this is due to a result of learning from the new comers is unknown. Homo Sapiens didn't produce much art either before this era, yet it is assumed that we taught the Neanderthals.

[jimmy olsen]

Viking--I'm just contesting the idea that there is a scientific consensus. Some of the few characteristics we can trace the past 10,000 years we know have changed. Although humans have been separated for extended periods, the only large group without knowledge of agriculture is the australian aborigines, and a couple centuries beyond first contact I don't know what they prove, if anything.

If there were genetically based behavoral (or other types of mental) changes, I don't know why you would expect to see them in skulls--we don't see a skull change with increased language capability, for example.

Not exactly true, the Broca area of the brain is on the surface and thus leaves an impression on the skull. It has been claimed that H. habilis had a Broca area more advanced than that of an ape.

[citizen k]

Precis of Origins of the Modern Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution of Culture and Cognition

http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.donald.html

[Viking]

You are more hung up on the mental capabilities, I was interested in everything else. And at the end of the day, aboriginal groups die younger and have more social problems. I'd never say that is because they are genetically different--there are clearly a lot of cultural factors at work--but they aren't proof that differences haven't emerged.

The reason I am hung up on the mental capabilities is that this discussion started when I opined that cloning a Neanderthal that would not be able to survive without constant institutional support despite being raised in a modern culture was unethical. And as a consequence you'd have to make the case that Neanderthals could survive in a modern culture as a full equal member. The reason I demand this standard is that I would consider a Neanderthal to have human and citizen rights and could not ethically be born without at least a probability of being have to benefit from them.   

Then I argued that they might not be able to operate as a full member of society, suggesting that a Neanderthal might not be able to operate his/her brain in the same way we do. This is not a controversial idea and until recently was the scientific consensus. Now there is a lot of evidence mitigating the difference, much of it recently discovered/analysed. Those guys in Germany looking at their DNA, the 10k y.o. apparently Neanderthal like girl they found in Portugal, the identification of previously supposed Cro-Magnon sites as Neanderthal.

Timmy has in a nuanced manner pointed out that there was some copying of artifacts and some changes in Neanderthal culture. They are for the most part exceptions. Compared to Cro-Magnon they learned very little and they changed very little. However, the point I was trying to make is that Neanderthals did this very little compared to Cro-Magnon. 

Agreed. All serious scientific data and theory we have today shows that Aborigines are fully equal Homo Sapiens. You just dismiss that by saying that the differences haven't yet emerged. You can't do that.

I'll admit that the Aborigine example sort of opens you to an accusation of racism by disagreeing with me, but then again, that is probably why I used it 

[jimmy olsen]

Timmy has in a nuanced manner 

I don't think this has been ever said on Languish before!

On a serious note, I think you're undervaluing the advances of the Châtelperronian culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%A2telperronian

[Viking]

Timmy has in a nuanced manner 

I don't think this has been ever said on Languish before!

On a serious note, I think you're undervaluing the advances of the Châtelperronian culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%A2telperronian

Quite possibly, confirmation bias and anthropocentrism and all that. That and how the culture was the last gasp of Neanderthals in France and the argument that the new type artifacts have Cro-Magnon influence makes it easier to dismiss, for those who want to dismiss it.

[Pat]

You are more hung up on the mental capabilities, I was interested in everything else. And at the end of the day, aboriginal groups die younger and have more social problems. I'd never say that is because they are genetically different--there are clearly a lot of cultural factors at work--but they aren't proof that differences haven't emerged.

I would say genetic differences do account for some aboriginal social problems. Take alcoholism for example. Agricultural societies have been drinking alcohol for a very long time. And for quite some time alcoholic drinks were preferred over water due to their anti-bacterial properties meaning it did not spread water-borne diseases (like cholera, for example, but also many others). Economic historians have estimated that a third of medieval European grain yields went to the production of beer, if I recall correctly. Now, not being able of handling alcohol can be devastating in modern society - and it was even worse when competition was fiercer and there were no social security nets. It is quite probable agricultural societies with a tradition of alcohol-drinking have evolved towards tolerance of alcohol. A tolerance lacked by peoples with no tradition of drinking alcohol. Australian aboriginals are known for their alcoholism, and so are arctic inuits on the other side of the world. I remember when Cathy Freeman lit the olympic flame at Sydney. She said it was a great day for her - especially since her brother had actually kept himself sober for once.

[Barrister]

Hey Pat, the fact that aboriginal societies on opposite sides of the world with absolutely no genetic ties for tens of thousands of years, and yet share very similar social histories, and both have alcohol issues would tend to suggest that alcoholism is NOT genetic, but cultural.

There's absolutely no evidence that alcoholism in aboriginal groups has any genetic source.

[Pat]

Only peoples with a history of drinking alcohol would be able to develop tolerance for alcohol, obviously. Which is to say all peoples without such a history have similar evolutionary histories in that they have not been drinking alcohol and have not had a chance of developing such a tolerance. There are many more examples of this phenomenon. There might not be any hard evidence for it, presently, but I still think that's the way it is. It'd make a lot of sense.

[jimmy olsen]

Hey Pat, the fact that aboriginal societies on opposite sides of the world with absolutely no genetic ties for tens of thousands of years, and yet share very similar social histories, and both have alcohol issues would tend to suggest that alcoholism is NOT genetic, but cultural.

There's absolutely no evidence that alcoholism in aboriginal groups has any genetic source.

Totally disagree. A population only adapts to handle a poison if they're exposed to it. Since neither the Inuit nor the Aborigines were exposed to alcohol until the Europeans arrived their lack of tolerance is to be expected. They both represent the base line human genome in that regard. 

[Queequeg]

What would be interesting is a clone of a person from 10-15,000 years ago. Would the person behaviorally be able to cope with civilization, or have we silently evolved since the agricultural revolution to cope with societies more complex than hunter gatherers?

Some difficulty with digesting milk and wheat products, possibly some difficulty reading,  but I'm willing to bet that people from the period are as or more intelligent than the average human being; selection would be less about surviving diseases than intelligence and physical attributes. 

[Queequeg]

Only peoples with a history of drinking alcohol would be able to develop tolerance for alcohol, obviously.

Asians have been drinking forever, and they still get red-faced and pass out very, very quickly.  I call BS.

You are more hung up on the mental capabilities, I was interested in everything else. And at the end of the day, aboriginal groups die younger and have more social problems. I'd never say that is because they are genetically different--there are clearly a lot of cultural factors at work--but they aren't proof that differences haven't emerged.

How much of immunity to disease is genetic and how much of it is in utero and childhood development?