Neanderthal Genome to be Sequenced

Aneurysm writes "A project launched by the Max-Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology will sequence the genome of Neanderthal man. The sequencing project may find out important information, such as whether they cross-bred with modern humans. Previous DNA tests have tested this theory, and found it unlikely. Could this be the start of a Pleistocene park?"

Comments

According to my girlfriend...

[esobofh]

I could have easily supplied the necessary sample for testing...

Re:According to my girlfriend...

[Anonymous Coward]

You should promptly club her over the head for suggesting such a thing!

Re:According to my girlfriend...

[Anonymous Coward]

Me too

Apparently, we are the cleaner and ,more advanced people.

Sadly, I am drunk...more later

Re:According to my girlfriend...

[Anonymous Coward]

Girlfriend? Sorry to tell you this, but you're in the wrong forum.

Re:According to my girlfriend...

[Anonymous Coward]

ow my head hurts. you used a long word girlfriend i'm sorry i don't know what this 'girlfriend' means.
define in easy words please.

Re:According to my girlfriend...

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here. I have to admit, it does get a tad annoying at times how male instincts always seem to come down to how unevolved we are, while female instincts are attributed to reality. Men like to kill things in video games because we're animals chained to our instincts, women love shopping only because the end results creates a beautiful enriching of both our lives.

Re:According to my girlfriend...

[ralfg33k]

But when you drag her back to your cave, be sure to drag her by the hair, not by her feet. If you drag her by her feet, her loincloth will fill up with dirt and rocks and stuff -- very uncomfortable business. (And yes, I was trying to not be too graphic.)

Re:According to my girlfriend...

[Thomas Miconi]

But then how will he be able to drag her by the hair ?

Thomas-

Re:According to my girlfriend...

[Anonymous Coward]

> If you drag her by her feet, her loincloth will fill up with dirt and rocks and stuff -- very uncomfortable business. (And yes, I was trying to not be too graphic.)

You're such a fucking pussy. Here is the English translation:

If you drag her by her feet, her cunt and asshole will fill up with dirt and rocks and stuff, which will scratch your cock and/or tongue and/or finger and/or fist and/or medium-size vegetable and/or toilet plunger and/or baseball bat and/or hamster the next time you fuck her.

Re:According to my girlfriend...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're such a fucking pussy. Here is the English translation:

If you drag her by her feet, her cunt and asshole will fill up with dirt and rocks and stuff, which will scratch your cock and/or tongue and/or finger and/or fist and/or medium-size vegetable and/or toilet plunger and/or baseball bat and/or hamster the next time you fuck her.

Ah, living proof the species didn't die out after all !!

Re:According to my girlfriend...

[cyberchondriac]

That'd make for an interesting Geico commerical !

I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[nizo]

From wikipedia: Also, while they [Neanderthals] had weapons, they were not used as projectile weapons. They had spears in the sense of a long wooden shaft with an arrow head firmly attached to it, but spears were first used as projectiles by Homo sapiens.

Three guesses why they are gone and we aren't? It would be truely ironic if we did indeed clone a Neanderthal and thus bring back a sentient species that most likely was wiped out in large part because of us.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Dunbal]

It would be truely ironic if we did indeed clone a Neanderthal and thus bring back a sentient species that most likely was wiped out in large part because of us.

I guess s/he wouldn't feel much different than any of the other human ethnic groups that were almost wiped out over the years, in almost all parts of the world. Still it will be interesting to find out if this humanoid also had fewer genes than your average rice plant...

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[FleaPlus]

To steal someone else's joke, would a cloned Neanderthal be eligible for the NFL draft?

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[ehiris]

What use could they have?

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Anonymous Coward]

That's doubtful. Neanderthals and Europeans co-existed for a maximum of 15,000 years. That's a long time. If they could figure out how to make a spear, they could easily figure out how to throw them if at least in immitation of humans.

Neanderthals were far, far physically stronger, so they would've been quite capible of using them.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[meringuoid]

It would be truely ironic if we did indeed clone a Neanderthal and thus bring back a sentient species that most likely was wiped out in large part because of us.

They're extinct because of us, but probably not because our ancestors murdered them all, in character for H. Sapiens though that would certainly be. At the Skhul cave in Israel there's pretty good evidence for moderns and Neanderthals living alongside each other for thousands of years in the same cave system.

More likely the Neanderthals were just outcompeted for resources by our ancestors, as the ice ages came and went, and gradually went extinct. Not that I'd be surprised if someone found a mass grave of Neanderthals with distinctly modern-looking arrowheads in their skulls... after all, our species does enjoy killing.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[cheesybagel]

That is one theory for the extinction, that homo sapiens killed them. Here is another theory which I think may have some merit:

One of prehistory's big questions is: Why did the Neanderthals become extinct at roughly the same moment that Homo sapiens arrived from Africa? At Sopena we may learn if there were significant differences in behaviors that gave an edge to modern humans. Could it have been diet or the way they processed food?

Yes. We look for remains like bones, charcoals from their fires and tools. From this we can learn how their diet changed over time. It's like we're digging through prehistoric domestic waste. Isotopic analysis of Neanderthal bones shows that they were almost entirely carnivores.

They mostly ate meat. And you need carbohydrates. We're finding that modern humans, coming from Africa, had a diet much more variable than Neanderthals. It's always been thought about the Neanderthal extinction that Homo sapiens appeared in Europe and outcompeted Neanderthals. But it's not so easy. Forty thousand years ago was the last ice age. In that time, many animals became extinct. If Neanderthals survived on mammal meat, and those animals were nowhere to be found, they were in trouble. And then you had modern man coming in from Africa, where there weren't seasons. They were eating seafood and vegetables and grasses, even fat extracted from bones by boiling them. It is possible this gave them an edge. We may find out.

In short, we survived because we had a more varied diet than they had. It may also explain why Neanderthals were taller than we are (they ate more meat), and why people have been getting taller from the XXth century onwards contrary to what was expected (inexpensive meat is more commonly available).

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Rei]

The problem is that almost everything went extinct when we moved on in. Whether we directly hunted them down or just disrupted the ecosystem/carried disease/etc is a good question, but wherever humans went, large fauna died off in huge numbers. Some of Australia's megafauna may be an exception, but it's just that: an exception. Places where humans didn't get to early on had megafauna last longer - for example, Wrangel Island had mammoths holdouts till the time of the Pharaohs.

Neanderthals were taller than we are

No.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[captain_blie]

Consider the moral dilemma that cloning a Neanderthal would bring.

Do they get rights and are they protected?

1. A test bed for medicinal experiments.
2. Are their organs compatible with ours? Could we have them living in pens only to be slaughtered when we need a new heart?
3. How about cross breeding? Is it possible, do the children have rights?
4. Cheap labor force aka slavery? Or would it be more like a beast of burden?

Since we don't respect the Chimpanzee why would we respect a Neanderthal? What if it can learn to talk and recognize itself does it get rights then?

The only species that we humans seem to value is homo sapiens.

I am not a member of PETA, just some thoughts on my mind.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Cylix]

Cheap genetic engineered labor.

They could replace the aging carnies!

I still want my monkey-man....

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[nizo]

Gorillas are quite a bit stronger than we are, but they can't throw a spear like we can. Granted Neanderthals could probably throw one better than a gorilla too, but it is obvious strength isn't everything, or we wouldn't be here. Apparently their bigger brains weren't much help either, so I am still left to wonder why they are gone and we are still here. I keep coming back to our inherent violent nature and I can't help but think that is at least a big part of the reason.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[0racle]

Damn you. I was gonna say that if I wanted to see Neanderthals, I'd go to a football game.

So to answer the question, 'yes.'

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[kurt555gs]

They may have been wiped out by early man, but today they would be usefull.

Can you imagine how much Neanderthal's would be worth to Wal-Mart as employees?

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Anonymous Coward]

only an idiot would blame humanity for being so awesome that we were selected naturally over some retards

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Anonymous Coward]

In short, we survived because we had a more varied diet than they had. It may also explain why Neanderthals were taller than we are (they ate more meat), and why people have been getting taller from the XXth century onwards contrary to what was expected (inexpensive meat is more commonly available).

In the last 50 years or so, Europeans have become on average about 2 cm taller than Americans. I'd guess (though I'm not sure) that Americans eat more meat than Europeans.

People with an agenda to push claim that this shows that Americans have poor nutrition and/or prenatal care. I think it's mostly due to overweight/obesity in Americans decreasing the total number of growing years. High body fat leads to an earlier adolescence, and thus an earlier adulthood. Or so I've heard.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[JWW]

Three guesses why they are gone and we aren't?

Ummm,
1) ready
2) aim
3) fire
?

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[cheesybagel]

My mistake. I meant paleolithic (hunter gatherer) homo sapiens were taller than neolithic (farmer) homo sapiens.

From what I read, the author thinks the cause of extinction of those animals was the ice age, rather than humans getting in.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[BerntB]

would a cloned Neanderthal be eligible for the NFL draft?

Doubt it -- too injury prone ... of the whole other team.

IANAA (I am not an anthropologist), but a chimpanzee that can more or less tear your arm off! But this would be much larger...

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[prgrmr]

Apparently their bigger brains weren't much help either, so I am still left to wonder why they are gone and we are still here. I keep coming back to our inherent violent nature and I can't help but think that is at least a big part of the reason.

It's the rules, man!

Without rules, we all might as well be up in a tree flinging our crap at each other.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[SysSupport]

so I am still left to wonder why they are gone and we are still here.

Because the Monolith landed on our side of the river.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[ImaLamer]

That is one theory for the extinction, that homo sapiens killed them.

I don't know why people think this is so outlandish... I mean we try to exterminate entire populations all of the time.

Not that I buy that theory, but maybe it's more nature and less nurture.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[pthisis]

Places where humans didn't get to early on had megafauna last longer - for example, Wrangel Island had mammoths holdouts till the time of the Pharaohs

The dwarf mammoths on Wrangel Island aren't exactly megafauna--they're smaller than elephants or polar bears.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[shut_up_man]

I believe that A Short History of Nearly Everything stated that Neanderthals actually have larger brains than Homo Sapiens... and they were physically stronger and hardier (able to withstand harsher climates and temperatures). The theory presented for their disappearence was that their larger frames required more food, which meant that in lean times, they died out while we scraped by.

Of course my memory could be crap (or the book could be conjecture too) but it would be amusing to clone Neanderthals and have them supplant us as the dominant lifeform on the planet...

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[evil-osm]

Dude, no thanks, we already have one Ron Perlman.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[MightyMartian]

This seems the most likely explanation. The latest Neandertal remains found, from Gibraltar, indicate a population that had been pushed to the margins, and to such low numbers that they could not be sustained. We can only guess at how well Moderns and Neandertals got along, though my understanding is that, towards the end, there was some innovation in their toolkits, suggesting they may have been very different from us, but still capable of attempting to catch on to the new wave.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[ultranova]

Are you sure this is such a hot idea?

As a member of a minority living near the arctic circle, I find your implication that "hot" equates "good" and that, therefore, it's opposite, "cold", equates "bad", extremely insulting, and demand that you immediately cease and desist from any further usage of such hatefull terms in public discourse. Furthermore, I demand a compensation of $100,000,000,000 (one hundred billion US dollars) for the mental anguish your thermal prejudices have caused me.

Failure to comply will result in retaliatory measures to be carried out by trained polar bears.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[BerntB]

Check out the author William Calvin.

He is a brain researchers that write about (amongs other things) the evolution of human intelligence. (He even wrote a book about Neanderthals.) One of his theses is that throwing might have been a driver for human intelligence.

If I remember correctly...
To hit something you have to send more or less a symphony of nerve signals down the arm without waiting for feedback. Because the exact time of release is shorter than the average time random wait for nerve signals, they even have to go parallell and be averaged in the muscles.

Then there is distance measurements that needs to be done well in the visual system. Etc.

In short, it is a complex problem that needs lots of evolved specialized circuitry.

(I always wondered about fast running animals, here. The way they set their feet down while running should be as complex a problem as throwing? But those that run fast on the planet don't have hands.)

I think I can safely say that Calvin thinks the Neanderthals would have been hard pressed to learn to throw.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[cheesybagel]

Actually it varies by country. In the Netherlands people are taller on average than in the USA.

Ignoring genetic considerations (Asians usually seem to be shorter) height tends to be influenced by diet. As for USA obesitity, I think your problem is not as much the solids as the liquids. People take a lot of calories in soft drinks. Another factor may be that you tend to not use sucrose (i.e. real sugar), but use frutose or dextrose instead. IIRC I read once that people tend to abuse frutose sweets more than sucrose, because it feels less satisfying. So you end up eating more calories instead of less.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Draveed]

Our inherent violent nature? What you think the Neanderthals were a bunch of peaceniks?

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Rei]

Buffalo, and sometimes even deer are in the range of what are called megafauna (an oft-used number is "greater than 100 pounds on average when mature"). Megafauna are "large or relatively large animals, as of a particular region or period, considered as a group". Lions and various other cats, horses, camels, and other similarly sized animals were part of the 76% of "megafauna" (>100 lbs) lost in North America when humans moved in.

The larger the animal, the higher the odds it had of dying, everywhere in the world that we moved to.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[MightyMartian]

There are a lot of questions being raised about megafaunal extinctions in the Americas as well. It may be just as much coincidence as anything else that humans arriving from Asia was also roughly the time when the megafauna die-out occured. One must also remember that the timing of these also has a good deal to do with the end of the last Ice Age, and the changing climate (longer summers, higher sea levels, greater competition) may have had much more to do with it than stone age hunter gatherers.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Anonymous Coward]

Mammoths "recently" on Wrangel Island.. I just wanna say that it really pisses me off when someone says something fascinating that piques my curiosity, and then I somehow end up at wikipedia, and then keep surfing around there until I realize that I have just wasted an hour.

Rei, you ought to be ashamed and punished. Or congratulated and thanked. Or something.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Rei]

The last ice age was comparatively mild to several prior. Furthermore, we don't see these kind of mass extinctions at any point back until you get to the K-T boundary. Why, all of the sudden, in that last ice age, did everything large die out? Why did it die out in each region only when *humans* got there (humans arriving in each new region at different times as the climate changed)? Pure coincidence, every step of the way? There are a lot of additional issues that make the ice age unlikely the sole cause, and at best a contributing factor.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[MightyMartian]

The problem for the megafaunal extinction-human expansion link is that it doesn't seem terribly likely that there were that many humans in the Americas at the time.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Rei]

The time period between human arrival and extinction is hard to quantify exactly, but is likely several thousand years. With few native human-infecting diseases, no human-aware predators, and huge potential unused foodstocks, human populations can explode rapidly (do the math; assume three children make it to maturity for every two adults, on average 20 years apart, for 1000 years, you get the over-the-top figure of 600 million times as many people as arrived. Humans grow to fill the available resources very well :) ).

Even still, the "hunting every last one" concept can be hard for many to swallow. A more commonly accepted notion is that it's a combination of factors; unfavorable climate, heavy hunting, ecosystem distruption (both flora and fauna), introduction of new diseases and parasites, etc.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[pthisis]

The larger the animal, the higher the odds it had of dying, everywhere in the world that we moved to

Definitely. Even in relatively recent history, there's the moa, Haast's eagle, dodo, great auk...

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Joe U]

Too late, they already run management.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[johansalk]

I find this strange. If I'm hungry I'll eat the soil for all I care. In fact, one man in the news lately who was lost or stuck in a cave formation did just that, ate the soil, for a long time, I think more than 40 days, till he was found and rescued. I find it unlikely that the neanderthal man would not have stumbled upon eating vegetables, grasses and fruit. At least he could've seen animals do it and wondered if it's worth a bite.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[The Lynxpro]

"In the last 50 years or so, Europeans have become on average about 2 cm taller than Americans. I'd guess (though I'm not sure) that Americans eat more meat than Europeans."

I don't believe that such averages can be attributed to diet/nutrition/prenatal/obesity. Compare the level of immigration to the United States over the past 50 years from Asian countries versus how many Asians moved to Europe over that same period of time. There's your explanation.

I mean, just look around and see how "white" Americans, African Americans, and Native Americans are all getting taller than the prior generations. I'm of that first category (and partly of the last) and I'm 2 inches taller than my father, who in turn is 2 inches taller than his father, and the mothers have all been around the same height too.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[meringuoid]

I am not an anthropologist, but a chimpanzee that can more or less tear your arm off!

And you're posting to Slashdot? This is bigger news than sequencing Neanderthal DNA: they've taught chimps how to type in plain English!

More seriously: I don't know about NFL, but Neanderthals would probably make terrific rugby players. They might be poorer at kicking and throwing, and perhaps slower, but they'd sure score some tries. God help anyone who's in the opposing team's scrup, too...

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with cloning complex social species such as wooly mammoths and Neanderthals is that a certain culture and social structure is necessary for them to mature properly. This dies out when they do, and since a great deal of the knowledge is not instinctual, the culture can't be regenerated through cloning, especially the cloning of a single individual.

You'd have a mad Neanderthal on your hands.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[nizo]

I have wondered about that too. Then again, if they were pretty much 100% carnivores, I have to wonder how well a lion would fare in the same situation; most likely no matter how hungry they were, they still wouldn't see non-meat as food. Sorta like one of us being stuck in a buffet line where the only thing for dinner is a wide variety of lichens :-)

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[cens0r]

We don't have to hunt everyone. If the large animal only has offspring once every 2-3 years, takes 10 years to become sexually mature, and has a litter of one; you don't have to kill too many until you put a large dent in their reproductive rate.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[sam_handelman]

I don't find that at all convincing.

The larger an animal, the more likely we are to *NOTICE* that it went extinct anywhere humans went. Something similar could be happening to various species of salamanders.

Now, suppose that it is true.

Very few (no?) large animals survived the extinction that wiped out the large dinosaurs. Does this demonstrate that humans ate them?

Even if is true that many large animals died off around 10K BC, this is still perfectly consistent with the ice age, and not humans, killing them off.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[nizo]

I agree that the culture would be gone, but we could still learn quite a bit from a living individual. For example, we could see if how well they can learn to throw a spear (see earlier discussions), how dextrious they are, dietary needs, etc. I think it could be raised as a human without to much mental anguish (at least until it becaomes a teenager anyway :-) )

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[fimbulvetr]

I was going to post a moderately long and well formed post about how stupid it is to black-and-white label people as either Democrat or Republican, but then I thought about how stupid someone has to be to make a statement like yours, and I realized it wouldn't do any good.

If you find some insight in this post, I recommend considering reading or listening to America: A citizens guide to democracy inaction, or any of the countless other guides on "How to form your own opinion instead of listening to the mindless drivel of the masses."
If you don't, I suggest going back to your CNN/MSNBC/FOX news, and wasting your life on this regurgitated vomit the media is feeding you.

HAND

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[lheal]

>after all, our species does enjoy killing.

We also like keeping slaves around. I wouldn't be surprised if Neanderthals were kept around for heavy labor.

And to prove that I have the sickest mind around, I bet the females were pretty easy to milk.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm,
1) ready
2) aim
3) fire
?
5) PROFIT!!
I think I may got this wrong...

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Rei]

the more likely we are to *NOTICE* that it went extinct

We notice animals that survive, too. Smaller animals have higher survival rates, plain and simple.

Very few (no?) large animals survived the extinction

The K-T extinction had only a slightly higher megafauna extinction rate than that wrought during human expansion. The extinction during the last ice age was the largest, among megafauna, in the past 65 million years. The K-T extinction was a lot worse on small animals than the Pliestocene extinction, although it still focused on megafauna.

Even if it is true that many large animals died off around 10K BC

You better believe it; it's about as close to a scientific consensus as you can get.

This is still perfectly consistant with the ice age

That it is not. As mentioned previously:

1) Far worse ice ages have occurred in the past, without anything at all like what we saw at the end of the Pliestocene. This extinction was the worst since the K-T extinction 65 million years prior - a huge amount of time (and ice ages!).

2) The extinction timings varied around the world, and were not timed to regional ice age variations; the only correlating factor was the arrival of humans.

3) There is one place in the world that was strangely unaffected by megafauna extinctions: Africa. The place where humans and the native animals coevolved.

About the only serious evidence-based argument against the "humans did it" line of argument is that there's a paucity of fossil evidence of sudden dieoffs. Yet, it's pretty clear to most that this is a rather weak argument.

For one, you're looking for a single stratum that in most places would last only a decade; you can expect that stratum to not exist in the vast majority of the world. Secondly, it is almost impoissible to find the remains of the thousands of modern elephants killed by poachers and in herd culls in Africa. The simple fact is that fossilization is a very rare event, and the only reason that we have so many fossils total is because they accumulate over geological time periods. The fossil evidence shows what you would expect to find: in each place, the animals abruptly dissapear from the fossil record at almost the same time that humans arrive, irregardless of climate or other such factors in the particular region.

We've even watched this happen in modern times; read up about the Moa of New Zealand, for starters. New Zealand, if I recall correctly, has about the land area of New Mexico, and is incredibly rugged terrain; hardly an "easy" place to cause an extinction. Yet, the Maori did it with extreme skill. The only large quantities of butchered Moa fossils are in relatively small Maori campsites. Odds are miniscule that these campsites would preserve over geological time, let alone preserve and be rediscovered.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[WolfWithoutAClause]

I wouldn't like to bet that going head-head up against a tribe of taller, more muscular meat eaters that eat game they catch themselves would end in a good way. You're quite likely to find yourself getting hunted and eaten, or atleast dead, even if you do have better weapons.

It may very well be that humans kept out of their way as much as possible; kinda like the way Cheetahs and Lions do. We'd be like the smaller and more delicate Cheetahs.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[lawpoop]

"Even still, the "hunting every last one" concept can be hard for many to swallow."

I think if you look at how modern humans treat each other, which numerous extermination attempts between ethnic groups, I don't think it's too hard to imagine a group of homo sapiens hunting down all Neanderthals, and being relatively successful if they have greater intelligence and/or weaponry.

We have seen genocide all throughout the Bible, mass extermination in early American History, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and Pol Pot's Cambodia. Humans seem to have this built-in response to de-humanize another ethnic group, comparing them to animals, in order to go to war against them. They pin outrageous crimes on them, and then convince themselves that if anybody from the other group lives, there will always be a threat to the group. In the case of Neanderthals, they technically *were* animals, and Homo Sapiens probably had no problem justifying eating them, or exterminating them wholesale.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Anonymous Coward]

i believe that fast running animals create the motion through central pattern generation (CPG). motor centers send out periodic signals to the appropriate muscles and movement is created without a lot of brain computation. small adjustments to the motion (dealing with uneven surface or the like) are reflexes that also don't travel to the brain or at least not past the brain stem. this is how all animals can move without devoting 99% of their brain to figuring out where to place their foot. i'm not entirely sure on all this, but i believe thats the general idea.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's generally believed that Neanderthals were far smarter than chimps, and perhaps not far off of modern humans. There would likely be a great deal of overlap in intelligence between the species, with the smarter Neanderthals being smarter than quite a few modern humans.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider how much homo sapiens sapiens hate other homo sapiens sapiens with only climate specific superficial differences in pigmentation. Now imagine how much we would hate an entirely different species of human that probably couldn't even speak.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[MillionthMonkey]

Sounds like a bunch of cloned democrats to me.
Well, that's one way for Democrats to win elections... start "cloning" people who will vote for them. They should be able to get console of at least one part of the govt in about 30years from now.

Once I get a "console of at least one part of the government", I'll have total control over the system and can have you arrested from the command line.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[mikael]

(I always wondered about fast running animals, here. The way they set their feet down while running should be as complex a problem as throwing? But those that run fast on the planet don't have hands.)


Running gaits in animals are pre-programmed sequences - they have to be, as many of the new-born animals have to be able to stand up within hours of birth.

Given all the possible combinations of limb movements that are possible, only a few match the requirements of maintaining centre of gravity and not having front and back legs hitting each other, or creating bone-jarring shocks.

From various horse breeding sites:

Contrary to popular belief; trotting horses do not "teach" gaited horses to trot. Nor do gaited horses teach trotting horses to gait. Horses inherit the gait they perform best, from one of their parents, or a combination of both and can be taught something different only under saddle.


Basic Gaits

Lateral Gaits

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[ozmanjusri]

a chimpanzee that can more or less tear your arm off! But this would be much larger...

I can see it now...

You call that a trunk monkey? Now THIS is a trunk monkey.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[clovis]

I'ts obvious to me the reason for the project is to identify any possible Neaderthal descendants, so they can finish the job.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[ozmanjusri]

And to prove that I have the sickest mind around, I bet the females were pretty easy to milk.

I might have agreed with this if you'd suggested milking males. I notice cheese wasn't mentioned either.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[thisissilly]

Neanderthals...technically *were* animals

Only in the same way Homo Sapiens are also animals. And did you know that Neaderthals had 7-8% more brain capacity than Homo Sapiens?

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Anonymous Coward]

.. american

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[gg3po]

I foresee some corrupt corporation, government, or other power-mad organization creating the slave-race they've always dreamed of -- one that will be too ignorant to rise up and seek freedom and will instead fall down and worship them as gods. Of course they'd probably have to first kill off the existing homo-sapien "peons" that could object to this -- but we've already solved that problem. Only the "god-class" humans -- a rich and powerful elite that would monopolize technology -- could be allowed to exist in this scenario... hmmmm.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I may got this wrong...

I doubt it. It looks a lot like Bush's foreign policy.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[traveyes]

They're extinct because of us, but probably not because our ancestors murdered them all, in character for H. Sapiens though that would certainly be.... after all, our species does enjoy killing.

Lemme guess: You want them revived so we can provide them reparations? Go eat more garden-burgers.

.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Anonymous Coward]

What use do you have?

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[modecx]

Having the ability of saying "Neener Neener Neener I told you so!" to adherent biblical creationists? That alone has to be worth what, a few billion or so?

Maybe (s)he could romp around and create another cinema masterpeice with Pauly Shore--or become a Senator?!

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[lawpoop]

Yeah, that's a good point. I was jumping perspectives.

I would say that for most human groups throughout history, they consider themselves human, other Homo Sapiens *mostly* human, and of course, the rest are animals.

If you look at ethnographies of small tribal groups, usually their term for their own ethnicity is translated as "the people" or "human beings", their terms for their own language means "human speech", etc. 'Other' people (from an inside-the-group perspective) are not people like we are, and are legitimate targest for raids or sometimes even cannibalism. Of course, there is often contact for trading and marriage, so other groups are always a threat and an opportunity.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[cashman73]

Not that I want to start a flame war or anything, but do you think if they actually cloned a neanderthal that it would finally shut up the darned Religious Right about their creationism and so-called Intelligent Design crap?!?! I mean, come on, if we showed them the DAMNED MISSING LINK, what more proof of evolution do you want?!?! Heck, thinking of it, have they asked George W. Bush for a DNA sample yet? Seeing as how he's more closely related to chimps and neanderthals than the rest of us, his DNA would come in quite handy in filling in some of the missing DNA sequences.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[ryusen]

As a member of the People for the Ethical Treament of Animals, i find it deplorable and sickening that you would use these great and noble animals to fight your battles for you. I demand that you compensate our organization $100,000,000,000 US; none of which will actually got to the bears themselves, but help further our causes, such as running almost naked through Spain with bull horns taped to our heads.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[OldManAndTheC]

Humans seem to have this built-in response to de-humanize another ethnic group, comparing them to animals, in order to go to war against them.

There is a good, albeit unpalatable, explanation for the genocide of other ethnic groups: genetic self interest. IIRC Dawkins makes a good case for this in The Selfish Gene.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Dunbal]

AS a member of SCO, I hereby inform you that we own the patent on "running around naked with horns on our heads". Since you are clearly infringing on our patent we demand $100,000,000,000 US for compensation.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[(negative video)]

And did you know that Neaderthals had 7-8% more brain capacity than Homo Sapiens?

Yeah, but it was all in Broca's area. What were they going to do, rhyme us to extinction?

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[ralfg33k]

grep -i "idiot" electorate > gulag

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[jericho4.0]

A bigger brain might not be an advantage when put up against a species with a smaller brain and physique, much less caloric requirements, and resulting higher population densities. Especially considering the end of the Ice Age meant that life was getting less demanding.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[linzeal]

Hell, I would kill a human child for a new heart because I'm an ammoral monster who wants to live forever.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[ockegheim]

I think if you look at how modern humans treat each other, which numerous extermination attempts between ethnic groups, I don't think it's too hard to imagine a group of homo sapiens hunting down all Neanderthals, and being relatively successful if they have greater intelligence and/or weaponry.

I suspect that a biblical or modern genocide would require organisation beyond the means of hunter-gatherers who went around in groups of no larger than a few families, however much they disliked the Neanderthals. On the other hand, competing for resources and making Neanderthals' staple foods extinct (even inadvertently) was well within their means.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[damsa]

I would get one and teach it vocabulary like, Dude, da Weasel, and check out the fresh nugs, weasin' the juice...

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[bVork]

As a representative of Satan & Co., I hereby inform you that we have held a patent on "running around naked with horns on our heads" for over 6000 years. We also have a patent on "doing evil for evil's sake" and demand $666,000,000,000 USD in compensation of your current infringement upon both of these.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Alsee]

I mean, just look around and see how "white" Americans, African Americans, and Native Americans are all getting taller than the prior generations. I'm of that first category (and partly of the last) and I'm 2 inches taller than my father, who in turn is 2 inches taller than his father

Well there you go, proof of young earth creationism! 6,000 years ago Adam and Eve were 2 inches tall.

-

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[chanio]

I don't think that there was a real battle against Neanderthals. I believe that our own and private daily insight of our living is allways telling us the complete history of humanity.

If there was a battle, it should have been the ethernal one of human against nature.- Nature is that practical way of facing every day living, without thinking of the future or of any other nonsense (superficially).-

Then, evolution might have only relied in trusting our groups idea of what was required for a living. I refer as group to the number of people where we could share our time and organize work to have some spare time to practice throwing and aiming (for example).-

As the way of living might have been heavily conditioned by the environment. It might have been a big change if some people had lived near or in the sea. But who knows if having a pleasant and secure environment might have not doomed those groups of humans...

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Alsee]

I'll tell you what, I'll send you $100,000,000 of your local dollars. Excuse me while I go scrounge enough change from my couch to cover your payment and to cover the stamp to mail it to you.

-

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Stankatz]

Do you realize that your post was self-contradictory? First, you say that the reason that Europeans are taller on average is the different demographics. I agree with this. Then you say that each generation is getting taller than the last. The evidence you give is purely anecdotal, and this point has nothing to do with your previous argument.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[cahiha]

It would be quite different. Different ethnic groups and "races" are biologically almost identical to each other. But Neanderthal seems to be a different species. Having another intelligent species on the planet (again) would be a huge change for us.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[cahiha]

5ft tall with short legs? I kind of doubt it would work too well...

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[bmo]

Reposted from SCOX Yahoo! board, for entertainment purposes only. Do Not Eat. Do not fold, spindle or mutilate. Contents may have settled in shipping. No user servicable parts inside. Contains phenylalanine.

----

MR MEKREY CRUSHD YUOR SPLASDOT!!!
by: esker_melchior
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 07/06/05 07:46 pm
Msg: 279237 of 279295

EVIL SPLASDOT teh EVIL FLAG SHIPE of yuor LIE-NUX it is TOTELY DEFETED!!!! MERKIEY prove there ALL TERIST and SHUT THEM DOWN FOR EVER!!!!!! CMRD TACO to SENT ABU GRAB!!! COW BOY NED deproted back to FRENCHIE LAND!!!

NOW all yuo LIE-NUX FREAKOS gona haf to go otsides and get REAL JOB not play with NERDLEY COMPUTAR!!!! STOPID FREAKOS!!! ALL YUO CANT even get in FRATNERETY in COLEGE thats PATHIC!!! TO BUSEY makin stupid progaram THINGES!!! YUOL never get to be WELTHY EXEUTIVE like ESKER and MACBRID if yuor not in FRETNERNTY thats wher you make ALL LIFE BUSNES CONECTONS!!!! YUO = TOTAL REJECTOS!!!! ESKER feeleing so SAD for all YUO!!! HAR!!! HAR!!!

HORAY FOR MEKRKY and SCOX!!!! ITS anothar BUTEFUL DAY FOR SCOX LONGS!!!! STOCK to ALL MOON TOMOROW!!! SCOX TECNICLES look FATNASTIC!!!WAITS AND SEE ITS ALL TRUETH!!!

IT IS JSUT for te STARTERS TOOO!!!! ONE BUY ONE all LIE-NUX site on INTER-WEB gona get CRUSHIED by teh MEIRKEY and all rest of TOAD FORCE 2000!!!!! WE ARE INVITSNIBLE YUO canot STOP OUR POWARFUL FORCIES for SCOX AND JESUS!!!

-----

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[rhuntley12]

Interesting, would have never thought of it like that. It seems to make some sense.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[CmdrGravy]

I'm not sure but I think that for creatures adapted to an ice age the end of it may well have proved more demanding as they would then have to try and adapt to a new or changing environment.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[kars]

From that wikipedia link: "Compared to modern humans, Neanderthals were larger in size".

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Anonymous Coward]

This is purely speculative, but I think you'd find that the vast majority of people will consider something basically human if it can communicate and perform creative functions in a sophisticated way. Then again, maybe I'm just an idealist.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[dajak]

They're extinct because of us, but probably not because our ancestors murdered them all, in character for H. Sapiens though that would certainly be. At the Skhul cave in Israel there's pretty good evidence for moderns and Neanderthals living alongside each other for thousands of years in the same cave system.

It proves very little. We lived 'alongside' wolves and bears for millenia too, but in the end we did kill all of them. Surely there was just alternating habitation of the cave by moderns and Neanderthals, which only suggests that it took the moderns a lot of time to push out the Neanderthals in that area. Modern-Neanderthal wars would have been very small and local affairs; The evidence may just suggest that the difference in military skills was not that huge.

The area around the cave may simply have been too marginal to support a self-sustaining population, regardless of species, large enough to defend itself against bands of invaders. Therefore ownership changes easily and often.

We see similar patterns in linguistic displacement; Sometimes languages are replaced in a few decades in a large area (think of the expansion of the Roman Empire), but in many cases linguistic borders move only a few dozen kilometers after a millenium of intermittent war. The Germanic-Romance language border moved only slightly in two millenia, even though there have been lots of wars and small scale ethnic displacements along that border. History also shows us that marginal areas like mountain ranges were very effective borders when armies, and colonists, carry their food supply with them.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[maxpublic]

and being relatively successful if they have greater intelligence and/or weaponry.

There isn't any evidence of either. If anything, it appears that Neanderthals might have been somewhat more intelligent than we are.

But you don't need intelligence or better weapons to kill off a competitor who is, individually, your superior. All you need is numbers. And humans definitely had numbers over Neanderthals, primarily because humans were gatherers and Neanderthals were hunters. A square mile of territory will support *a lot* more plant eaters than meat eaters.

Max

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[maxpublic]

They didn't. It's a myth that Neanderthal ate meat and meat only. In reality about 90% of their diet was meat.

This wasn't due to a lack of technology or knowledge. It's clear they knew which plants were good eatin' and which weren't. But like modern bodybuilders and weightlifters Neanderthal had to eat a lot of meat to maintain their mass. And unlike modern bodybuilders and weightlighters they couldn't opt to eat less meat and slough off all the muscle; it came with the package and they either had to maintain it or die.

Neanderthals had a diet of 90% meat/10% plant matter because their own physiology REQUIRED this if they didn't want to starve to death. This presents huge problems if the ecology you're adapted to living in begins to shrink and your smaller, stupider, but more omnivorous (and far more numerous) relatives start moving into the neighborhood.

Max

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[xSauronx]

not likely, do you think with all the crap going on with stem cell research that someone would be *allowed* to start-up another species? and do you think theyd get far enough with it that the species would last long enough for anyone to really notice?

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Thomas Miconi]

I am still left to wonder why they are gone and we are still here. I keep coming back to our inherent violent nature and I can't help but think that is at least a big part of the reason.

Bigger brain != intelligence or sensitivity. In particular, it seems that Neanderthal left no artistic legacy. Compare with sapiens sapiens' `cathedrals' such as Lascaux, Altamira, Chauvet, etc.

Which does not mean that they were dumb brutes. They had some spirituality and buried their dead with symbolic rituals (apparently involving some cannibalism and necrophagism). Also, it is possible that they did have artistic abilities, if the `Neanderthal flute' is really a flute and is really Neanderthal.

The most probable reason why we're still here and they aren't is that we were simply more clever than them. Our tools were more refined and made of more diverse materials. Our art and spirituality (burial rites and probably hunting-related 'chamanism') were more elaborate. While Neanderthal was probably more advanced than once thought, it still seems that they were no match for our own ancestors.

So overall we really are the most clever creatures ever to roam the Earth. Notwithstanding the occasional fluctuations, of course...

Thomas-

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[databyss]

Except that Neanderthals were much shorter than modern humans.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Hal_Porter]

Yeah, but their brain _architecture_ seems to be inferior in the sense that their culture was simpler than that of homo sapiens living at the same time. E.g. look at the burials they practiced, or the art they produced.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. From an article featuring prominent anthropometric historian John Komlos:

"The obvious answer would seem to be immigration. The more Mexicans and Chinese there are in the United States, the shorter the American population becomes. But the height statistics that Komlos cites include only native-born Americans who speak English at home, and he is careful to screen out people of Asian and Hispanic descent. In any case, according to Richard Steckel, who has also analyzed American heights, the United States takes in too few immigrants to account for the disparity with Northern Europe."

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Anomylous Howard]

Funny. There is no reason to believe that the soft tissue inside their large skulls was arranged the same way as ours. They had occipital(sp?) buns -- a bulge at the back of the head. That may have been their to help balance their head on their neck. Surely our/their nice soft brains can slosh around to fit any reasonably shaped container.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Cro Magnon]

I doubt that there was any organized genocide against Neanderthals. More likely, we killed them by beating them to the dinner table. Every buffalo we killed & ate, meant hungry Neanderthals. Of course, we probably killed a few Neanderthals directly as well, but it wasn't much different from the way one animal kills another.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[bleaknik]

Now now. Neanderthals are smarter than that.

*ducks*

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Slak]

I, for one, welcome our Neanderthal overlords!

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[lawpoop]

Actually, the evidence points in favor of neandethals being less intelligent then people. Their tools weren't as complex, varied, or as well-crafted, and their burial rituals were flowers and pigment, with some animal bones. In one instance we seem to have found a flute made by neanderthals.

That's it. Compare that to HS around the same time, which are as complex and varied as any HS stone-tool maker from any time.

Sure, Neanderthals *may* have been more intelligent, but the evidence points *against* it, or at least, doesn't support it.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[lawpoop]

"Of course, we probably killed a few Neanderthals directly as well, but it wasn't much different from the way one animal kills another."

You mean like for food? Chimpanzees and wolves have been observed carrying out extermination campaigns. I think it's unlikely that we hunted neaderthals for food, but more likely that we saw them and their offspring as a threat, and murdered every last one of them.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[The Lynxpro]

"Do you realize that your post was self-contradictory? First, you say that the reason that Europeans are taller on average is the different demographics. I agree with this. Then you say that each generation is getting taller than the last. The evidence you give is purely anecdotal, and this point has nothing to do with your previous argument."

It may be anecdotal, but for me, it is still the truth of the matter. Adopting the "American" diet tends to increase the height in successive generations. That is also true for the first (and following) born generation of Asian immigrants to the United States as well. However, they are starting off at a shorter height than native born "whites", African Americans, and Native Americans already, thus the "average" American height is remaining at 5'10" (or less now) which has been consistent since at least 1950 even though the previously mentioned groups are still *growing* taller with each new generation.

Does that explain the point I was trying to make a little bit better?

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Cro Magnon]

No, not for food. But if a lion catches a leopard trying to steal his lunch, he'll kill it. We probably killed any Neanderthal we encountered for the same reason, but I doubt that we purposely sought them out to kill them. We weren't that "civilized" yet.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[The Lynxpro]

"Wrong. From an article featuring prominent anthropometric historian John Komlos:"

Interesting article, but I doubt the accuracy of his results. According to his theories, urban African American males should be shrinking, and I seriously doubt that is the case. I'd even speculate that urban African American males on average are taller than "white" American males, urban or rural. Of course, maybe this is only accurate here on the "West Coast."

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[pthisis]

We've even watched this happen in modern times; read up about the Moa of New Zealand, for starters

Also note that the Moa (and Harpagorn eagle) are special cases, though. New Zealand had no mammals other than a few kinds of bats, so all these big crazy birds evolved that were horrible competitors when other creatures arrived. The kakapo was practically driven extinct by cats in a matter of weeks.

The dodo was in a similar situation: so ill-adapted to compete that it was pretty much doomed as soon as anything else reached its habitat.

So yeah, man killed the moa (and therefore the harpagorn), but I'm not convinced it wasn't doomed as soon as _any_ predator showed up. Though the harpagorn could've survived if whatever ate the moa was tasty enough...

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, we zerged them.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[lotus_out_law]

Don't forget the way early (??) humans behaved on difficult terrain .. Slash (.??) and burn ... smaller animals could survive better than megafauna. kR/\/

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[some guy I know]

I am still left to wonder why they are gone and we are still here.

Possible reasons:

1. A war with our ancestors triggered by offensive Geico commercials.
2. Starbucks coffee acted like birth-control pills to Neanderthals, but they didn't find out about it until it was too late
3. They realized that the Vogons would eventually destroy Earth to make way for an interstellar bypass; they just left ahead of time, rather than at the last minute, like the dolphins.
4. They destroyed themselves in an internicine war over which was better: vi or emacs.
5. They stopped breeding when all of the males spent all of their time downloading Internet porn instead of having actual relationships with females.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[chainsaw1]

"Would you just like to see a Super Sapien, or should I take it up to the next level!"

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[lawpoop]

No, a lion will chase off a leopard trying to steal his lunch, and the leopard will run off. Niether party wants to fight. Fighting another predator is an extremely risky and dangerous undertaking; even if you can easily beat the other party, there is a strong chance that they will injure you. Remember, animals don't have hospitals and can't rely on others, even of their own kind, to take care of them. A small injury can be a death sentence, if the animal is unable to take care of itself.

Humans, on another level, organize hunting parties with sneak hit-and-run attacks, and can launch relatively riskless attacks with weapons such as clubs, spears, and arrows, compared to fighting with teeth or claws.

If Neanderthals repeatedly steal lunches or otherwise become a nuisance, I don't think it would take much for a human to stand up in front of the group and say "These neanderthals are a problem. As long as they are around, they will pose a threat to us. We need to take care of the problem once and for all! Who is with me? If you're not with me, you're with them, and you're a big pussy, too. "

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[maxpublic]

Sure, Neanderthals *may* have been more intelligent, but the evidence points *against* it, or at least, doesn't support it.

The fossil evidence is pretty clear: Neanderthals had bigger brains than homo sapiens. In the human line, bigger almost always means smarter where brains are concerned.

As for the 'evidence' presented from digs, the proponents generally tend to gloss over several key influencing factors. Here's a few:

a) Neanderthal tribes were much smaller than human ones. This was a necessity imposed by the requirement that they gather most of their food in the form of meat. Larger human tribes could afford to have individuals specialize in non-survival activities; Neanderthals could not. Simple economics, although the apologists don't seem to be able to grasp this one.

b) Hunting is much more energy and time intensive than gathering. Neanderthals collected 90% of their calories through hunting, while humans only collected 10% of their calories this way. Humans, on the whole, spent a great deal less time collecting food. That means more free time for other non-essential activities like making pretty beads. Again, pretty obvious when you think about it.

c) Neanderthal tools were no less effective than human tools for their environment and the way they collected food. Some have tried to make this claim, but there isn't a single shred of evidence that proves that this is the case. Neanderthals didn't change their tools because they didn't NEED to change their tools - unlike migratory homo sapiens. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". And they didn't have a whole lot of time to innovate anyway (see b above).

d) There are only two decent Neanderthal sites excavated to date. Hardly representative. Because Neanderthals lived in much smaller groups their 'footprint' means less chance of finding a representative sample of their living conditions. We don't have anything close to such a sample, so making assumptions based upon those sites is not only unscientific, it's ludicrous.

It seems that the people fervently against the idea of Neanderthals being smarter than homo sapiens (despite the clear fossil evidence of a larger brain) are desperate to believe that homo sapiens have been, are, and always will be the most intelligent thing on Earth. The very thought that this might not be the case seems to be disturbing to them on a personal level. Odd, given that evolution is bound to produce something smarter and better than h. sapiens over time, and that eventually we'll occupy the same place in history as homo erectus: a bright ape, but no genius by any stretch of the imagination.

Max

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[6e7a]

Geico wouldn't have to pay actors to play Neanderthals, they could just use real ones for free!

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[jtgd]

"hot" equates "good" and that, therefore, it's opposite, "cold", equates "bad",

Nah, man, you got it all wrong. The opposite of hot is coooool, and you are one cool dude. So chill out and call off your polar bears, ok?

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, I demand a compensation of $100,000,000,000 (one hundred billion US dollars) for the mental anguish your thermal prejudices have caused me.

Being a member of a society that is able to interpret the amount of zeroes in a number, I find your statement "(one hundred billion US dollars)" placed after the Arabic numeral amount extrememly insulting, and demand that you immediately cease and desist from any further usage of such hateful terms in public discourse. Furthermore, I demand a compensation of $100,000,000,000 for the mental anguish your extraneous explainations have caused me.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[jericho4.0]

That would be true for the Neanderthals, having adapted to the colder northen climes, but H. Sapian was coming out of Africa, and the rest of the world was getting more like Africa was.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[sillybilly]

You know how a horse and a donkey makes a mule, because they are genetically compatible enough? I still can't believe there wasn't co-mixing between neanderthals and homo sapiens. In all the conflict and hate that arises when people of different "kinds" (culture, color, genetics, you name it) encounter each other, there is still sex. Where do you think the word "missionary style" comes from, especially when the catholic church forbade sex?

As a current example to relate to this story, you could say the native americans were almost wiped out by white man, but that's not true. I see a lot of indian faces, who speak perfect english.

On the US reservations they count the indians by bloodline, that they interbred, great grandmother married a frenchman, great-great-great grandmother an englishman, etc, and all in all they are 1/32nd and 1/64th indian anymore. Then they are told that the peace treaty signed by the US Government back in say 1812 that guarantees them sovereignty is void, because they are no longer indians, at least by blood. Moreover they get special casino rights in exchange to fully give up their sovereign rights - and when your stomach is churching hungry, it's a difficult dilemma: money, freedom, money, freedom, what do you choose? I think those people who were not stranded on reservations had a lot more change to live happily, because they were not so carefully monitored and purposefully bred away.
That sad bloodline story is only about US America. When you look at Latin America, the variety of people is just amazingly beautiful. Just think of the Rio Carnival. They say Spanish will sooner or later be a majority language in the US, and they are promoted probably because they are so Catholic, but if you look at these folks, a lot of them look like great indian chiefs. In a sense you could call this justice, in the end. :)

What happened to the Neanderthals is that they probably just happened to get diluted away. It's completely alright if it just happens randomly, as long as people are happy living together, it doesn't matter whose genes survive in the end - one couple having 5 kids, the other only 1, so what? Of course I care more about my 1 kid or my 5 kids than that other family's kids, but I care the other family's kids too, it's not all or nothing, not 1/0, but more like 66/33, or 51/49, or 99/1 - you can't stick numbers on these things. I don't mind if my 1 kid gets married with one of the 5 kids of the other family, and my genes get diluted out and go extinct in the end, so what? I care about my son and daughter to be happy, and when they are married, I care about the son in law and daughter in law to be happy too, and the grandkids to be happy too. And if my great grandchildren are (1/5)^2 ratio other genes vs. my genes, and the great-grandchildren (1/5)^3, so what? If it happens happens, life goes on, humanity goes on, and I'll be completely happy with it. Or does this mean I should have 200 kids, because that's the purpose of life? What about adoptions? Do genes really matter that much? We can understand that raising a child, compassion and all these humans needs exist because that's how survival of the genes was maintained, that's how we are here, but that doesn't make survival of the genes is the purpose of life. For one, what kind of overpopulation problems does such behavior lead to? A lot of smart people didn't have any kids - Newton, Kant, you name it - does this mean they should give up caring about humanity because it's not their genes?
But it's whole other thing when you become consciously aware that someone or some group hates your very being, your very existence, your genes, and manipulates your life purposefully into genetic extinction. That's not fair. Native American's felt that. African Americans felt that too for a while, until it subsided, but there is still the saying "the Man always tryin to keep a brotha down." Even Native Americans are getting their rights back a bit lately, including medals from Bush for having their spoken languag

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[frankenbox]

Um, guess the Homo Sapiens stayed away from all the magic mushrooms and wild weed that the Neanderthals found so tasty. Reading the above, the result of consumption is obvious. And perhaps the true cause of extinction... (;

Ugg.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[sillybilly]

It was customary to hunt buffalo by the thousands 150 years ago, then have your picture taken. Good thing machine guns weren't invented yet. 100 years ago even president Teddy Roosevelt went on an African hunting trip, called a "safari," where he shot a bunch of animals for entertainment. At least native people hunt down an animal to eat it, and even our ancestors that drove large mammals to extinction probably did so to eat them. Nowadays, just 100 year later, we're much more conservation minded. It's interesting to see these swings in human mentality.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[sillybilly]

Maybe there is a recessive Neanderthal gene hiding out somewhere in the populations of Europe. With all this sequencing stuff, simply "knowing" your genetics, or others knowing it, and considering it, how it relates to them, that's a scary thought. There is already legislation in the US against genetic discrimination, but what about "genetic privacy?" The nazi's went around looking for jews based on circumcision - so now everybody gets that. But what if someone can run around, and find out "who you are" based on an DNA sample, and treat you differently? Some indians living in reservations say they may be be interbred by europeans and diluted out to be 1/64th indian anymore, but they feel 100% indian. You are what your conscience tells you you are, who you feel you are, or what you consider your culture. Now there is the prospect that you may not be treated or respected based on your conscience, but based on how you happened to be born. Genetics defines a human being quite a bit, but there is a whole lot more to a human being, including culture, education. Case in point, look at the "forbidden experiment," where a baby lost in the forest or on an uninhabited island, doesn't get the chance to learn language, and when discovered after puberty, it becomes impossible to learn language at all. So much for how much the genes matter by themselves, without culture and education.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[CmdrGravy]

Well yes, that was my point - H Sapien didn't really have to do much adapting because more of the world was being opened up to it whereas Neanderthals faced their habitabts shrinking and would have had to make adaptations.

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[lawpoop]

"The fossil evidence is pretty clear: Neanderthals had bigger brains than homo sapiens. In the human line, bigger almost always means smarter where brains are concerned."

This is definitely untrue. For instance, look at pygmies. They stand about 4-1/2 foot tall, with proportional brain sizes, yet they are as intelligent as any other human being. Brain structure determines intelligence, not size. We have no fossil evidence of the soft tissue structure of the neanderthal brain, so we don't know how complex or specialized it was.

"As for the 'evidence' presented from digs, the proponents generally tend to gloss over several key influencing factors. Here's a few:

a) Neanderthal tribes were much smaller than human ones. This was a necessity imposed by the requirement that they gather most of their food in the form of meat. Larger human tribes could afford to have individuals specialize in non-survival activities; Neanderthals could not. Simple economics, although the apologists don't seem to be able to grasp this one."

Elsewhere you cite the fact that there are only 2 digs of Neanderthal sites. How would you know the above is true based only on two digs?

"b) Hunting is much more energy and time intensive than gathering. Neanderthals collected 90% of their calories through hunting, while humans only collected 10% of their calories this way. Humans, on the whole, spent a great deal less time collecting food. That means more free time for other non-essential activities like making pretty beads. Again, pretty obvious when you think about it."

Again, with only two sites, how would you know this?

"c) Neanderthal tools were no less effective than human tools for their environment and the way they collected food. Some have tried to make this claim, but there isn't a single shred of evidence that proves that this is the case. Neanderthals didn't change their tools because they didn't NEED to change their tools - unlike migratory homo sapiens. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". And they didn't have a whole lot of time to innovate anyway (see b above)."

Please cite a source where anyone tried to use Neanderthal tools to make camp. Anthropologists do these kinds of experiments all the time. I'm sorry, it's apparent to anyone who's ever used a tool that there's *always* a better tool for the job. Maybe Neanderthals had the mental capacity to make better tools, but not the fine motor co-ordination. But I don't buy your argument that Neanderthals had the best tool ever.

"d) There are only two decent Neanderthal sites excavated to date. Hardly representative. Because Neanderthals lived in much smaller groups their 'footprint' means less chance of finding a representative sample of their living conditions. We don't have anything close to such a sample, so making assumptions based upon those sites is not only unscientific, it's ludicrous."

1. You just made two such 'ludicrous' assumptions above, based on only two sites.
2. There are plenty more Neanderthal sites than two. A simple google search turned up this map on the first page of results. From the site: "The map suggests that specialized hunting was practiced at 17-18 Mousterian sites. The record could simply reflect which animals were most numerous or vulnerable in a particular environment, but heavy concentrations on a single animal are likely to be due to some degree of human choice.
This map is a much simplified summary of the available evidence. Not every Mousterian site is shown, but the black dots give some idea of the main centers of settlement in the early Ice Age. For further details, see Gábori 1976. Les Civilisations du Paléolithique Moyen Entre Les Alpes et L'Oural, Akadéamiai Kiadó, Budapest pp. 197-206."

Hm. With one minute of searching one google, I found a source that references 17

Re:I hope they clone a Neanderthal

[sfjohnson]

As a descendent of two different sets of immigrants from two different parts of Europe, my guess is that the short people, farmers and laborers (overworked and undernourished) took any opportunity they could to come to America, leaving the taller, better fed, more financially stable behind.

AMAZING ADVANCES IN SCIENCE

[Anonymous Coward]

July 06, 2005: Project to sequence genome of Neanderthal Man begins.
September 3, 2009: Genome of Neanderthal Man sequenced.
March 21, 2012: Neanderthal Man cloned.
April 4, 2015: Neanderthal Man reaches the point of being able to form, in a grunting, slurred speech, individual english words.
April 5, 2015: Neanderthal Man starts blog

Re:AMAZING ADVANCES IN SCIENCE

[Anonymous Coward]

April 6, 2015: Slashdot posts article on Neanderthal blogs.
April 9, 2015: Slashdot posts article on Neanderthal blogs.

Re:AMAZING ADVANCES IN SCIENCE

[kusanagi374]

Wow, must be a really advanced kind of man, to be able to start his own blog at the age of 3! How did homo sapiens triumph over such a smart race?

Re:AMAZING ADVANCES IN SCIENCE

[ciroknight]

A three year old, less-than-humanistically-intellegent organism learning something as complex as blogging at the age of 3?? He must really be a savant of Neanderthals.

But seriously, given they have a vocal pallet close to ours, they should be capable of human speech, and thus English (or any other spoken language) wouldn't be too hard to learn.

Re:AMAZING ADVANCES IN SCIENCE

[AllahsAvatar]

January 20, 2001: Neanderthal Man became persident of the US

Re:AMAZING ADVANCES IN SCIENCE

[millahtime]

July 06, 2005: Project to sequence genome of Neanderthal Man begins.
September 3, 2009: Genome of Neanderthal Man sequenced.
March 21, 2012: Neanderthal Man cloned.
April 4, 2015: Neanderthal Man reaches the point of being able to form, in a grunting, slurred speech, individual english words. April 5, 2015: Neanderthal Man starts blog

- ????
- Neanderthal Man gets rich

Re:AMAZING ADVANCES IN SCIENCE

[hesiod]

> given they have a vocal pallet close to ours, they should be capable of human speech

Is that all that is necessary, or is it possible there would be a certain part of their brain not developed-enough to permit speech? I don't know jack about neurology...

Re:AMAZING ADVANCES IN SCIENCE

[youknowmewell]

June 10th, 2050, Soviet Russian Neanderthal man clones Homo Sapien.
June 10th, 2051, Homo Sapien declared the other white meat.

Re:AMAZING ADVANCES IN SCIENCE

[sconeu]

April 8, 2030 - Neanderthal Becomes lawyer.

I'm just a poor cloned Neanderthal. Your world confuses and frightens me.

Re:AMAZING ADVANCES IN SCIENCE

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, time line is a bit scewed,
December 12, 2000 Neanderthal Man becomes president
beating out Cave Man by several hundered votes

January 20, 2005 Neanderthal Man inaugerated for second four year term as president. Beating out Leatherfacedboringman

Re:AMAZING ADVANCES IN SCIENCE

[kesuki]

March 21, 2012: Neanderthal Man cloned.

duude you mean I have to wait that long for my array of neanderthal's painting my data on cave walls? Guess I'll have to resort to using chinese, even though thier work isn't nearly as time tested..

Re:AMAZING ADVANCES IN SCIENCE

[Anonymous Coward]

Neanderthal Man became persident of the US

July 06, 2005: Neanderthal Man posts a "funny" to slashdot while moderators politely excuse his spelling

Re:AMAZING ADVANCES IN SCIENCE

[rbarreira]

Maybe it will have more humour than the average Homo Sapiens sapiens...

Re:AMAZING ADVANCES IN SCIENCE

[Anonymous Coward]

April 10, 2015: Slashdot hires Neanderthal to replace Cowboy Neal.

Re:AMAZING ADVANCES IN SCIENCE

[ciroknight]

It really doesn't require that much to permit communication neurologically; Chimpanzees, Apes, and a lot of other animals show forms of non-verbal communication all of the time. In fact, there are chimps and other great apes that communicate with sign language (though I can't remember their names; google it!)

Verbal communication isn't possible because a lot of these animals lack the muscles and nerves to control vocalizations, a soft pallette for the sound production (vocal chords), and most importantly, they lack English.

One would think their minds are more than developed enough, though their use of English may be something like a little kid's. It would still be interesting to hear a cave man's perspective on life, though I doubt it would be much more than "work, live, die".

Re:AMAZING ADVANCES IN SCIENCE

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot Poll
Ugh?

Ugh.
Ugh.
Ugh.
Ugh!
Cowboy Neal.

Re:AMAZING ADVANCES IN SCIENCE

[The Lynxpro]

"July 06, 2005: Project to sequence genome of Neanderthal Man begins.
September 3, 2009: Genome of Neanderthal Man sequenced.
March 21, 2012: Neanderthal Man cloned.
April 4, 2015: Neanderthal Man reaches the point of being able to form, in a grunting, slurred speech, individual english words.
April 5, 2015: Neanderthal Man starts blog"

November 2016: Neanderthal man becomes President of the United States.* Snide Europeans based in France claim this is not the first time this has happened.

*Assuming the Neanderthal clone began as an "adult."

Re:AMAZING ADVANCES IN SCIENCE

[madmancarman]

RIP Phil Hartman. He would be having a field day with this.

Re:AMAZING ADVANCES IN SCIENCE

[Anonymous Coward]

July 06, 2005: Neanderthal Man realizes that Grammar Nazi's don't get karma

Re:AMAZING ADVANCES IN SCIENCE

[Anonymous Coward]

April 10, 2015: ??????
April 11, 2015: Profit!

Re:AMAZING ADVANCES IN SCIENCE

[OldManAndTheC]

persident

Wrote that yourself, did you George? :)

Re:AMAZING ADVANCES IN SCIENCE

[hellanacho]

sometime in 2002: Neanderthal man claims that Iraq has "nukular" weapons, harbors "terrists" and says that the "sitiation" is out of the negotiation stages.

present day: No "nukular" weapons are found.

Re:AMAZING ADVANCES IN SCIENCE

[ockegheim]

That's a low blow. The Neanderthals are extinct and can't even defend themselves from such an affont.

Re:AMAZING ADVANCES IN SCIENCE

[mrjb]

April 9, 2015, @08:13PM: Slashdot posts article on Neanderthal blogs.

Even a caveman can do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gene sequencing is so simple even a caveman can do it.

Re:Even a caveman can do it.

[RollTissue]

That is SO condescending...

Re:Even a caveman can do it.

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

WHAT?! Not cool!

Shouldn't be too hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in those days, they only had two nucleotides. Modern man invented the third in 20000BC and the fourth just appeared out of nowhere in 1573.

Re:Shouldn't be too hard

[Rei]

Back in their day, all they had were AMP and ADP; ATP hadn't been invented yet. In those times, glycolysis took two glucose for every one ADP produced, and they were proud of it! Back then, everything ate up that precious ADP - even the Calvin cycle. Oh, sure, it violated their ability to continue on as lifeforms indefinitely, but it was all they had to work with.

Back then, oxygen didn't end up making it into the bloodstream and then to the cells and mitochondria through diffusion from concentration differentials across membranes; they had to put it in manually. It got tiring after a while, all of the precision injection work, but it gave them exercise - a good muscle builder, it was. And, boy, did they need that muscle tone to hunt, what with only being able to synthesize two of their amino acids on their own.

We've come a long way, my friend. A long way.

Re:Shouldn't be too hard

[Thomas Miconi]

what with only being able to synthesize two of their amino acids on their own

Amino-acids ? What, back in the days all they had was RNA, both for genetic materical and ribozymes catalysts ! Oh, and with only 2 bases cos' those fancy 'U' and 'C' hadn't been invented yet ! Of course that wasn't much of a problem since the total number of chemical reactions in their whole bodies was about 7.

Those were the days when men were men and guns were guns and biochemistry was almost grokable.

Thomas-

Genome?

[Koiu Lpoi]

So, this only gets the 10% of the DNA considered 'useful', right? I read somewhere the rest is actually more important than what we consider. What's the deal?

Re:Genome?

[yippikae]

So, this only gets the 10% of the DNA considered 'useful', right? I read somewhere the rest is actually more important than what we consider. What's the deal?

The rest is important for humans not for neanderthals ;)

Re:Genome?

[Leroy_Brown242]

The fact is that we don't know. :)

Re:Genome?

[Rei]

Our "Junk" DNA is somewhat interesting in that it often contains functionality of our close (and sometimes even distant) relatives that is no longer active. You get neat atavisms when it reactivates.

Re:Genome?

[Nutty_Irishman]

The 10% that we consider useful is also the most useful in terms of comparative genetics. Coding regions tend to have the highest evolutionary selective pressure to not mutate/evolve in a fashion that is completly random or detrimental.

We are beginning to move into the era where non-coding regions are becoming important as well (enhancer, promoter regions, etc.), but they provide more fine tuned differences in the species (transcription factor binding efficiencies, etc.). (I use fine tuned in a very broad sense here, as it is entirely possible that one of these fined tuned process can cause an event where the gene gets entirely turned off permanantly-- as is the case with stem cell differentation)

One thing to consider is that genes are easy to compare and we understand coding regions better than non-coding regions in part because we can actually visualize how the coding DNA is going to work/look like in it's protein representation (translational suppression, etc. aside). We know that an insertion/deletion/mutation causes a change in the coding regions, which causes a change in the codon of the protein, which in turn causes a change in how the protein/folds and henceforth its function. Non-coding regions are difficult, they represent possible binding reactions between thousands of other transciption factors (genes), and there is a large lack of understanding in how the genes effect chromosome structure. We just don't know enough about the non-coding regions to understand how similarities/differences in the non-coding genome are affected in evolution.

The best analogy I can give is it's like comparing two different car. The coding regions would be things that are very tractable for us, the color, the number of doors, the type of car, the engine, etc. The non coding regions would be like trying to understand the wiring/programming behind the engine with knowing very little engineering. Sure, how it's wired and programmed is important, but saying that two red wires seem to be connected in a similar fashion means that they must function similarly often falls short. You don't know where those wires run to , and you don't fully understand how the components that they connect to fit into the big picture of how the engine works.

I wouldn't be suprised if in time these non-coding regions become more important for comparative genomics in the long run, but it will take some time before we get to that point.

Re:Genome?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 'Junk' DNA has many different functions some of which are only just being discovered. Some of the functions that the 'junk' DNA perform are:

Regulator Elements: These exist outside the coding sequence of a gene and will act as binding sites for proteins/RNA. When the protein/RNA binds to these sites the gene can either be up regulated (it produces more protein) or down regulated (it produces less protein)

Transposons: These are sequences of DNA that will move around the genome. Much like a virus they will encode new copies of themselves and move around the genome. Unlike virii they do not kill the cell and the only detrimental effect they can have is when they end up in a coding region.
The transposons also serve a role in creating genetic diversity, when organisms are put under stress the activity of transposons increases and new genetic varients of the organism are made.

RNAi: RNA inteference is a fairly new field of study. It is involved in gene regulation, organism development and plant defence

Re:Genome?

[quarkscat]

I didn't think that complete genetic material would have lasted long enough to properly sequence. Perhaps the geneticists will splice in some frog DNA to make up the missing segments, thus bringing us to the point of science emulating science fiction.

Just because a thing can be done, it does not necessarily follow that that thing should be done.
(Slightly OT:) Such as the amoral decision as allowing GM plants out into the wild, without regard for the risk to the rest of the ecology that modern man depends on.

"Could this be the start of a Pleistocene park?"

[TobyWong]

"Could this be the start of a Pleistocene park?"

Nah my nephew has been working on a pleistocene park for a while now. He's got the swings, sandbox, and slide done (he had the see-saws done too but he accidentally stepped on them). If you want to pitch in he could use some help with the merri-go-round I'm sure.

He was originally using playdough but I caught him eating it one too many times so I switched him over to pleistocene.

back problems

[millahtime]

What if they find it's the same DNA we have and it tuns out they just had some serious back problems?

Re:back problems

[pianoman113]

Then the results will be buried and we'll never hear anything about it again.

Or, better yet, the results will be labeled incorrect and there will be an unending process of resequencing.

How much about evolution are people really willing to question these days?

Re:back problems

[rwven]

unfortunatley none.... I was thinking as i read this that we'll probably never hear anything about it again....

Re:back problems

[millahtime]

with evolution, isn't it that you accept that it's true and we will prove it later.

uh oh, there goes the karma

Re:back problems

[Dunbal]

with evolution, isn't it that you accept that it's true

Oh, yeah, and "gravity" is "just a theory" too. You don't HAVE to believe, but that ain't gonna change it...

Re:back problems

[Valdrax]

What if they find it's the same DNA we have and it tuns out they just had some serious back problems?

It'd be shocking in light of all the other traits that they didn't have in common with us. Did you know that they have a larger cranium than us? Did you also know that they weren't all hunchbacked like the pop culture image or a caveman would suggest?

Re:back problems

[BillyBlaze]

You're one of at least two people asking this as though it would be the end of the world or something. If it turns out that the DNA is equivalent to some species we have now, then we would learn that that skeleton is the same species as some species we have now. Duh. It's not a forgone conclusion that the skeleton is a different species, as one of the questions is, could whatever it is have mated with humans, and thus be the same species? This would teach us a great deal about the events that led to humanity, why our species (or perhaps only race) won out over others, etc. If the results were sufficiently surprising, it would lead to many other attempts to sequence fossilized genomes, and even more information would be gained.

In response to other posters, no the results will not be buried. If the project produces results, it will be in the media. You may have forgotten to check up on it; you may not happen to see the headline - that would be your own fault, so don't let it feed your conspiracy theory about how scientists know they're wrong but won't admit it. If it overturns some widely-held theory, then that theory will be modifed or replaced. Such is science, in contrast to religions like intelligent design.

Re:back problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a bloody thing. Human and chimp DNA is 95% identical, too (more so if you only count single-base substitutions, but that's for geneticists). Throw in (postulated) interbreeding, and I'll be VERY much surprised if it is less similar than that.

Re:back problems

[PakProtector]

Gravity is more than just a theory. We can perform an experiment and prove it. Gravity can be observed. Evolution is different. We have not observed it happening and have not been able to perform an experiment to prove it. Gravity and Evolution are not comparable in the way you suggest.

The hell they aren't. Bacteria evolve in a course of mere days and weeks in petri dishes in labs.

And Gravity is nothing more than a theory: Like everything else, the theory of gravity was designed to explain why something happened.

The theory of evolution was designed to explain why something happened (namely, speciation.)

Please, do some damn research next time before bashing a theory.

Re:back problems

[Anonymous Coward]

We observe evolution happening in our labs all the time, you jackass. Yes, typically only with microorganisms, because they breed a lot faster, but that's no argument: If it happens to microorganisms, it happens to us colonies of cooperating microorganisms.

Re:back problems

[digidave]

A few things:

1. "Just a theory" is a term only used by non-scientists. To scientists a "theory" is much more than a guess. A theory is a proposed explanation based on facts. It is an observed fact that species change over time and the Theory of Evolution attempts to explain why this change happens.

2. The Red Queen Hypothesis has not been observed, but evolution has. We can watch multicellular life evolve before our eyes in petrie dishes in laboratories. Even the fossil record is a good way to observe evolution in action as we have fossiles documenting species' changes one after the other. You can't look at these fossils and say, oh, well these just happen to be two very similar life forms that lived one right after the other and these gap fossils are also just happenstance.

I believe antievolutionists are just trying to force their perception of the facts into their notion of reality, but that's "just a theory".

Re:back problems

[myenigmaself]

Using that logic Gravity is just a theory and you can't really proove anything. I mean, can you touch gravity? You can observe it's effects, but not gravity itself.
Similarly, many of effects and causes for evolution can be readily observed. It's just that recorded history hasn't been around long enough to document the process. The fossil record strongly supports the theory of evolution, and the primary cause, Natural Selection, has been observed in the wild.
Yeah, the case for gravity is stronger, but I would have to say that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. In any respect, evolution isn't a law like gravity is. Evolution is an idea of what could have happened in the past, and what might happen in the future.

Re:back problems

[Rei]

Yeah, we all know that animals never change (new pics), but gravity is perfectly understood.

Re:back problems

[blincoln]

Evolution is different. We have not observed it happening and have not been able to perform an experiment to prove it.

Skinks are a transitional form between lizards and snakes. Some snake species still have visible vestigal legs from their skink-oid ancestors. All three types of species are still alive today.

Please explain this other than evolution.

Re:back problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and to ignoramuses (sorry, just finished lecturing on the subject): there is *evolution*, that is an observed fact (species change, get over it - see Woods Hole worms accidental experiment, for one thing), and there are *theories of evolution* explaining how that change occurs. Incidentally, Darwin's theory (descent with modification + natural selection) is not the only one there; however, the closest runner-up, Lamarckian theory (inheritance of acquired traits) has been discounted for some 150 years now, efforts of Comrade Lysenko notwithstanding.

Re:back problems

[soupdevil]

Many integral parts of evolution have been observed, including heredity and mutations. Farmers, dog breeders, and developers of crop seed all depend on aspects of evolution. The long term effects of evolution cannot be observed by a single individual, but neither can the long term effects of gravity, like, for instance, the formation of a planetary system around a young star.

Re:back problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Doubt it will be in the media. It _will_ be in the special literature, but do you really expect creationists to read something like Gene or J. Molecular Biol., really?

Re:back problems

[hobbesx]

It'd be shocking in light of all the other traits that they didn't have in common with us.

why would it be so shocking when "many of these traits manifest in modern humans"? A large number of these traits come and go based on region. I wouldn't be too surprised if their DNA was very similar- perhaps they are formed after inbreeding of societal outcasts? Say, genetic mutations being shunned off into a separate clan, mate for a few hundred generations... that'd make for some unusual-but-similar DNA (I'd guess, but who knows really. All arguments based on all the research I did while reading your post. :P )

Re:back problems

[ArsonSmith]

You can not prove a theory right. You can gather evidence to support a theory, but you can never prove it right.

You can however prove a theory wrong, and while it happens quite often it is rear that a theory is so wrong as to be thrown out completely. It is usually just altered slightly to reflect the new evidence.

Re:back problems

[LurkerXXX]

I wouldn't be too surprised if their DNA was very similar- perhaps they are formed after inbreeding of societal outcasts?

So what your saying is neanderthals are just folks from West Virginia?

Re:back problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Microevolution or Macroevolution?

You must have known this would be the next question, but I'll pose it anyway: have scientists ever observed evolution on the scale from one species changing into a different species? Or more importantly, have scientists observed an evolutionary change resulting in an increase in information?

Re:back problems

[Xrikcus]

You must be trolling but as you posed it anyway, I shall bite anyway:
Define information and define species (while you're at it define macroevolution... but that comes out of a definition of species really). Every time I've seen the information and speciation arguments the same flaw exists... that the person arguing for it has no meaningful definition for either.

Come to think of it, I don't recall seeing the arguments from anyone not parroting someone like "Dr" Hovind or AiG...

Re:back problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, well put. Creationists, flat-earthers, geocentrists etc just don't understand the scientific principle of attempting to falsify hypotheses and develop theories from results and continually try and falsify to reduce doubt.

They read the bible and just accept it, they cannot be argued with as the bible is the truth and unquestionable, to me that is madness.

Re:back problems

[MustardMan]

Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution are very very different things. I'm not arguing one side or the other, as both sides have some vaild points, but using the example of simple organisms in a petri dish in NO WAY proves that men came from monkeys.

Re:back problems

[Chris Tucker]

So MustardMan sez:

"...NO WAY proves that men came from monkeys."

You're right. Humanity DIDN't come from monkeys.

Primates evolved from a more primative animal and then evolution split off what became humans on one pranch of the Primate tree, while monkeys, apes, lemurs, the GOP, et al, are some of the other branches on that same tree.

So, to recap, You're a dolt. Humans and Apes evolved from a common ancestor. Humans did not come from monkeys, monkeys did not come from humans.

Our common ancestor was some manny of small furry creature, that ran about on all fours.

Stop spreading creationist crapoloa and read a book. "Origin of Species" would be a good start.

Re:back problems

[jc42]

A related explanation is: There really isn't any such thing as "scientific proof", and anyone who uses this phrase can be assumed to not understand science. Scientific methods are pretty much all methods of disproof.

The way it works is: You have a lot of observations. You make up a bunch of guesses (hypotheses) about what's going on. You try to think of ways of disproving all of them. Experiments are a common method; further observations are another. Some of your attempts will come up with further facts that are inconsistent with some of your explanations, so you discard them (or tweak them to survive the tests). The explanations that survive lots of tests are called "theories". But they haven't been proved; they have just survived attempts to disprove them.

Anyway, I often think of this whenever people like creationists talk about "scientific proof". By uttering such a phrase, they have just discredited themselves.

Re:back problems

[Dunbal]

We have not observed it happening and have not been able to perform an experiment to prove it.

You are obviously not a microbiologist dealing with antibiotic resistance issues...evolution in action!

Re:back problems

[MustardMan]

Stop spreading creationist crapoloa and read a book. "Origin of Species" would be a good start.

Read some of my other posts sometime... I think creationists are a bunch of nutjobs and am not afraid to say it. The "men coming from monkeys" phrase is SUPPOSED to be a flippant quip. If anyone here is a dolt, it's you, for not understanding the sarcasm in my post. I even said at the beginning I'm not taking a side, but am simply saying that seeing evolution in a simple bacteria doesn't mean jack shit about evolution in mammals. You've managed to COMPLETELY miss the point of my post in your attempt to sound smarter than me and argue semantics about a generalization that's commonly used. Way to go, you're a pedantic jackass who couldn't find the point if it was rammed up your ass.

Re:back problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, actually the parent is correct. Evolution is largely forensic science while gravity, for example is observational.

And you are correct, bacteria do "evolve" which is observed. The problem, however, is that you are using a definition of evolution that is not very interesting. These bacteria remain bacteria, and no new genetic information is created, which is really what you need to progress from goo to you. (No offense...)

Re:back problems

[penguinoid]

And you obviously don't know the difference between creating new information and destroying the genes regulating the production of "anti-antibiotics".

Re:back problems

[digidave]

You are correct. The micro vs. macro argument is completely absurd because they both describe identical processes.

As the argument goes, macroevolution occurs at some arbitrary point in microevolution or perhaps after some impossibly high number of microevolutionary steps. Evolutionary theory puts forth no such notion, so why creationists and IDers argue this point is a mystery to me, unless they're just trying to draw discussion away from their pseudoscience explanations..

Re:back problems

[digidave]

I responded to the macro vs. micro point elsewhere in this thread, but just to sum it up...

Microevolution and macroevolution both describe the same evolutionary process and that process is the one championed by Evolutionary Theory. The Theory doesn't try to distinguish between macro and microevolution because the difference is arbitrary. Evolution doesn't even try to define what a species is.

Re:back problems

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not taking a side, but am simply saying that seeing evolution in a simple bacteria doesn't mean jack shit about evolution in mammals.

Yes, it does. It's the same process, but the long-term effects are more easily observable in bacteria because mammals don't tend to go through a few dozen generations overnight. As gparent said, stop spreading creationist crap and go learn something about the subject.

Re:back problems

[mabraham]

Darwinian evolution is the only theory that accounts for all the known facts, and there are no known facts that contradict it. That's an impressive theory boys and girls.

Re:back problems

[MustardMan]

until someone can provide a good chunk of evidence that it is, in fact, the same process, all you're doing is speculating.

For the record, I *DO* think it's the same process. But that's just my hunch. I wouldn't tell someone it *IS* the same, until I had reasonable scientific evidence. So far no one has produced conclusive evidence.

There's a difference between "spreading creationist crap" and being a thorough scientist.

Re:back problems

[mabraham]

"These bacteria remain bacteria..."
but they go on changing and eventually reach a point where the population no longer resembles the original population. Now they are different from bacteria. Come back in a few billion years time and see what you've got.

New genetic information is being created all the time. The fact that you can't see evidence of design in that creation is irrelevant. Random mutations are occurring every time cells replicate. In the case of bacteria, those that a deleterious for the current environment cause their host organism to be outcompeted by the normal strain. Occasionally one of them will cause a slight advantage to the host. Over time that advantage will lead to a dominant position in the population for that mutation... and it is no longer a mutation, but is the normal type.

Random mutation is not creative. Random mutation followed by selection pressure can certainly be.

Re:back problems

[Dunbal]

And you obviously don't know the difference between creating new information and destroying the genes regulating the production of "anti-antibiotics".

Actually I do. Can you prove to me that methicillin resistance or vancomycin resistance (for example) occured OUTSIDE a hospital or lab setting? Oh sure, those plasmids are out in the wild NOW. But the mutation or "new" information happened in a bug that was eventually exposed to those antibiotics. How much penicillin resistance was reported in the 1950's?

Re:back problems

[tooth]

It's also worth mentioning that the meaning of 'theory' in science is different to every day use of the word. I know fundamentalist that say 'but it's (evolution) just a theory', and in turn surmise that 'it's not proven/real etc'. I used to then point out what 'theory' means in science to them, but they aren't interested in listening as it isn't what they want to hear. They'd rather keep going through the world in thier little bubles. How sad :(

Re:back problems

[Chris Tucker]

And you have been obsessed with my ass and inserting things in it for how long?

Project much?

Re:back problems

[MustardMan]

Wow, make a gay joke instead of addressing anything I said - that's a great way to make your point seem more valid.

It's amazing the way some of these slashbots have been trolling me in this thread - I'm through with responding to them, let them say all the idiotic crap they want. It will be really funny if a few more accuse me of being a creationist.

Re:back problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but that is no longer science of any sort, but pure speculation. Science has not observed the creation of new information that you hypothesize.

Re:back problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Evilution is a lie!

I believe in Santa Claus and if I'm good during my life he gives me toys and if I'm bad I'll burn in hell for all eternity.

It says in the xmas letters that the earth and stars were made one wonderful xmas. Santa fucked a reindeer up the ass which farted the result. The dung became the earth, the sperm became the animals and the santorum became man.

How can a bacteria become a monkey huh? Some people will believe any shit.

Re:back problems

[penguinoid]

I'm sure you would be surprised to learn that penicillin is produced by a fungus. Last I checked, fungi grow in the wild. It might also interest you to know that unless bacteria get suddenly exposed to very high doses of penicillin, wasting too many resources in being resistant to it will be a disadvantage, so that resistant strains would not occur before penicillin was used as medicine.

Re:back problems

[Spit]

Would you consider a chihuaua and a malamute to be the same species? Do you consider a house cat and a cougar to be the same species?

In what way is their situation different? One having occured through selective breeding by humans, one through natural selection.

Re:back problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Gravity and Evolution are not comparable in the way you suggest.

Newton's theory of gravity simply outlines our observations, just like the theory of evolution.

But Newton didn't explain the actual mechanism of gravity, and although we have many theories of that I have yet to see a proven experiment of gravity's mechanism.

Evolutionary theory and mechanisms are vastly more evident and comprehended than gravity.

Re:back problems

[mabraham]

Speculation???

Science observes the creation of new information all the time, after it happens. You can't see it as it occurs, you can only see its effects, just like gravity, for example.

Penicillin and its derivatives has been in widespread use by humans to treat bacterial infections for most of the last century. Initially bacteria were almost exclusively susceptible to it. Now we are running a constant battle between bacteria's ability to adapt to our latest antibacterial compounds and our ability to find new ones.

Why? Because they've found ways to circumvent the effects of the earlier ones. They've created new information in response to a change in their environment. That information would not have been created if there were no antibacterial compounds in their environment they'd had to overcome to survive.

Try reading something about a topic before you post generalizations of this sort. Richard Dawkins' book "The Blind Watchmaker" would be an excellent start.

Re:back problems

[Dunbal]

Last I checked, fungi grow in the wild.

And I suppose some Mycobacteria are just "naturally" resistant to rifampin, and some Candida co-incidentally have "always" been resistant to Amphotericin B. Strange how some Enterococci suddenly became resistant to Vancomycin, a SYNTHETIC and completely new class of antibiotic...why they would carry those genes around for millions of years is beyond me... maybe they knew that humans would one day develop it. Oh, and if I follow your line of thought I am sure there must be some linezolid (another brand new synthetic) resistant organisms around too, waiting to express in a few years' time the resistance genes that they have always had.

No my friend, mutations and genetic change happens regularly. Those that benefit from it survive better, and pass that advantage to their offspring. Those changes that don't provide a benefit but rather cause harm we call disease (which can also get passed on). Changes that don't harm and don't give an advantage don't get noticed, but they still occur. This process is called evolution and it happens because DNA polymerase does not make perfect copies, but rather it messes up about 1 in 50,000 replications. That number hasn't been pulled out of the air, but rather has been measured and is in any biochemistry text. Apparently it's impossible for some people to accept these simple facts.

I'm sure you would be surprised to learn

We don't have to agree, but this remark is designed to provoke an emotional rather than intellectual response. This is a shame because you hardly ever get a rational reply out of an emotionally triggered person, and that makes it difficult to carry out a sensible argument. I am confident in my academic standing and am not surprised at all. Rather you are the one who is showing a lack of understanding of the subject. But carry on, by all means.

Re:back problems

[nanoakron]

>>There's a difference between "spreading creationist crap" and being a thorough scientist.

Yes, indeed there is. And that's why we can all say 'You're spreading creationist crap.'

Microevolution = macroevolution = evolution

The intrinsic link between these forms the cornerstone of the theory of evolution. If you accept one aspect because it works for bacteria but then throw your hands up and say 'Pah, the same process doesn't work for humans though - PROOOOVE it to me otherwise' then you are no different from a creationist in a light chocolate coating.

So accept what you are - a creationist at heart - and stop trying to say otherwise unless you wholeheartedly embrace microevolution = macroevolution = evolution.

-Nano.

Re:back problems

[iggymanz]

hey, I have relatives from West Virginia and I find your comment very insulting and degrading to Neanderthals!

Re:back problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Man from ape is a good example of minor evolution. We have definitely observed both in our times and in recent fossil records, evolution that was on the same scale or bigger than when "monkeys" started walking up right and got a little bit smarter. Most of Man's evolution, imo, has had little to do our bodies or even our genes. We have plenty evidence of man back when he was little or no smarter than your average monkey, and detailed record of our conscous evolution from things monkeys can do (basic tools) to things like fire, throwing weapons, buildings, agriculture, and etc.

The only real question in evolution is how the first "life" got started. However, anyone familiar with finite state automata like Conway's Game of Life can quickly see how even the simplest rules (let alone something as complex as chemical reactions) can create self-reproducing entities. It's already readily apparent that Order can arrive out of Chaos. Interesting isn't it?

So more likely, the only question is how any matter OR energy came to exist in the first place. This is a good question, but one that I doubt will ever be answered.

And "God did it" is certainly a terrible answer to any of these questions, as that just introduces the same question again in reference to God (ie: "how did God come to exist" or "who created God?")

Re:back problems

[ukyoCE]

Science has observed the creation of new information PLENTY of times.

It's apparent that you know extremely little about genetics, so let me explain it in some briefer terms for you.

1) It's well-known, observed, and even photographed that genes cross over, creating new combinations of genes.

2) It's also well-known, observed, and even photographed that there are relatively common genetic "mistakes" that result in variations of duplicated and new genes. If a gene is duplicated, it's readily apparent that the old copy can remain, serving the same function, while the copy can combine with other genes in novel ways to extend the length of one's DNA with "new" improvements.

3) So it's already obvious that new genetic information can be created without this third item. But in addition to all of that, we also have heavily observed and photographed the interactions of viruses, which frequently inject foreign DNA into their host. There are even chromosomes (again, heavily observed and "photographed") that act much like viruses to insert and remove pieces of DNA.

Of course it's very unclear what you mean by "new" information. You've got 4 bases in DNA. All "new" information is just new combination of these 4 bases. Much like people write new books all the time by simply rearranging and appending more "words" made up of 26 "letters". All of which is being represented as you read this by "new" combinations of 1s and 0s, which gets us down to 2 bases, half as many as are used in human DNA.

Re:back problems

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true. There is a Neanderthal on the payroll where I work. Sure enough, he has had back problems.
He really looks like a Neanderthal. Scary. Curses a lot, too.

Oasis?!?

[daniil]

They are going to clone Liam Gallaher!?

Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally somebody thought or removing bloat on GNOME.... atleast it would catch up with KDE. GNOME is bloated like dead Italians in NYC.

Wait...it isn't the same, is it?

Yes! Imagine the possibilities....

[The Lynxpro]

I've always thought it was foolish to speculate that modern humans and Neanderthals did not interbreed. Especially considering such people as the late Andre the Giant who actually resembles a Neanderthal. Although the Giant is no longer part of this mortal coil, perhaps this team could compare their findings with the DNA of Andre's American daughter, if her and her mother consented.

I can also see DARPA being interested in the findings. There is value in modifying soldiers of the future with the muscle mass that the Neanderthals enjoyed. And I'm sure the Chinese military would also be interested in such application(s). The question in my mind is which of these two military powers will be the first serious about the subject, either officially or behind closed doors...

And out of curiousity, could the gene sequencing be a project fit for BOINC? I know I'd be interested in donating my spare CPU cycles to the project.

what if....

[rwven]

What if they sequence it and it turns out to be a common ape or something that we already have around here... thing are not always as they seem as lucy and piltdown proved. (both proven "hoaxes." More accurate definition would be "mistake...")

Just playing devils advocate... :-)

Re:what if....

[millahtime]

or, what if they turn out to be alien?

just playing devils advocate

Re:what if....

[geekwithsoul]

Ahem! Lucy was not a hoax!

Try this link, I believe the doctor is in . . .
http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/lucy.html

Re:what if....

[rwven]

yes it was a "hoax"... compare the skeleton to that of a pygmy chimanzee... they're one and the same... Just because you found some professor who says something doesnt mean it's true...

Re:what if....

[Anonymous Coward]

neanderthals are not even remotely ape-like anatomically. They're no more ape-like than you.
14 seconds of google searching would reveal the impossibility of what you propose.

Re:what if....

[rwven]

http://www.geocities.com/agseventyfour/Lucy.html Also, the only part that was "not" mathing to that of a chimp was the knee joint... which was accidentally mislabeled by the person who found it (miles away i might add) and then left there because he wanted credit for finding part of it.... there's accuracy for ya.

Re:what if....

[geekwithsoul]

Try reading the bottom of your own reference, to wit:

NEW NEWER NEWEST!! 1-5-2003 I have been corrected on this item. In the sentence that says "Lucy has a pygmy chimpanzee appearance except for the knee joint." I have been informed that is incorrect. There are more differences than that. You can check them all out at this website: Degeneration in the knees and legs of Australopithecus afarensis

. . . and please, a GeoCities page run by some creationist as your reference? BWAHAHAHAHA!

Re:what if....

[rwven]

hmmm, and a biased evolutionist professor is reliable? no... geocities is not the only place you can find that information ;)

Re:what if....

[MightyMartian]

What if they sequence it and it turns out to be a common ape or something that we already have around here... thing are not always as they seem as lucy and piltdown proved. (both proven "hoaxes." More accurate definition would be "mistake...")

First off, where the hell do you get the idea that Lucy was a hoax? Perhaps you would like to tell Dr. Donald Johansen, the man that discovered her. She was very real. Yes, Piltdown was a hoax, but it became ever more a problem for researchers as fossils from other parts of the world were discovered. But I repeat, Lucy was not a hoax, no matter what lying Creationists (some Christians eh?) say.

As to Neandertal, it had a brain slightly bigger than ours, was a tool-user and bipedal. They may not have been human if you take only members of H. sapiens as humans, but they were pretty damn close.

Re:what if....

[Listen Up]

You are a complete moron. Some 'professor' who has more education, intelligence, and experience than you will ever understand means more than anything you have to say. You have no authority to say a damn thing.

Geocities...HAHAHA

Re:what if....

[rwven]

The funny thing is that if you ever watch a creationist professor debating with an evolutionist professor, the evolutionist will ALWAYS end up completely bewildered. Regardless of whether or not you want to believe in creation, evolution doesnt have a leg to stand on. Try checking it out instead of just blathering...

And yes, your wonderful rant about whatever intelligence you perceive me to have just shows everyone how much you really know about me... How ever did you figure me out?

Was it so easy...

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Was it so easy, a caveman could do it?
Sorry guys... I didn't know you were there...
Think how cool this could be- we could have a whole army of cavemen, caveman butlers etc.
Ooooohhhh.... will there be cave women????
I am getting tired of buying viynl patches for my girlfriend...
We could do this with dinosaurs, and then have a theme park... except hopefully we won't accidently use frog DNA to fill in holes....

Re:Was it so easy...

[Anonymous Coward]

do you use vinyl patch / deflating girlfriends jokes in all your posts as a way to self-deprecate for the moderators in a pathetic attempt to whore karma? Find a new gig, the proverbial vinyl jig is up.

Too late!

[Telastyn]

Could this be the start of a Pleistocene park?

I thought one was opened about 4 and a half years ago, in Washington...

Re:Too late!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh Congress has been around much longer than that!

Re:Too late!

[syrinx]

Just 4 and a half? You must not have been paying attention for very long...

What's left of them?

[Jafafa Hots]

Some scientists believe that homo sapiens replaced Neaderthals, with the Neanderthals dying off completely.
Some believe we interbred with them and "absorbed" them.

This may be able to tell us which is true. I wonder though, if we do find out that we absorbed them through interbreeding, will this eventually lead to discrimination against those of us who still harbor "caveman genes?"

Re:What's left of them?

[spike hay]

Scientists have pretty much discarded the interbreeding theory, as there isn't any detected neanderthal DNA intermixed with caucasian DNA.

Re:What's left of them?

[burndive]

Except that research shows that the human gene pool has a rather significant bottleneck, wherein we all descend from a small set of individuals not to far in the past. There is so little genetic variation in humans that if some of us have Neanderthal genes, then all of us do.

Re:What's left of them?

[spike hay]

Except that research shows that the human gene pool has a rather significant bottleneck, wherein we all descend from a small set of individuals not to far in the past. There is so little genetic variation in humans that if some of us have Neanderthal genes, then all of us do.

No, the genetic bottleneck occured far before homo sapiens escaped Africa and made contact with Neanderthals in Europe and the Middle East. H. Sapiens only reached Europe around 45,000 years ago. The genetic bottleneck occured 150,000 years ago or so in sub-Saharan Africa when humanity almost went extinct.

Thus, Asians and especially sub-Saharan Africans would show no Neanderthal genes, while caucasians would, if there was interbreeding.

Re:What's left of them?

[nusuth]

AFAIK we have not sampled nuclear neanderthal DNA yet, therefore completely unable to tell whether any of our DNA came from them.

OTOH neanderthal mithocondrial DNA is sampled and found to be singificantly different from Homo Sapiens'. That means we have no neanderthal grandmothers, which makes interbreeding theory *very* unlikely.

A remote possibility is neandethal females were unable to carry half-HS offspring but HS females could. That is unlikely for at least three reasons:

a) The distance between m-DNAs suggest the difference between n-DNA too great to interbreed

b) There is no mechanism we know of that would make neandarthal mothers unable to carry half-breeds while HS mothers can.

c) And finally, I made the theory on the spot and I'm not even a biologist

Re:What's left of them?

[meringuoid]

I wonder though, if we do find out that we absorbed them through interbreeding, will this eventually lead to discrimination against those of us who still harbor "caveman genes?"

I doubt it. If there was interbreeding between moderns and Neanderthals, it was probably Europeans who did it. Given the usual patterns of racist discrimination, expect to see 'scientific arguments' on your favourite redneck websites proving that while pure Neanderthals were indeed primitives, in combination with modern DNA their genes give considerable advantages, and therefore should not be diluted by miscegenation. Then read on for great amusement as they explain how Neanderthals fit in with the Book of Genesis.

Re:What's left of them?

[istartedi]

In fact, some people have put forth the theory that people with Asperger's and Autism may be carrying Neanderthal genes.

With the high proportion of people with Autistic spectrum disorders in the computer industry; if this theory turns out to be true it would mean that many of the people here poking fun of Neanderthals might actually be carrying the genes themselves!

Re:What's left of them?

[Skjellifetti]

OTOH neanderthal mithocondrial DNA is sampled and found to be singificantly different from Homo Sapiens'. That means we have no neanderthal grandmothers, which makes interbreeding theory *very* unlikely.

No, mithocondrial DNA is passed along exclusively from mother to child. All that has to happen for Neanderthal mithocondrial DNA to disapear from the HS line is for Neanderthal women to have had only sons. The sons can't pass on the Neanderthal m-DNA. This process can happen over generations. For example, a Neanderthal mother and HS father have a daughter and a son. The daughter has a daughter and a son with a HS father. The granddaughter has only sons. No more Neanderthal m-DNA.

Re:What's left of them?

[Reziac]

Or could be that the offspring of such crossbreeding were generally sterile, as is commonly the case with matings outside the species (frex, horse + donkey = mule, typically sterile).

Re:What's left of them?

[The Lynxpro]

"This may be able to tell us which is true. I wonder though, if we do find out that we absorbed them through interbreeding, will this eventually lead to discrimination against those of us who still harbor "caveman genes?""

There's also the theory that our ancestors ate the Neanderthals, similar to modern day Africans eating the Gorillas. Prehistoric *bushmeat.* Like the New York Times, I don't subscribe to that theory...

Re:What's left of them?

[MonsoonDawn]

discrimination against those of us who still harbor "caveman genes?"

On the upside your health insurance may cover back depilatory.

Re:What's left of them?

[gwhulbert]

I believe "when humanity almost went extinct" is incorrect. The bottleneck is merely due evolution from of a small sub-population, which was geographically isolated from other populations of homo. Also, the timing at 150K years ago is speculative, afaik. There is also the African exodus events starting about 70K years ago.

Evidence of any interbreeding is limited to a single specemin and based on morphology, not genetics. All genetic evidence shows a very wide gap (see talk.origins).

Re:What's left of them?

[jc42]

OTOH neanderthal mithocondrial DNA is sampled and found to be singificantly different from Homo Sapiens'. That means we have no neanderthal grandmothers, which makes interbreeding theory *very* unlikely.

Actually, all it would mean is that none of us HS types have a maternal line that goes back to a Neandertal. We could easily have HN ancestors, but with a male anywhere along the line of descent, the mtDNA would be HS, not HN.

One of the thing I found impressive about TFA is that the author didn't make the usual media mistake of treating the mtDNA studies as very significant. Most news stories, even many in the scientific press, treat the mismatch between the few HN mtDNA samples and our mtDNA as meaning there couldn't have been interbreeding. This merely shows a lack of understanding what mtDNA is. And even if there had been a close match, it still wouldn't have been very significant.

It's still entirely possible that we have neandertal genes in, say, chromosomes 7, 13, and 21. None of the few DNA studies so far could detect (or reject) this possibility.

Maybe when we have a few dozen sizable sample of Neandertal DNA sequenced, we can say something a bit more meaningful. Even then, though, we'll still have the possibility that those few individuals left no modern descendants, while others are among our ancestors.

Re:What's left of them?

[MightyMartian]

Without evidence, I see no justification for this particular claim at all. It sits at about the same level of credibility as the Aquatic Ape Theory.

Re:What's left of them?

[jc42]

Asians and especially sub-Saharan Africans would show no Neanderthal genes, while caucasians would, if there was interbreeding.

Some years ago, I read an interesting article on the topic; it's too bad that I don't recall where. It was a takeoff on the old suggestion that if you were to take a typical Neandertal, dress him/her up in modern clothes, and drop him/her down anywhere in Europe, nobody would notice anything at all odd about the visitor.

Part of the article was a list of the major physical features of the Neandertals. Most of these features appear individually in modern humans everywhere, but you find combinations of most of them only in Europeans. This is suggestive of interbreeding, but not convincing. These features could all be adaptive in Europe for reasons we don't fully understand, and the Cro Magnon invaders could have developed them independently for the same reasons.

Anyway, since then I've sorta been on the lookout for individuals that show most of the list of Neandertal features. Since I live in the Boston area, that's mostly where I've looked. I do tend to forget about it most of the time, but when someone with the right features shows up, my subconscious does tend to bring it to my attention. Sort of a subtle (and somewhat silly) social game.

A couple of years ago, while driving down Commonwealth Ave (near Cleveland Circle), while stopped at a light, I noticed an attractive womon in the crosswalk. Nothing odd there. But the "Neanderthal!" flag went off, and I looked closer. She showed pretty much all the features, and might have passed in Neandertal Europe 100,000 years ago (except for the clothes). She even had faint brow ridges, unusual for modern human females. And was she ever sexy. A bit on the "zaftig" side, as one might expect. But well worth a third or fourth look. So much for the "primitive brute" image. And if she had met a Cro-Magnon male 100,000 years ago, I know exactly how he would have reacted.

I was tempted to walk over and introduce myself. But a common Boston problem intervened: There was no parking space visible anywhere. Oh, well; so much for that idea.

Anyway, it's a fun game. Probably not significant of much. But the fact that good matches so far have all been white people is a bit suggestive that it's not totally coincidence when these features come together.

(I do have a couple of friends who match most of the feature set. I haven't told any of them. Maybe I should some day.)

Re:What's left of them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically, our most recent common ancestor was only some 84,000 years ago. see for yourself.

But who's counting...

Re:What's left of them?

[corngrower]

Some believe we interbred with them and "absorbed" them.

They weren't absorbed, they were assimilated.
Resistance was futile.

Re:What's left of them?

[Jafafa Hots]

"I was tempted to walk over and introduce myself."

I can only imagine what your opening line would have been.

Re:What's left of them?

[sinrtb]

The 150k years ago mark is a bit off it was alot closer to 75k if i remeber right they were able to date it on this show: http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/channel/blog/2 005/06/explorer_adam.html They dated it on a large pool of genes

Re:What's left of them?

[ignavus]

Women can tell you where the Neanderthal genes ended up: attached to the Y chromosome.

Re:What's left of them?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm finally beginning to understand what women have to deal with.

Re:What's left of them?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hey baby, let's go home and have some hot Neanderthal & Cro Magnon sex!"

Re:What's left of them?

[jc42]

Heh. I've sometimes wondered what sort of reactions I'd get from a few possible comments.

"So tell me about your Neanderthal ancestors."

"Has anyone ever said how Neanderthal you look?"

I'd assume that most people who have the Neandert[h]al physical features are not aware of the fact. I think that if I had them, I'd take a "Hey, how 'bout dat?" attitude. I don't actually have any of the features, and I was actually a bit disappointed to learn this. I think it'd be fun to tell people that I'm part Neanderthal. But I'd guess that some people might react differently.

Oh, well; I can always use another of my explantions: When people ask me what I "do", I like to tell them that I'm an anthropologist. I'm stationed on Earth to study humans. Very interesting newly-discovered species, y'know. Gotta document them thoroughly while they're still in their primitive, single-planet state, and before they exterminate themselves.

It's especially fun, when they ask me if I'm not violating some secrecy rule, to tell them that there isn't any such rule. After all, you can tell humans the absolute truth, and they don't believe you. The very few who do are dismissed by the rest as nut cases. You don't believe me, do you? So why should we bother with secrecy?

Re:What's left of them?

[sillybilly]

How about the great human migrations? People pick up and move. In case you're in the US, chances are you ended up here 200 years ago, compared to over 10,000 years ago. People move around, what we need is data if we really want to know. But there are special 'genetic privacy' or 'genetic discrimination' issues rearing.

Re:What's left of them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Interbreeding - I think it's inevitable that sex took place between Saps and Neands. It is surely accepted that there have always been more adventurous Homo Sapiens - and one only has to look some older cultures' free and unguilty attitudes to sex, and to mystical cave drawings that may show bestiality (a minority behaviour pattern apparently still with us).

The only point at issue is whether the sex produced offspring (from either or both possibilities - Female Neand, Male Sap - and vice versa).

Re: Asians and sub-Saharan Africans showing no Neanderthal genes, I believe there have been discoveries indicating Neanderthals island-hopped along the Philippines island chain, so the limits of their spread is not fully known.

However, it is interesting to note that Asians are smaller than Caucasians - so, tantalisingly, maybe Europeans do have a Neanderthal genetic heritage (although I appreciate this size disparity is attributed to diet).

Uh?

[adius]

>found it unlikely.

Ahem, you are talking about one of the horniest species on this planet.

Re:Uh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter how much you like to fuck, pregnency just isn't possible when the biology isn't right.

Incidentally, I read somewhere that research into the genome of the different varieties of human lice demonstrates that the pubic variety is most closely related to those that live on Gorillas. The amount of genetic variation suggests that the human variety and gorilla variety parted ways very recently - long after homo sapien assumed current form. Hard as I try, I just can't get the end of that Ace Ventura movie out of my head. "In the jungle, the mighty jungle..."

Re:Uh?

[MightyMartian]

I'd love to read a reference to this. I smell bullsh*t here. The genetic differences between the three African great apes (gorillas, chimps and humans) is fairly well established, and puts the last common ancestor between us and gorillas several million years ago, long before anything of even the genus Homo existed.

Re:Uh?

[cens0r]

he wasn't talking about humans splitting from gorilla's recently. He was talking about human pubic lice splitting from gorilla lice recently. He was trying to subtley say that we got crabs from fucking gorillas.

In an alternate universe...

[BorisSkratchunkov]

...a Pleistocene park already exists...one could call the existence of this area a "Parallel Park".

Life Imitating Art

[KrackHouse]

He's 40,000 years old. Deep within an Arctic glacier they found him preserved by a miracle of nature, brought back to life by a miracle of science. Now medical science wants to exploit him in the name of research. One man wants to stop them ...in the name of humanity. But he'll need more than a miracle to survive ... he'll need a friend.

In case anybody is thinking this would make a good movie, it's been done.

Re:Life Imitating Art

[dzafez]

Actually there is no actic ice in Germany. Please use Google Earth to learn more!

Re:Life Imitating Art

[refactored]

Plasticine Park Already exists.

Re:Life Imitating Art

[confusednoise]

In case anybody is thinking this would make a good movie, it's been done.

You mean the making a movie part was done...we're still waiting on the good part (hee hee).

Re:Life Imitating Art

[cy_a253]

HA, I know this one:

Encino Man

Re:Life Imitating Art

[Hogwash McFly]

I didn't know they had Arctic glaciers in California...

Re:Life Imitating Art

[Anonymous Coward]

Encino Man?

Re:Life Imitating Art

[Jim Hall]

In case anybody is thinking this would make a good movie, it's been done.

Oh, they made a movie out of this, but I wouldn't call it "good".

flawed findings...

[0110011001110101]

The sequencing project may find out important information, such as whether they cross-bred with modern humans.

A modern-day study could come up with incorrect findings for this question, were they to randomly sample a group of slashdotters....

Re:flawed findings...

[Dunbal]

Everyone knows that slashdotters can't breed! You need willing females for that...

Re:flawed findings...

[winkydink]

hmm... i wonder if rohypnol works on neanderthals?

"Genome"

[No Such Agency]

The genome is ALL the genetic material, both transcribed genes (which make RNA molecules and then proteins) and the so-called "junk DNA". The latter, it turns out, is not remotely "junk", but contains important regulatory sequences which control gene activation/deactivation and the physical structure of the chromosomes.

Timothy Hutton?

[charlieo88]

But will Timothy Hutton free the test subject before they complete the sequence?

Re:Timothy Hutton?

[PaxTech]

Yes, and he'll be safely hidden in a safehouse in Encino with Pauly Shore and Samwise Gamgee.

Pleistocene park & Cave Women

[syntap]

Cool... will it then be legal to pay twenty bucks, run in, and whack some prehistoric ho over the head with a club and drag her off? And I was thinking we'd have to wait for virtual reality to get better!

Re:Pleistocene park & Cave Women

[Frangible]

Unfortunately, given the activity level of most Slashdot readers, you'd be out of breath upon arriving at the cave, not be able to see in that bright light called the "sun" that happens outdoors, and get clubbed by the "prehistoric ho".

Re:Pleistocene park & Cave Women

[arbitraryaardvark]

You insensitive clod!
I for one welcome...

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you understand that the "bash over the head" model of caveman culture is a false sterotype invented by some male paleontologist geek types, projecting their own issues. Paleolithic women chose their mates based on perceived fitness.
http://www.blockbonobofoundation.org/ (not entirely work-safe) makes some comparisons of pygmy chimp culture and human culture that might be relevant.

Oh great

[youknowmewell]

So now I suppose there will be headlines on /. that read "Neanderthal Genome has been Sequenced" and "Neanderthal cloned" and "Neanderthal released into wild". Why didn't Slashdot wait until after the release before reporting on this?

You haven't read many blogs

[HomerJayS]

The typical blog already reads like it was wriiten by a 3 year old Neanderthal. Why should this one be any different?

Taking bets

[Anonymous Coward]

Any creationists want to step up to the plate and tell us what these results will show?

Re:Taking bets

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's true that God created Homo sapiens, then I suppose He created Neanderthals, as well. What's the big deal?

Since you bring up the subject, though, it's interesting to note that Neanderthal Man got its name from Joachim Neander, "a Calvinist teacher who became famous for creating the words to the church choral Praise to the Lord, the Almighty (German: Lobet den Herren, den mächtigen König der Ehren) in 1679." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Neander)

Re:Taking bets

[Anonymous Coward]

the only results you're gonna see is that god is gonna smack your evolutionary ass.

Re:Taking bets

[Anonym1ty]

The Neanderthals were called Giants.

It will be more important to find out for sure if Neanderthals could interbreed with "modern man". Many believe Neanderthals to be essentially the same as man, and the differences between Neanderthals and "modern man" may be accounted for by simple variation within the same kind.

Even if we could interbreed,... we may not have. Even to this day there are people who will not mix with other races. It may be some similar taboo has kept this group of humans separate from the rest of us.

It is important to note that though creationists may reject evolution, they have no problems with natural selection and variations within a species. They just don't go for the Ape beget a person or a cat beget a dog...

Creationists still have a major argument against evolution too. There is no evidence whatsoever that one species has ever evolved into another one. You can claim all you want that the types of species we have shows evolution but there is no direct evidence. A creationist can dispel any arguments about evolution based on similarity of species simply by similarities, they were all designed by the same creator.

Of coarse creationists can't prove that evolution is false. What creationists can show is that by interpreting the exact same evidence it is possible to draw a completely different -yet scientifically valid explanation of what is happening here.

Evolution is a very good working theory, but there are a lot of holes in it as it is now. You can not use variation or natural selection by themselves to prove evolution as a whole. All experiments to this day to cause mutations have failed to produce a single beneficial mutation.

I, myself am not saying creation or evolution are right. I am looking at this scientifically and both arguments require an aweful lot of faith.

Re:Taking bets

[corngrower]

All experiments to this day to cause mutations have failed to produce a single beneficial mutation.

I beg to differ.

Re:Taking bets

[Webs 101]

No. Neanderthal man gots its name because the first specimen was found in the Neanderthal (Neander Valley) in Germany.

Re:Taking bets

[corngrower]

There is no evidence whatsoever that one species has ever evolved into another one.

This is simply not true. Darwin, in his book Origin of Species shows evidence which supports that species evolve into others. In one case he mentions several species of birds found on a remote island. They all have the same coloration and size, but differ in the shape of their beaks and the food they eat. This is evidence that these separate species evolved from a single species of bird.

Re:Taking bets

[2short]

"Many believe Neanderthals to be essentially the same as man"

Not anyone who has studied their bone structure, and has a clue what they are talking about.

"They just don't go for the Ape beget a person or a cat beget a dog"

Neither does evolution.

"There is no evidence whatsoever that one species has ever evolved into another one"

There are mountains of such evidence.

"Of coarse creationists can't prove that evolution is false"

If it were false, then it should be possible to prove it false. Of course, they can't prove it false if it's true.

"What creationists can show is that by interpreting the exact same evidence it is possible to draw a completely different -yet scientifically valid explanation of what is happening here."

Cretionists need not interpret evidence to assume a different, scientifically irrelevant non-explanation. Their ideas are not supported by evidence, because they could not be contradicted by different evidence.

"Evolution is a very good working theory, but there are a lot of holes in it as it is now"

Evolution is a fabulous, extensively supported theory. Like any scientific theory, there are plenty of interesting details we haven't worked out yet. Holes? No.

"All experiments to this day to cause mutations have failed to produce a single beneficial mutation."

False.

"I, myself am not saying creation or evolution are right"

But you're implying they are both of similar nature, which is false. Evolution is a scientific theory which can be used to make predictions about things we don't know yet, and we can then go check those things out. Evolution has predicted correctly vast numbers of times. You need not have any faith at all; you can go check these predictions your very own self. "God did it that way" makes no predictions; it can not be contradicted by any evidence; it cannot be supported by any evidence. It is not science.

Re:Taking bets

[Anonymous Coward]

The Vedas state that there are 400,000 different species of humans in the universe, some civilized and some uncivilized. Being a creationist, this is no surprise to me. The information contained in the Vedas is appropriate for this day and age, I suggest you take a read if you are serious about understanding God and the material nature...starting with the Bhagavad-Gita As it is.

Re:Taking bets

[Anonymous Coward]

How comfortable is that fence?

Re:Taking bets

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had read the Wikipedia article, you would know that Neander Valley was named after Joachim Neander. Perhaps I should have said that Neanderthal Man was indirectly named after Joachim Neander.

Re:Taking bets

[penguinoid]

A creationist can dispel any arguments about evolution based on similarity of species simply by similarities, they were all designed by the same creator.

Maybe. However, I think that several similar bits of DNA with apparently random changes (ie not at all affecting the resulting organism) throughout the species would prove evolution.

All experiments to this day to cause mutations have failed to produce a single beneficial mutation.

Almost all mutations that survive are benefitial mutations. Blind cave fish, bacteria unable to control the production of antipenicillin, slight changes to the protein coat of viruses, etc are benefitial mutations. I am, however, aware thath these are all destructive mutations, and none of them can account for macroevolution.

Re:Taking bets

[TheoMurpse]

Congratulations. You are the first person in /. history to make a post that claims problems with evolution that gets modded up instead of down!

Re:Taking bets

[Alsee]

I'll agree with you on one point. Every time a creationist claims there's a missing link between speices and scientists find a new fossil and announce "Here it is the perfect intermediate form", creationists are great at turning around and saying "AHHA! Now there's TWO missing links instead of one!".

-

Re:Taking bets

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably Joachim Neander wasn't named by choosing a collection of random letters so the word Neander must have been got from somewhere before him, how indirect do you want to get ?

Re:Taking bets

[Anonym1ty]

>All experiments to this day to cause mutations have failed to produce a single beneficial mutation.

I beg to differ.

Please enlighten me, what experiments produced what beneficial mutations?

Re:Taking bets

[Anonym1ty]

There is no evidence whatsoever that one species has ever evolved into another one.

This is simply not true. Darwin, in his book Origin of Species shows evidence which supports that species evolve into others. In one case he mentions several species of birds found on a remote island. They all have the same coloration and size, but differ in the shape of their beaks and the food they eat. This is evidence that these separate species evolved from a single species of bird.

That evidence is based on an observation by Darwin and it does point to variation, it however does not prove evolution. You could argue it is strong enough evidence to create a theory called evolution, however it is not proof of said theory.

Re:Taking bets

[Anonym1ty]

"There is no evidence whatsoever that one species has ever evolved into another one"

There are mountains of such evidence.

And yet you fail to give us even one example.

"Evolution is a very good working theory, but there are a lot of holes in it as it is now"

Evolution is a fabulous, extensively supported theory. Like any scientific theory, there are plenty of interesting details we haven't worked out yet. Holes? No.

If there weren't any holes in it, it wouldn't still be a theory.

"All experiments to this day to cause mutations have failed to produce a single beneficial mutation."

False.

And still you fail to provide a single example.

"I, myself am not saying creation or evolution are right"

But you're implying they are both of similar nature, which is false. Evolution is a scientific theory which can be used to make predictions about things we don't know yet, and we can then go check those things out. Evolution has predicted correctly vast numbers of times. You need not have any faith at all; you can go check these predictions your very own self. "God did it that way" makes no predictions; it can not be contradicted by any evidence; it cannot be supported by any evidence. It is not science.

What has evolution predicted? What experiment was carried out to show this?

Again you miss the point. The point is that evidence for variation within a kind is not proof of any change of one kind into another kind. The leap you are making from variations within a kind to mean that evolution from one kind to another is in itself A LEAP OF FAITH. -Sounds similar to creationism to me.

You can not scientifically just make such leaps of faith.

Re:Taking bets

[Anonym1ty]

Maybe. However, I think that several similar bits of DNA with apparently random changes (ie not at all affecting the resulting organism) throughout the species would prove evolution.

Yes it might. We don't have such evidence at this time. We would have to be careful withthe "apparently random" aspect though.

This Neanderthol DNA might be the first step in such a study. We will need a huge sample of Sequenced Genomes from many organisms throughout time to work with.

All experiments to this day to cause mutations have failed to produce a single beneficial mutation.

Almost all mutations that survive are benefitial mutations. Blind cave fish, bacteria unable to control the production of antipenicillin, slight changes to the protein coat of viruses, etc are benefitial mutations. I am, however, aware thath these are all destructive mutations, and none of them can account for macroevolution.

The problem is proving it. We have no experiments that back this [evolution theory] up (I'll add a "yet" to that) And like you stated, none of the mutations are beneficial nor could any of them be applied to "macro"evolution.

Other than theorized in the context of evolution, all evidence we have regarding mutations are mutations==bad. We only know that everytime we discover a mutation that it's bad. We have proof that organisms even have ways of repairing damaged DNA. Our "self replicating systems" couldn't function if we didn't.

Re:Taking bets

[Anonym1ty]

How comfortable is that fence?

It's a lot better than I thought it would be. Actually the replies to my post were rather tame. Even the jokes had some taste. I was expecting to have all sorts of nasty flaming posts, but was surprised to have fairly decent replies.

Re:Taking bets

[2short]

"If there weren't any holes in it, it wouldn't still be a theory."

You do not seem to understand the meaning of "theory" in this context. Evolution will always be a theory. Just like the theory of gravity. Why is it you go after evolution and not gravity? Shouldn't we be teaching that gravity (or relativity) is just a theory, and that there are other possible explanations, such as "There is no gravity. God holds stuff down."?

"What has evolution predicted?"

No need for the past tense there! We can make some predictions right now! Evolution is a scientific theory; there are any number of things we would expect to be the case if it is correct, and expect to not necessarily be the case if it is false. They could all turn out to be the case just by chance, but the more that turn out the way evolution predicts, the more sure we can be. Anyway, let's see; if different species evolved from common ancestors, I'd expect that species that were similar in certain ways would also be similar in other, seemingly unrelated ways. For example, marine creatures that breate air using lungs have bony skeletons. Those that breathe water using gills do not. So, I'd theorize the air-breathers are descended from a common ancestor more recent than any ancestor they might share with the water-breathers. Having noticed this similarity amongst some marine creatures, and formed this theory to explain it, I can now predict that every marine air breather I find in the future will have a bony skeleton, and every water breather will not. This turns out to be the case. Sure it could be a coincidence. But there are now such a vast number of such coincidences, that it seems to me there are only two possible explanations: Either evolution is true, or the world was created by a super-powerful being who is trying extremely hard to trick me into thinking evolution is true. The latter could be the case, but if we're all in the hands of an omnipotent being bent on deception there's no point in doing science anyway.

I've looked at the available evidence, and decided evolution seems likely. Certain? No, nothing is ever certain in science.

Now, even if evolution is wrong, that doesn't make creationism right. Lets desist with your unconvincing attacks on evolution, and see some reason to think creationsim is worth consideration. I have not seen any evidence that makes creationism seem likely. Not only that, it seems inherently obvious to me that no such evidence could possibly exist. Give me one piece of evidence that, had it turned out differently, it would imply creationism was wrong. Anything? Even one peice of evidence at all? Why exactly am I supposed to take this seriously again?

Re:Taking bets

[Anonym1ty]

You're trying to prove a theory by theorizing. You can't say that the theory stands because you assume similar things may have the same ancestors. Your proof is no better than a creationist's faith. Your proof is just that, Faith.

In order for this to work right, you would have to make a prediction based on evolution and then perform an experiment and verify your results. As I stated, many have tried and none have succeeded.

What you have done is found a bunch of evidence and then come up with a theory as to why you found what you have found. Then you went back and looked at your evidence and said it all supports your theory...Well NO SHIT SHERLOCK! --That's not how science works.

I never asked you to believe in creationism, I asked you to open your mind to the possibility that evolution is not the last word.

Find me a an example of one species evolving into another one. Not just a guess, but proof.

Re:Taking bets

[2short]

I predicted how evidence I did not yet have would turn out based on my theory. Then I checked, and it turned out that way. That is exactly how science works. Newton used his theory of gravity to predict that while the course of comets appeared to be a straight line, it would actually turn out to be a parabola, of which we could only see the fairly straight part. More sensitive mesurements were taken, and it turned out he was right. Was this science? Science does not demand the construction of an apparatus in a lab. It demands testing. Testing is done by observation; it does not matter whether the scientist causes the evidence to appear in an experiment, or whether the scientist must wait for it to appear on it's own, as Newton had to wait for a comet to come by close enough. (Actually, he stuck Flamsheed with the tedious waiting around for a comet part)

I'd never suggest evolution, or any scientfic theory was the last word. Proof happens in mathematics. Science asspires only to "well supported by the available evidence so far"; proof is impossible. Any scientific theory simply makes predictions more or less well. Evolution has made a lot of predictions very well. Gravity has made a lot of predictions very well; it's a good theory worth knowing, even though we have a better theory (relativity) that explains why gravity gets it not quite right in a very small number of extreme cases. Most of the time, gravity still makes excellent predictions.

So, I'll be more than happy to hear about a theory that makes better predictions than evolution. Heck, I'd be fascinated!

Creationism does not, and can not, make any predictions at all. No evidence could possibly agree, or disagree with it. Debating the possible truth or falsity of Creationism is not science; it is pointless solipsistic wanking. It's not that I beleive it or don't; it's that I don't wish to waste my time "considering" an idea with no posible arguments on either side. I can, after all, make up such theories every ten seconds forever. Making up theories that are actually subject to testing, and withstand it, is considerably more difficult. We call it Science.

Re:Taking bets

[corngrower]

Roundup - Ready Soybeans.
Genetically modified, i.e. its genes were mutated to produce soybeans which can tolerate glyphosate herbicide.

Re:Taking bets

[corngrower]

There numerous examples in support of evolution. Your original statement was that there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution. That statement is false. If you had said there is no definitive proof of evolution, your statement would have been correct, but that's not what you said.

Darwin, in Origin of Species gives numerous examples to support evolution via natural selection. Lab experiments with fruit flies have, over the course of 10 generations, produced fruit flies that lived twice as long as normal. How did they do this? They killed off all the early offspring of each generation of fruit flies. Only those flies which were still vital in their 'old age' were able to reproduce. What they ended up with were fruit flies that lived twice as long, natural selection in action.

What about the crops farmers raise? You know that those same plants, 5,000 years ago looked quite different. You wouldn't recognize the plant that gave rise to the corn plant. Wheat, rice, other grains are also very much different today then the plants that were originally first 'domesticated'. If you look at a field of grain just before harvest time, what you see is the whole field maturing (turning yellow) at the same time, within a few days. That doesn't happen without man's intervention. The genetic variation among wild plants would give variations of a couple of weeks in the maturation date.

The list of experiments and observations supporting evolution goes on and on and on. It's pretty well established in the scientific community. Read up and educate yourself about some of the studies and experiments that have been done. And now that you've been told, don't go around lying and saying there is no support for evolution.

Re:Taking bets

[Anonym1ty]

Genetically modified

"Scientifically the existence of this DNA does not mean it is a consequence of modification in the plant. It could have been generated by a spontaneous mutation, which often happens in plants." -Andrea Dahmen spokeswoman for The European Commission. August 20, 2001 in an EU study of the safety of Roundup Ready Soybeans.

Hell they don't even know that what they did is what caused the change? What kind of Science are you using to back up your claims????

Maybe it would help if we had a map of the genome so we could compare. Maybe a gene that already existed was switched on. --Wait that would mean that the information was already in the genome prior to the experiment!...We just don't know. hmmm if we don't know what good is the evidence.

Re:Taking bets

[Anonym1ty]

Lab experiments with fruit flies have, over the course of 10 generations, produced fruit flies that lived twice as long as normal

Natural Selection does nothing to prove evolution. Are all still fruit flies? Better sanitation has also made man kind live longer.

What about the crops farmers raise?

Natural Selection, or Selective Breeding does not prove Evolution.

...the whole field maturing (turning yellow) at the same time... ...That doesn't happen without man's intervention.

I've seen trees in the wild all change color at the same time without any intervention from man.

Your list thus far supports variation and natural selection. I haven't said anything is wrong with variation or natural selection. They are both absolutely required! Without them, errors would crop up and the entire genome would collapse

Variation != Evolution

Your fruit flies are all still fruit flies. Corn is still corn. Regardless to how long t lives or how big it grows, these are all still within the limits of a kind. The information on how to grow big, small, long, short, tall whatever was all in the genome prior to these selections

Re:Taking bets

[corngrower]

Ahh, yes. But you did not address my original evidence of the several species of birds on that island with similar coloration and size.

This is what evolution is about - the gradual changing and diversification of life. You're apparantly failing to look at things on evolutionary time scales, in terms of hundreds of thousands, or millions of years to affect a meaningful change. Those individual small changes gradually add up.

You state that the genes that gave rise to the changes in the examples I mentioned in an earlier post could already have been part of the genome, which is true. But they also may have been because of a true genetic mutation. Could they not? As you do not know for sure whether or not the genes existed in the organism prior to the changes seen.

By the way, the corn plant of today is so vastly different than what it started out as, that you would not even recognize the original plant as corn. It looks like just another grassy plant, no 'ears' of corn, and not the tall plant we have today.

Re:Taking bets

[Anonym1ty]

How many times must a tornado hit a junk yard before it makes a jet-plane out of all the junk?

You can't have random chemicals just make themselves into things and gradually become better. Entropy rules.

Re:Taking bets

[corngrower]

There's one big difference here. The inital organism is able to replicate itself. That, along with the possibility of imperfect replication and natural selection will lead to evolution, I maintain. This makes it possible for evolution to be able to produce ever more complex individuals.

So lets see now we want

* An inital organism type that is able to replicate itself, much of the time a perfect copy

* The possibility of imperfect replication, that will lead to a mutation and individuals with slightly different survival characteristics from the parent organism

* Environmental factors which favor, or disfavor the survival or organisms with certain characteristics.

(In item two i'll restrict mutations to slightly different survival characterists, as large ones in the real world would almost certainly be detrimental.)

Biology tells us that we have something called DNA that determines the characteristics of an organism. Biology tells us that when a simple single celled organism divides, the DNA is replicated, sometimes imperfectly. We know that environmental factors can favor or disfavor individual organisms survival because of relatively small changes in their physical being.

One could run a mathematical simulation that could prove whether a more 'complex' individual is capable from evolving from a more simple individual given the above hypotheses. This simulation would be a vast simplification of real world life forms, but it might prove to you that it is possible for something more complex to evolve from something simpler. I'm curious and might have to undertake this little project.

The fact that an organism replicates changes the situation from your tornato hitting a junk yard metaphor. Also you're looking at the evolution as making life become 'better'. You could look at it from the point of view that the original organism was perfect, and that because of evolution, hacked up, imperfect, fringe elements are able to survive. That is, today's organisms are far less perfect than the inital one. In a sense entropy does rule with evolution. Life, as a whole is far more disorganized and diverse than the simple one type of organism that started it all. Its filled with all kinds of kludged up, mis-copied DNA. Its just that some of these mal-formed organisms are more intelligent than the original.

Another way to think about this is that there is a set of possible finite sequences of nucleotide patterns. You know, those ATGC type things. Viable organisms (any organisms that could under some set of environmental factors survive and replicate) would have be an extremely small (relatively speaking) subset of the set of finite nucleotide sequences. But even the set of potentially viable organisms (by that I mean types of organisms) is a huge huge set. Now the set of organisms that are actually alive today, or were alive at one time during the Earth's history is a very small subset (relatively speaking) of this second set. And even this set is huge. Now who's to say that the second set that i mentioned couldn't contain many many organisms with intelligence levels of say homo sapiens. They don't physically exist but who's to say that some patterns of nucleotides couldn't produce other intelligent beings. The fact that we exist was due to the fact that there existed a set of organisms, each of which was a viable organism, and that a series of small DNA changes links the orignial organism to modern man. This linked set probably doesn't exist for most of the potential viable organisms.

I know of a way where moderate changes of genetic code are possible and have a much higher probability of occuring than what one might expect. This also would serve to speed up evolution a bit and make possible 'jumps' like that which probably was seen when something became a mammal, or when a gilled fish became something that could breath air. This mechanism depends on diploid chromosome sets and dominance/recessiveness of genes.

Re:Taking bets

[Anonym1ty]

Pure speculation based on an unproven theory.

As a matter of fact you have listed many theories based on other theories all of which are unproven.

In order for you whole concept to work, at some point you have to take on faith what kicked the whole thing off. Where did the DNA come from? Where did the mechanism for replicating said DNA come from? You have a chicken & the egg problem here. At some point your theory requires that life suddenly sprang up.

How does inanimate matter just become life? The analogy of a tornado hitting a junkyark hits this nail on the head. Until someone can prove "life from lifelessness" the rest of your theory might just as well go away. That little bump from non-living things to living things is one hell of a leap of faith at this point with absolutely nothing than speculation to back it up.

You can't even prove that one species really does come from another, you can't prove that living things sprang up from non-living things, you can't prove that mutations are beneficial. You can't even give an example of a new gene evolving. Even the closest example you can give on mutation is completely unvarifiable, and it is unlikely that even if something had happened it was nothing more than activating a gene that was already part of the genome. -I can turn a lightbulb off and on too, doing so will never make it anything other than a lightbulb.

There is no evedence of mutations writing new genes. There isn't anything above speculation on this. Without new genes you can't change something from one thing to another.

The theory of evolution more closely resembles a theological structure than it does science.

Creationism does not have any problem with survival of the fittest (or luckiest) and no problems with genetic variation. Creationism notes the similarities of the species and Creationism even believes in the existance of mutations. Those are the things you keep using to demonstrate evolution. They don't.

The problem with evolution is that it asks us to believe that the cumulative effects of errors (mistakes) over time causes living things to become more complex more ordered and more highly structured. There is nothing else in nature that does this. Why should we believe that life does?

This mechanism depends on diploid chromosome sets and dominance/recessiveness of genes.

Where did the chromosomes come from? where did the genes come from? In order for this way of thinking to work, life would have to make the new genes in anticipation of needing them in the future... And you want me to believe that inanimate chemicals anticipated they needed to become alive and throughout the ages life anticipated it will need to have intructions to deal with a change it has not yet encountered?????

Re:Taking bets

[KC9EOW]

1) egg came first. Reptiles lay eggs, reptiles ahve been around LONG before chickens, therefore.... 2) just invent a time machine, stick a string of dna in it, age it a few million years, take it out and study it. THAT should fix things :P 3) if all else fails, take a frog into a lab, monkey around with it's genomes & try to get a 15-leg frog. MMMMM those frog legs are tasty.

Re:Yes! Imagine the possibilities....

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

Actually the spider that bit spiderman had Neanderthal genes. This is why spiderman was so strong.

White House shows interest

[Anonymous Coward]

President Bush expressed considerable interest in the Neanderthal Genome sequencing project. The president expressed hope the project would be completed quickly enough that a living person whose DNA most closely matched that of a Neanderthal could be identified and nominated to the Supreme Court.

Re:White House shows interest

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it hard to believe that Bush would nominate a liberal.

Re:White House shows interest

[coflow]

why does a jab at a right-winger get modded up funny, but an equally clever jab at the left get's left alone?

Re:White House shows interest

[syrinx]

whose DNA most closely matched that of a Neanderthal could be identified and nominated to the Supreme Court.

I'm trying to make a lawyer joke here, but it's not working. Just pretend I made one and mod me up funny.

Re:White House shows interest

[ericspinder]

why does a jab at a right-winger get modded up funny, but an equally clever jab at the left get's left alone?

That "equally funny jab was just the equilivant of a "your mama" come back, and really not particularly funny. However, IMHO, the OP was a little tired itself. Personally I've very *progressive*, and dislike Bush more than the average guy, but I'm a little tired of every article on Slashdot getting twisted to insult the American political system.

Re:White House shows interest

[lawpoop]

Because left-wingers find jabs at right-wingers funny; while right-wingers lack the intelligence and sophistication to understand a clever jab ;)

Re:White House shows interest

[Anonymous Coward]

because it's funny when you mock people in power. left-wingers have no power, ergo...

Re:White House shows interest

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the words "Unfrozen Caveman" might help?

Re:White House shows interest

[What me a Coward]

Well if we americans would stop electing politicans who are nothing more than jokes to begin with then we wouldn't have to worry about political jokes now would we.

Re:White House shows interest

[krunk4ever]

in later news, it came to no shocking surprise that the living human's DNA which most closely resembled the Neanderthal was President Bush himself!

Re:White House shows interest

[Anonymous Coward]

Who elected who? Surely I didn't elect any of those assholes, and neither did you. Their money, and their family connections "elected" them.

Re:White House shows interest

[Anonymous Coward]

That did actually get modded up as funny, but I think a reason why less people find it particularly funny is that unlike stereotypes of conservatives, stereotypes of liberals don't include Neanderthal qualities.

Re:White House shows interest

[sillybilly]

That's funny, but the supreme court may actually be better off, because we have no clue about how Neanderthals really were. When you look at a pile of cracked bones, you can make educated guesses, there is only so much you can philosophize over what their songs were like, if they even sang, or what kind of morals and beliefs they held to.

Just what we need, another lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh!!! I'm just a simple caveman. Your technology frightens and startles me.

Now get me another drink!

Where DNA from?

[millahtime]

which involves isolating genetic fragments from fossils of the prehistoric beings who originally inhabited Europe, is being carried out at the Leipzig-based institute.

According to the article they will isolate the DNA from fossils. Do they already have fossils or are they still looking for them to get the DNA? Is there any record of fossils with the DNA? They said it was early in the project.. is it early enough that they are looking for the DNA still? Very vague article when you look at it.

Re:Where DNA from?

[Otter]

DNA has already been isolated (and the mitochondrial genome sequenced) from Neanderthal fossils. I would imagine that it's taken a few years to reliably amplify those small quantities of DNA to sequence the genome, but that's just a guess...

Re:Where DNA from?

[millahtime]

Do you have a link to this info?

How do they know it's neanderthol and not from something else?

Re:Where DNA from?

[Otter]

Do you have a link to this info?

Here's the second case -- IIRC the first paper was in Cell, but I can't find it.

How do they know it's neanderthol and not from something else?

I'm no anthropologist but I think that Neanderthal skeletons are pretty unmistakeable to the trained eye.

Re:Where DNA from?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where DNA from? Ugh....Me don't know....

So how did they know that?

[lheal]

Spears not used as projectile weapons? Monkeys know how to throw stuff. My dog knows how to throw stuff.

I suppose the shape of the spearhead indicates that they weren't thrown. That's hooey. It just shows that the Neanderthals weren't very good at making spears.

Re:So how did they know that?

[Colin Smith]

Actually it means that the site where they found spear heads they didn't look like they were thrown. We don't have all that much information about neanderthals. They're basically extrapolating all of neanderthal society from a small village somewhere.

I suspect we out competed them by breeding faster, requiring less energy to function.

Re:So how did they know that?

[Anonymous Coward]

we out competed them by breeding faster

So what you're saying is....

That if Slashdot had been around then, we'd have lost?

or maybe the dominant species today would be Geeky Neanderthals?

Re:So how did they know that?

[Feztaa]

Considering the impending Peak Oil crisis, I find the idea that humans survived due to "requiring less energy to function" comical at best ;)

Re:So how did they know that?

[jericho4.0]

I agree that the higher energy requirements of the neanderthals was the deciding factor. Although the H. Sapian finds are generally richer (culture and tech), this could be explained by the fact that H. Sapians could live in larger groups.

Re:So how did they know that?

[CmdrGravy]

Not really, it shows that Neandertals had the right tools to surive in their environment, from what I have read they apparently used to live in wooded areas where they had plenty of cover to lie in wait for animals before jumping out and spearing them with their spears. Throwing spears at animals in woods is probably a less successful strategy than the one they used.

More valuable than your average endangered species

[Anonymous Coward]

I also strongly agree this would be an extremely cool thing.

Considering how much hype there is about protecting the average endangered rat or bug, I'd think you'd have environmentalists worldwide backing such cloning.

This is one of the most interesting believed-to-be-extinct species that has ever existed and one of the most intelligent lifeforms that humans have driven to extinction. What a wonderful thing it would be if we can bring it back.

(posting anon coward to avoid the environmentalist fanatics who'll value bugs and rats more than highly advanced neanderthals)

Just three words...

[what_the_frell]

UNFROZEN CAVEMAN LAWYER!!!

Somebody had to do it

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our new Neanderthal overlords.

Sounds easy enough for a skilled logic-dodger

[mcc]

Perhaps the creationists will use this as an opportunity to finally just admit that Cain's wife had to have come from somewhere...

Re:Sounds easy enough for a skilled logic-dodger

[FunWithHeadlines]

"wife had to have come from somewhere..."

One of his sisters, they will tell you. And this Neanderthal? Some kind of monkey, they will say. If proven otherwise, they will just say, "The science is not fully in yet."

Re:Sounds easy enough for a skilled logic-dodger

[genrader]

Neanderthal was a human, end of story.

Re:Gnome??

[FrontalLobe]

I'd prefer to see those little garden suckers made up to look like neanderthal's...

Just one more.

[Stumbles]

Oh great, just like we need more Neanderthal's walking around on this planet. There's already to many of those boneheads here.

Re:Yes! Imagine the possibilities....

[ehiris]

"There is value in modifying soldiers of the future with the muscle mass that the Neanderthals enjoyed."

I have to disagree with you. While muscle mass is important, it is not nearly as important as brain power which can be applied to effective use of modern weapons. Very high muscle mass can be easily achieved thorugh medicine if needed (think steroids and all the other drugs which go with them).

plan for slashdot world domination

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Release story about caveman cloning.
2. Dupe story at least 3 times.
3. ???
4. Profit!

Re:plan for slashdot world domination

[Anonymous Coward]

mod this up you ass faggots

Re:More valuable than your average endangered spec

[Anonymous Coward]

(posting anon coward to avoid the environmentalist fanatics who'll value bugs and rats more than highly advanced neanderthals)

I bet the only replies you get are going to be in response to this idiotic statement.

(posting anon coward to avoid neanderthal fanatics)

Hey Now!

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody knows gravity doesn't exist....this place just really, really, sucks...

Re:"Could this be the start of a Pleistocene park?

[crawling_chaos]

I thought US talk radio was pretty much proof positive that Neanderthal man never left us. He just got dumber and wrapped himself in the flag.

Evidence ???

[Anonymous Coward]

that most likely was wiped out in large part because of us.

Got any evidence for this?

Re:Evidence ???

[jericho4.0]

Oodles.

Re:Yes! Imagine the possibilities....

[millahtime]

um, how do you know what a neanderthol man looked like? Because a man is really big he is neanderthol? If that were the case, eating at mcdonalds could turn you into a neanderthol.

ahhh

[ImaLamer]

There is a big difference between knowing how to do something and doing it well. Monkeys (APES!!!) can throw stuff, but they don't really hit their targets often. For apes, it is more of a bluffing technique - "look, I'm thowing this towards you".

There has been a lot of research into the theory that one reason we made it out of our ancient roots is because we threw so well. Not only could we throw rocks and later spears, but we could actually hit our targets. Of course we weren't always that great, and those who weren't died... you know the rest.

Basically, one author put it like this 'Is pitching an evolved skill?'

Re:ahhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Was that Howard Bloom? Fascinating book on Nature and Evil.

Re:ahhh

[maxpublic]

There has been a lot of research into the theory that one reason we made it out of our ancient roots is because we threw so well.

Homo sapiens satisfied 90% of their nutritional needs through gathering and ony 10% through hunting. Overall humans were incredibly shitty hunters.

Neanderthal numbers are switched: 90% of their food was meat, only 10% of it came in the form of fruit and vegetables. This was necessary, due to both their bulk (the weakest could break Arnie in his prime in two) and the environment they lived in. Neanderthals were very, very good hunters - the best the wide human line as ever produced, by a huge margin.

I sincerely doubt the Neanderthals were incapable of mastering the art of 'throwing', especially since it appears they might actually have been a bit smarter than us. And I've never once heard this argument until today, here, on Slashdot, despite a fair amount of research into Neanderthal and other human relatives.

In fact, the prevailing theory concerning Neanderthal extinction has to do with a) the reduction in suitable climate, b) the relative inability to concentrate numbers because they couldn't support themselves on plant matter like homo sapiens did, and c) the inability to drive off homo sapien encroachment for this very reason (e.g., valley X could only support Y members of Neanderthal tribe, but 5Y of H. Sapiens tribe, meaning that Neanderthals were badly outnumbered in conflicts with H. Sapiens. Strength hardly matters if you're outnumbered 5 to 1).

Max

Previous studies were based on female line...

[Anonymous Coward]

(mitrochondrial) DNA. If there was sapiens/neanderthal interbreeding, it seems most likely to me it would be neanderthal male and sapiens female rather than vice versa, considering how heterosexual attraction (and rape!) works.

So previous studies would not detect male line neanderthal heritage.

Actually, I'm pretty certain a genetic investigation of the Irish population would yield some interesting results. The oldest celtic Irish legends of when celtic people reached Ireland tell of wars and intermarriage with the existing population of a powerful but oddly-shaped people they displaced. And have a look at a neanderthal facial reconstruction...

Genetic material in fossils?

[kevlar]

"isolating genetic fragments from fossils of the prehistoric beings"

Since when is there genetic material in fossils? Fossils are mineral deposits, not bone. If its a fossil they're dealing with, then they're looking for genetic material in some rocks which isn't going to show up. If its a bone they're dealing with, then its not a fossil.

Re:Genetic material in fossils?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when is there genetic material in fossils?

Recent events suggest the notion is not so far fetched - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/03 24_050324_trexsofttissue.html

This was covered on slashdot - http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/03/24/20122 56.shtml?tid=14

Re:Genetic material in fossils?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is possible to extract small quantities of DNA from ground up fossil bone material. The yield is extremely small, but if you have the material you can do it. I can't imagine how many bones they would need to destroy to achieve a whole genome map, but they could probably utilize splinters and other worthless fragments. There would actually be more of them than the good ones.

Re:Genetic material in fossils?

[Anonym1ty]

Since when is there genetic material in fossils? Fossils are mineral deposits, not bone.

Not all Neanderthal remains are fossils. In fact even non-fossilized remains of other hominids are found. Also, as reported on slashdot some time back, dinosaur soft-tissue remains have been found. -Brain tissue to be precise.

Most things that die do not become fossils. Many remains in oxygen deprived wet (bogs) can survive for 1000s of years. Critters can also be preserved in tar for some time or even mummified.

Re:Yes! Imagine the possibilities....

[MustardMan]

Andre the giant suffered from a disease called acromegaly, which caused him to continually grow, such that the proportions of his body took a constant toll on it. Near his death he was in constant pain, and eventually died of heart failure because the muscle simply couldn't keep up with the size of his body. Most people who were diagnosed with the disease in his time didn't live to 40. Saying he was like a neanderthol just because he had a funny shaped head is incredibly stupid and closed minded. The man suffered from an illness which gave him a short, painful life. That he was able to capitolize on the outward appearance given to him by the disease to make his life into a positive one is a testament to Andre's spirit.

Re:More valuable than your average endangered spec

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree.

(posting anon coward to avoid Dick Cheney)

Resurrection?

[solarlux]

A previous slashdot article mentioned a group of scientists who were attempting to resurrect the extinct Tasmanian tiger by inserting recovered DNA into a surrogate mother's egg (of a similar existing species). The latest news is that the project was cancelled due to difficulties, but then was recently restarted.

So this brings up an interesting question... IF the entire Neanderthal genome was recovered, could its DNA be inserted into a human egg and brought to birth by a surrogate human mother? If this is feasible (with current or near-future tech), imagine the implications!

Re:Resurrection?

[canineK9]

Maybe not. There are all sorts of interactions between the DNA and other cellular constituents. Maybe the t-RNA ratios are off so that the translation of m-RNA is inefficient or the human mitochodrial DNA is missing a required gene or has one that represses the genomic DNA, etc.

Re:Resurrection?

[memfrob]

imagine the implications!

Well, they're not "human", so of course they'll be discussions about whether they have civil rights.

Given the upcoming supreme court nominations, it won't be long until they're the new completely-legal slave race for the rich and powerful (a position currently occupied by the United States legislature)

Re:Resurrection?

[The Lynxpro]

"So this brings up an interesting question... IF the entire Neanderthal genome was recovered, could its DNA be inserted into a human egg and brought to birth by a surrogate human mother? If this is feasible (with current or near-future tech), imagine the implications!"

And currently entirely legal. The ban on "human" cloning would not prevent cloning of a non-human population. Stem cell research could be done on Neanderthal genetic stock.

Granted, if Neanderthal DNA shares a good chunk of DNA, then expect modifications of the law to begin in draft form.

Re:Resurrection?

[The Lynxpro]

"Granted, if Neanderthal DNA shares a good chunk of DNA, then expect modifications of the law to begin in draft form."

Neanderthal DNA shares a good chunk with human DNA. Left out the human part there accidentally.

Re:Resurrection?

[The Lynxpro]

"Given the upcoming supreme court nominations, it won't be long until they're the new completely-legal slave race for the rich and powerful (a position currently occupied by the United States legislature)"

I'm sure there's some openings available at the RIAA...

Better link

[Anonymous Coward]

The original webpage for the Neanderthal facial reconstruction is here, and the image is somewhat better.

They probably looked much like modern homo europeanus.

Re:Better link

[truckaxle]

This would throw the theologans into a tizzy trying to fit a subspecies of humanoids into their theology.

Re:Better link

[Anonymous Coward]

Foxy ! I certainly wouldn't kick her out of bed for farting.

Re:Yes! Imagine the possibilities....

[Anonymous Coward]

His daughter is very normal looking. Apparenltly Paul White (sp?) the 'big show' has/had the same disease but now they can treat it with hormone therapy. So the big show is big but he has relativly normal hands and feet.

Re:Yes! Imagine the possibilities....

[dan dan the dna man]

Unfortunately genome sequencing projects don't really lend themselves to a BOINC like infrastructure - what you're doing is assembling millions of short strands of DNA into a contiguous sequence. Consequently you need all the avaialable strands close by to compare each other against and fit them into the scaffold. Thats why these things tend to be done on big localised compute clusters and not distributed.

Genome annotation (actually marking out features in the DNA) is a different matter - it would be quite sensible to farm out "chunks" of assembled DNA to multiple machines for various gene prediction algorithms.

If you're interested in doing genome based distributed computation I'm sure Genome@Home w ould be delighted to hear from you.

"Lost in a Good Book"

[ewhac]

The subject of reconstituted Neanderthals was briefly explored in Jasper Fforde's book, "Lost in a Good Book" (sequel to, "The Eyre Affair"). Both books take place on an alternate-history Earth where the Crimean War has lasted for hundreds of years, and genetic engineering is a consumer product (you can sequence and grow your own pet Dodo bird). Neanderthals were recreated for the purpose of being cheaply-made foot soldiers for the war effort. However, it turned out that Neanderthals are completely non-aggressive creatures; the whole concept of conflict is incomprehensible to them. So they ended up using them as cheap labor for low-end, low-skill jobs, such as fast-food restaurant server, or SkyRail driver.

'Thals don't figure prominently until the fourth book in the series, "Something Rotten," where they turn out to be instrumental in a high-stakes world cup croquet tournament.

All four books are a hell of a lot of fun, and approach the level of wit and humor of Douglas Adams. Recommended.

Schwab

Re:"Lost in a Good Book"

[Anonymous Coward]

However, it turned out that Neanderthals are completely non-aggressive creatures; the whole concept of conflict is incomprehensible to them. So they ended up using them as cheap labor for low-end, low-skill jobs, such as fast-food restaurant server, or SkyRail driver.

So the Neanderthals are actually Mexican immigrant workers?! Astonishing!

Re:"Lost in a Good Book"

[The Lynxpro]

"'Thals don't figure prominently until the fourth book in the series, "Something Rotten," where they turn out to be instrumental in a high-stakes world cup croquet tournament."

The Thals? The mortal enemies of the Kaleds, who later became the galactic mutated filth known as the Daleks?

Granted, the Thals did evolve into a peace loving folk known for their beautiful capes, and modeling their look to resemble Nick Rhodes, the keyboardist of the band known as Duran Duran.

Re:"Lost in a Good Book"

[Marticus]

I seem to remember reading in the book that the decision for recreating Neanderthals actually started from the idea of using them for medical testing, as the Neanderthals are pretty close to human in regards to physiology...

Ah, here is the relevant passage:

'The Neanderthal experiment was conceived in order to create the euphemistically entitled "medical test vessels", living creatures that were as close as possible to humans without actually being human within the context of the law. The experiment was an unparalleled success - and failure. The Neanderthal was everything that could be hoped for. A close cousin but not human, physiologically almost identical - and legally with less rights than a dormouse. But sadly for Goliath, even the hardiest of medical technicians balked at experiments conducted upon intelligent and speaking entities, so the first batch of Neanderthals were trained instead as "expendable combat units", a project that was shelved as soon as the lack of aggressive instincts in the Neanderthals was noted. They were subsequently released into the community as cheap labour and became a celebrated tax write-off. It was Homo sapiens at his least sapient.'

Gerhard VON SQUID - Neanderthals Back after a Short Absence

From "Something Rotten" by Jasper Fforde. (Goliath being the megacorp that cloned the 'thals).

Also highly recommended is the "Neanderthal Parallax" trilogy by Robert J Sawyer (although it's pretty much straight scifi, not comedic like Fforde's books).

Re:Yes! Imagine the possibilities....

[merreborn]

Andre was about three times to large in every dimension to be a Neanderthal. Homo Sapiens are much taller than their prehistoric cousins.

Foolish, huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's kind of a harsh word, coming from someone who:

A. Apparantly is unaware than Neanderthals averaged a very non-giant 5 feet in height.

B. Would seriously consider approaching huge wrestlers with a proposition like 'Could I have a blood sample to check and see if you're genetically related to Neanderthals?' How did you even survive junior high?

If they had survived...

[bloblu]

I have always wondered what the world would be like if Neanderthal would have survived. What kind of status whould they be given? What about anti-Neanderthal racism?

What would happen if we managed to recreate some of them? I think that would force us to define what we are more precisely.

Re:If they had survived...

[meringuoid]

What kind of status whould they be given? What about anti-Neanderthal racism?

We'd probably end up inundated with troll posts from the Gay Neanderthals Association of America...

Re:If they had survived...

[bcmm]

What about anti-Neanderthal racism?

This would of course raise interesting/frightening questions as to how we define racism. After all, Neanderthals are considered a different species, and we already conduct lethal experiments, etc., on the nearest living creatures we consider a different species, despite chimpanzees' obvious intelligence.

And of course, in the past racist have tried to claim that other humans are really a different species.

Already Happened...

[InVinoVeritas]

Please see Patrick Ewing for questions.

Feasible?

[johnw]

Could this be the start of a Pleistocene park?

Surely you couldn't make an entire park out of Pleistocene?

Coolness, the best reason to do science

[WillAffleckUW]

"And the best reason is because it's cool", or so says the project leader.

Well, can't argue with that one.

junk's still a mystery

[Dioscorea]

The latter, it turns out, is not remotely "junk", but contains important regulatory sequences which control gene activation/deactivation and the physical structure of the chromosomes.

actually, known regulatory sequences comprise only a small fraction of the junk....

a much bigger fraction is mobile DNA of various kinds (transposons, satellites, etc.) which may (or may not) be evolutionarily important.....

some more may be unannotated genes, e.g. small ORFs or noncoding RNAs... basically the content of intergenic DNA is still an open question...

Re:junk's still a mystery

[benna]

Well it seems to be well preserved by evolution, so it must be evolutionarily important somehow.

Re:junk's still a mystery

[ImaLamer]

Yeah, umm no.

Worms and some bacteria have DNA strands with 300 times the information of humans, most of it junk, and it doesn't mean anything. The junk is just left in there after reproduction. You've got to remember that although we've even gone to space, a place no worm could imagine going, we haven't reproduced as much as they have. Bacteria? Forget about it.

Really, get "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan. Great read, updated by Ann, wealth of insight into evolution.

Re:junk's still a mystery

[corngrower]

You've got to remember that although we've even gone to space, a place no worm could imagine going,

I believe that there were some worms that survived coming back from space when the Columbia disintegrated. So I'm sure there were a few worms around that didn't have to imagine going into space.

Re:junk's still a mystery

[espressojim]

My lab is preparing to submit my work on looking at conserved regions between mice, dogs, and humans in intragenic regions, and our hypothesis as to selective forces acting in intragenic regions.

If I'm lucky, it'll be my 1st first author nature paper. (crosses fingers).

We tell a good story (oh, and the data now even matches with Eddie Rubin's data about deleting a 1 megabase region in gene desert...)

There's a lot left to be explored in intragenic regions, and it's become a very hot topic in a number of labs following the release of the Hapmap project's full dataset.

Re:junk's still a mystery

[Dioscorea]

cool - where are you based? I am in Berkeley and am flying out to the ENCODE meeting next week...

Re:junk's still a mystery

[espressojim]

Boston. Children's Hospital and the Broad. I'm working 'officially' at CH, and a visting scientist at the Broad.

Wooo...encode data. I just had to write a bunch of code to calculate pi/theta for conserved regions in encode vs. non conserved regions in the ENCODE dataset. Good times.

Re:junk's still a mystery

[Dioscorea]

Say hi to Michele Clamp and James Cuff from me.... used to work with them at the Sanger Center...

Re:junk's still a mystery

[espressojim]

Oh, I do know James. I think I destroy his sanity occasionally when I use far too much diskspace.

Great, we'll have a Caveman lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

..just in time to file an appeal for SCO

Bush vs. Neanderthal

[beowulfy]

Well, it looks like we are well on our way to be able to do a comparative study to find out who is more closely related to a modern, intelligent human being; George W. or the Neanderthal man. My bets are on the Neanderthal...

Re:Bush vs. Neanderthal

[coflow]

wow, original. nobody else has made this connection yet.

Neanderthal Brain Size and Hypergeometry

[mindpixel]

Did you know Neanderthal had bigger brains than us?

I predict we will find that the neanderthal genome code for an extra neocortical layer, giving the species an eight-layer thalamocortical loop, and hence less hypersurface area than humans who have a seven layer thalamocortical loop, and thus maximum hypersurface--because everyone knows hypersurface is maximum at seven dimensions. Right?

Re:Neanderthal Brain Size and Hypergeometry

[meringuoid]

I predict we will find that the neanderthal genome code for an extra neocortical layer, giving the species an eight-layer thalamocortical loop, and hence less hypersurface area than humans who have a seven layer thalamocortical loop, and thus maximum hypersurface--because everyone knows hypersurface is maximum at seven dimensions. Right?

The fuck?

I've read Archimedes Plutonium, I've read Hammond's Scientific Proof Of God, I've read the whole Time Cube thing and a goodly slice of Zetatalk. But I've never read anything quite so devoid of actual content as that paragraph, with the possible exception of some scripts from Star Trek: Voyager. What WAS that meant to be?

Re:Neanderthal Brain Size and Hypergeometry

[mindpixel]

Google Harry Jerison - dude famous for brain size/body surface area relationship.

Re:Neanderthal Brain Size and Hypergeometry

[nusuth]

He thinks that the hypergeometry of brain is the most important parameter of cognition: it has to be the dimension which gives maximum surface area of a sphere, which is 7 (rounded to closest integer.) His further theory is fractal dimensions of brain can be understood by counting certain brain layers and that also defines the properties of hypergeometry.

There you have it, now the post probably makes as much sense as it can ever make.

Re:Neanderthal Brain Size and Hypergeometry

[Chris Burke]

Since I seem to remember from a discussion you had on k5 that the human brain having a seven-dimensional structure is an unproven hypothesis of your own invention, I would find it unlikely that this test would verify that Neanderthal had an eighth layer, what with not showing that humans have seven while we've had much longer to study their DNA.

Still, neat hypothesis. The neanderthal brain is bigger but sub-optimally designed.

Re:Neanderthal Brain Size and Hypergeometry

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds reasonable.

Re:Neanderthal Brain Size and Hypergeometry

[mindpixel]

That's the thing about theories - they generate predictions and people figure out how to test them. Amazing how science works, no?

The neanderthal DNA can be compared with the DNA of humans, bats, cetaceans, all of which have different neocortical lamination counts. I expect something related to the reeler gene will be implicated. Or we may discover a whole new set of lamination controls, all of which I have predicted will be sensitive to hypersurface area.

Re:Yes! Imagine the possibilities....

[blamanj]

It's not necessarily speculation. There is signifcant evidence to the contrary, though it has not been ruled out completely.

Is it done yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well? We need to know right now!

slave labor, duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine having a species that is intellectually qualified to do 90% of our work but doesn't have the same rights as humans.

Beautiful.

Re:slave labor, duh

[Anonymous Coward]

We have enough computer programmers already.

Re:slave labor, duh

[jericho4.0]

There are enough homo sapiens that don't have the intellectual qualifications to do much of our work. And that bar is getting higher, with the information economy and such. How many labours do we need?

Given that the average Neanderthal had a larger brain than your average H. Sapian, maybe they could help us out. The human linked extinction might not have been because the humans were smarter, but because the of the Ns much greater caloric needs.

Re:slave labor, duh

[6e7a]

Cool! Capatalism can continue after we exploit all the Earth's resources and the people of 3rd world countries! :-)

Did anyone else read...

[VMEbus]

...Neanderthal Gnome to be Sequenced?

Re:Did anyone else read...

[bughunter]

Yes. I did.

Far, far too much WoW for you, too, lately: eh?

Re:Yes! Imagine the possibilities....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not simply speculation that has lead the majority of researchers who study this question to reach this conclusion. There are multiple lines of empirical evidence from recovered neanderthal samples, as well as several simulation-based studies, that suggest that the amount of inbreeding that occurred would be extremely small or nonexistent. I will presume you were joking about the Andre the Giant comment.

Neanderthals With Attitude

[commodoresloat]

And you know what that means....

It's PAYBACK TIME!!!

And I, for one, welcome our Neanderthal overlords....

Looks Human to me

[Generalisimo Zang]

The reconstructed neanderthal in the link you provided looks pretty darn human to me.

If there were people like that walking down the street, they'd be pretty hard to tell apart from regular Homo Sapiens.

Re:Looks Human to me

[Anonymous Coward]

People tell me I look human too. Shows what they know!

Re:Looks Human to me

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that was the point. They would look human, if a bit exaggeratedly Irish.

If Cloned...

[Ranger]

I predict if Neanderthals are cloned:

A) Geico will offer them car insurance, but they won't buy because of their Caveman commercials.

B) Neanderthals will be pissed to find out were replaced by people on the B Ark.

C) Sales of backrazors will double.

D) Grunthag and Duna will top Neanderthal baby names lists just above Rena, Gort, Bob, and Winona.

Re:If Cloned...

[not-enough-info]

Yes, the future. All the way... to the year 2000.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

[varmittang]

I thought gravity was a Law, not a theory.

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don't really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook's law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

Re:http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

[digidave]

I'm likely not the right person to answer this, but I think a law is more aptly described as a description of what is happening. For instance, "gravity makes things fall down" is a law (or my wording of it) while Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is the actual nuts and bolts about how it works. Einstein's theory cannot ever be a law.

Re:http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

[Knara]

"Officially" in the Scientific Method there are no Laws, only more and more sound theories. "Laws" are kind of honorary titles for theories that have stood up for a long time, but it's more of a commonspeak thing.

Technically you have this process:

1) Observation of some phenomenon

2) Hypothesis is formed

3) Experimentation performed and data collected

4) If data supports hypothesis on a repeatable basis, then it *could* become a theory.

I mean, we have Newton's Laws of Motion, but they are known to have exceptions in some circumstances. Theory is a much more consistent label.

Re:http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

[mapmaker]

I thought gravity was a Law, not a theory.

No, gravity is a theory. Anything in science that explains why something happens is a theory, or a hypothesis. Simple descriptions of what happens are sometimes called laws. Laws aren't 'truer' than theories, they're simpler.

Here's a relevant snippet from the wikipedia entry for theory:
Some scientific theories (such as the theory of gravity) are so widely accepted that they are often seen as laws. This, however, rests on a mistaken assumption of what theories and laws are. Theories and laws are not rungs in a ladder of truth, but different sets of data.

Re:http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

[Mant]

Not really.

Science pretty much stopped using the term "Law" quite a while back, but the names of old ones stuck. Some of the so called "Laws" like Newtons Laws we know aren't actually true now, but we keep the name.

The biggest difference between is theory and a law is there really is no such thing as a "law", just some things have that name as a legacy.

As for a Hypothesis, it has to be refutable to be a valid scientific hypothesis, otherwise it is just a conjecture, and of no real scientific value.

Re:http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

[richteas]

And to take it even further, (real ?) science does not even bother with the distinction between the different terms, just with the distinction of scientific or non-scientific theories:

Some philosophers argue, that a theory can be called scientific only if it is falsifiable. Meaning, that in principle an experiment or an observation can be created to test the theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

It's possible to argue in the following way: A theory could be called "true", until proven otherwise. But in order to be even considered to be "true", it must be scientific, that is, falisifiable (an observation can in principle be given that may prove if the theory is false)

Clone ?

[ta ma de]

So, any women out there ready to donate a womb/vagina combination to bring the Neanderthal clone to term?

Re:Clone ?

[Ravenrage]

if so then she/they should contact my old boss....i sure he needs to get laid........:)

God did it.

[benna]

Thats why you really can't argue with these people. Everything they claim is completly unfalsifiable.

Re:God did it.

[Ceribia]

Before you write off every comment of God did it as bunk double check why they are saying it. In this case they are probably looking at the Christian book of Genesis. In Genesis. we have God taking away the legs from a creature that it calls Snake, now we see that Snakes ounce had legs. Bit of an eerie coincidence isn't it?

Re:God did it.

[benna]

Not really.

Re:God did it.

[HrothgarReborn]

In fairness $DIETY has nothing to do with the question. Evolution is an attempt to explain the origins of diverse species and tries to put some natural mechanisms in place for how this all works. While some interpretations of the book of Genesis will have conflicts with this, a belief in God does not. Science has never been good at explaining "Why" this sort of thing happens and has a hit and miss record at explaining "how."

Given normal observed scientific principles, complex systems tend to break down to smaller simpler systems over time without some external organizing force making it otherwise. Evolution steps in and observes the exact oposite. Simple systems grow into more complex systems. What is causing that to happen? export $DEITY=syntropy; What really governs change? The irony is that evolution may the best evidence of a master creator that there is.

Like Einstein I cannot explain the incredible complexities of this world as the result of random chance. Some force appears to be organizing this. I don't think we should be so arrogant to assume we have all the answers yet. Just because some provincial interpretations are found to be inadaquate does not at all mean we have searched the heavens and found them empty. Just as we should not dogmatically respond that a spiritual experiance from an ancient desert prophet almost 4000 years ago is all we need to know about our origins, we should not pretend that a more scientific explaination rules out that possibility of a Grand Architect of the Universe designing such an elegant system. Besides a God that can design and control such beautifully delicate processes is far more impressive than the dictating lightning thrower imagined by some people.

Re:God did it.

[blincoln]

Given normal observed scientific principles, complex systems tend to break down to smaller simpler systems over time without some external organizing force making it otherwise.

This is only true of a closed system, and the Earth is not a closed system.

Re:God did it.

[benna]

We don't have all the answers, but we have this one. You are misapplying the second law of thermodynamics. Only closed systems become more chaotic over time. The earth is not a closed system.

Also, Einstein's statement with regard to quantum mechanics is completly unrelated to evolution. Evolution is not "random chance." This is a misconception. Evolution, in a system such as ares, not only does occur, but must. While each indevidule mutation is random, the selection of which mutations are to be preserved is not random at all. Only those mutations which help and organism to survive are preserved. This is completly logical. There is no need for such a process to be guided by a creator.

My own conception of God is not as some conscious, judgement making entity which designed the universe, but as essentially the processes of the universe themselves. Natural selection is not guided by God, it IS god. In the same way, I am God, in that my life process is God. Everything is divine.

Re:God did it.

[penguinoid]

>>Given normal observed scientific principles, complex systems tend to break down to smaller simpler systems over time without some external organizing force making it otherwise.

This is only true of a closed system, and the Earth is not a closed system.

No, you are confused with thermal entropy. Things left to themselves deteriorate (decrease in order); gases will mix if placed in the same container, etc. There must be a driving force to go against deterioration, and that requires energy as well as the organizing force. That is why organisms have self-repair mechanisms, but die of old age anyways. I think the GP is refering to the fact (correct me if i'm wrong) that no one has ever observed mutations that come up with new, useful information, though there have been sereval mutations that destroy information (even if they are benefitial, like the one that regulates the amount of anti-penicillin some bacteria produce).

I'll go put on my asbestos underware now.

Re:God did it.

[blincoln]

Things left to themselves deteriorate (decrease in order)

Like how water crystallizes into an ordered shape when it freezes, or did I misunderstand your statement?

I think the GP is refering to the fact (correct me if i'm wrong) that no one has ever observed mutations that come up with new, useful information, though there have been sereval mutations that destroy information (even if they are benefitial, like the one that regulates the amount of anti-penicillin some bacteria produce).

I can think of one right off the top of my head: if women get the right combination of genetic information, they can have four types of cones in their eyes instead of three.

Also, remember that evolution is not a one-way street towards "progress." Skinks losing their legs and becoming snakes is not "de-evolution."

Re:God did it.

[penguinoid]

Like how water crystallizes into an ordered shape when it freezes, or did I misunderstand your statement?

Nah, you just forgot to read the next sentence where I said that some driving force using energy was needed to do the organizing. Freezing water will increase thermal enthropy (ie, waste energy) in exchange for increasing order.

I can think of [a mutation that comes up with new, useful information] right off the top of my head: if women get the right combination of genetic information, they can have four types of cones in their eyes instead of three.

No, you can't. Because it has not been reported in every single scientific journal, or any at all, for that matter. I can assure you, that scientists will make a lot of noise if they discover such a mutation. Now, about the specific "mutation" you mentioned, if women get the right combination of genetic information doesn't sound like a mutation. Anyhow if I misunderstood that, a link would be helpful.

Limited In Their Skills, But...

[dagny_dev_]

Neanderthals, if cloned, will probably have no real capacity for existing in today's society. However, they may show an unusual propensity for certain types of communication. For instance, perhaps they will be highly gifted in doling out sharp pejoratives, such as "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!"

Re:Limited In Their Skills, But...

[craXORjack]

For instance, perhaps they will be highly gifted in doling out sharp pejoratives, such as "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!"

I suspect their brains might be geared toward monosyllabic language. Therefore an exclamation such as "D'oh!" would be more appropriate.

Pleistocene Park

[88NoSoup4U88]

Could this be the start of a Pleistocene park?

Pleistocene Park

Scientists develop a means of bringing Neanderthals to life using DNA taken from Neanderthals' blood, which has been preserved inside insects encased in amber. Whilst Hammond is showing off his Neanderthals 'theme park' to a selected audience (a lawyer, mathematician, Neanderthal expert, palaeobotanist and his grandchildren) Nedry, a computer expert, disables the security system so that he can make his escape with some stolen embryos. This enables all the Neanderthals to escape their enclosures... Look out,the cavemen are coming !

There is no such thing as the neanderthal ape man

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no scientific evidence of the existance of these so called ape men. It's the crazy evolutionists who have been looking for a missing link to support their unscientific ideas that these "ape men" exist. There is no mention of neanderthals in the bible. Everything i've read so far has been true in the bible and there is no reason for me to now dispute it.

Re:Yes! Imagine the possibilities....

[MightyMartian]

Just because you can find someone who may look like a Neandertal doesn't mean they are a descendants of Neandertals. There are some key differences in Neandertals that we don't see in any modern population. Thus far, mtDNA research indicates that there was no Eurasian intermixing with the Africans that started to flood into the Middle East and Europe. Hopefully this sequencing will be able to answer the question as to whether any nuclear genes are descended from Neandertals, but I must stress that the weight of the evidence points away from interbreeding.

Foot soldiers for future wars

[infonography]

the distopian view is that such beings would be ideal soldiers. Intellegent, but limited. Unlike Apes (i.e. Planet of the Apes) they are proven to be not so much inferior as less adaptable. Humans would be a few steps ahead of them at every turn. Even more ironic, in uniforms they would look exactly like the enemy in German Nazi propoganda posters depicting invading Russians. Instead of Jurassic Park we would be seeing Norman Spinrad's Iron Dream come to life.

Re:There is no such thing as the neanderthal ape m

[MightyMartian]

I hope you're a troll, because if you're not, then I hate to tell you this, but you missed the boat about... oh... two hundred years ago. A literal reading of the Genesis cosmological myths is so variant to what we know now that it's difficult to think of a pleasant way to treat people who expound at any length on how they believe only what the Bible tells them.

Found this site via Google Ads

[ImaLamer]

Slashdot.org, so easy to use even a cave man could do it

Re:Found this site via Google Ads

[kurzweilfreak]

esobofh is a caveman, you insensitive clod!

I don't know...

[kesuki]

Why didn't Slashdot wait until after the release before reporting on this?

I'm still trying to figure out why they used the correctly spelled submission. I mean Neanderthal isn't an easy to spell word. I always try to spell it Neandetaw, or something like that. Surely something is afoot here.. an article subission without any spelling errors, wasn't rejected?!? Ahh my head is going to implode!

THAT'S IT!

[ImaLamer]

"The Lucifer Principle"

Are you the one with my copy?

The Fourth Reich

[vdthemyk]

Is everyone overlooking the obvious underlying opjective of this project?

Create a new German Army made up of very strong, sturdy, and stupid soldiers to take over the world.

I think I saw this on a "Pinky and the Brain" episode...

Re:The Fourth Reich

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I don't know about you, but cloning Natalie Portman seems the more obvious objective to all past, present and future cloning projects.

Re:The Fourth Reich

[The Lynxpro]

"Well I don't know about you, but cloning Natalie Portman seems the more obvious objective to all past, present and future cloning projects."

Well, if the thought of cloning a line of small/non breasted women who think there are still restrictive tariffs on Mexican produce turns you on, then by all means. Tool.

Cloning an army of superwomen using Monica Bellucci as the template is the answer.

Re:There is no such thing as the neanderthal ape m

[Anonymous Coward]

GOTCHA SUCKA! HOOOYA!

Could this be the start of a Pleistocene park?

[Anonymous Coward]

But we already have a park full of Neanderthals.

This should answer some long awaited questions...

[MrFreshly]

Like how and why some patents have been awarded.

Thursday Next

[Anonymous Coward]

Those interested in a bizarre literary science fiction take on what it might be like if Neanderthals were clone may be interested in reading the Thursday Next novels by Jasper Fforde. Neanderthals are not the primary subject, but they make a series of interesting appearances.

Are they legally humans?

[DoctaWatson]

Many countries have banned human cloning... would Neanderthal cloning similarly be banned under the existing legislation?

Re:Are they legally humans?

[vdthemyk]

Well, I think you're right.

Looking at the definition of "Human" and "Neanderthal" on http://www.dictionary.com/ they would be considered "human."

I say, write your right winged representative today to start a war about it!

WOW

[roman_mir]

I saw the GP comment to go from +5Funny to +2Funny with Ludicrous speed.

Looks like the neanderthal man is now The Man and controls the lesser homo sapienses. (sapiensi? :)

Re:WOW

[Anonymous Coward]

WE HATES THE SAPIENSES!

Other reasons to clone them

[mnmn]

This will be the classic case of humans creating another species for their own use. We farm chickens, cows etc and slaughter them in colossal numbers for our own benefit. Neanderthals are a different species too, cant be called humans for that reason.

Thus it should be within our moral limits to create and utilize them for our own benefits.

Think of all manual labour done by these creatures. Or the entertainment value when they're hunted down just like our ancestors did. The military could use some serious target practice.

Why use robots when we have homonid yet non-human primates for utilization?

I really wonder what the religions will say of these people when they will exist again?

Re:Other reasons to clone them

[The Lynxpro]

"I really wonder what the religions will say of these people when they will exist again?"

Most of the monotheistic world would probably (narrowmindedly) label the restored Neanderthals as the godless artifical offspring of the "Giants" written about in the Book of Genesis. The offspring of human females and the "angels" discarded from Heaven (I guess that depends upon the interpretation of these angels were part of Satan's flock). The offspring that were so wicked that *The Flood* was meant to destroy.

Re:Other reasons to clone them

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, you know you really aren't to big on history. Any intelligent christain should know the true stories of the giants. Its a long story and would cause alot of arguments here but please for the love of god look it up. The giants were not evil. They are suppose to be the creators of mans greatest kingdoms of the time. At merely killed them cause it was forbidden for the Angels, even though they were not called angels but this is the part that I will not get into, and humans to mate. He did it for no other reason besides the fact that it was one of his rules. Its simular to a guy deciding you should be shot cause he doesn't believe people like you should exist.

Oh great, even cheaper labor. But can they code?

[wsanders]

"Ooog, finish your mastodon and get back to work on that brokerage project now!"

Crap. Roland's got a time machine now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now we can "enjoy" dupes of Roland's future submissions.

Rumour: Neanderthals Have A Big Club

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't let your girlfriend find out about this experiment - she'll leave you for a little Neanderthal love!

Re:Yes! Imagine the possibilities....

[MustardMan]

Actually, it was surgery on his pitulitary gland which halted his condition, not horomone treatment.

Bluffing techniques - is Darl McBride ...

[porky_pig_jr]

Hey, IBM, I'm throwing this *towards* you. Ooga booga.

You realize Andre was just faking it?

[Anonymous Coward]

He was a "professional" wrestler, after all.

Creationists say speciation is microevolution

[tepples]

Creationists hold that all of creation was "good" even by God's standards, that all the creatures were perfectly optimized for life in Eden and the rest of the pre-Flood world. But eventually, entropy overcame perfection and sin entered the world. The entropy caused errors in the copying of germline DNA, leading to genetic corruption over generations of creatures. But then the Great Flood of 1656. Noah and the rest stepped out of the ark on Mt. Ararat to find a landscape that had drastically changed from what the Creator had originally put together, and in the new environment, some of the animals with genetic corruptions outcompeted those without. This led to a period of rapid speciation in the first few centuries following the Flood. Creationists figure that microevolution (such as one proto-finch becoming several species of finches) is a lot easier for people to swallow than macroevolution (protists becoming man by random chance over millions of years).

Re:Creationists say speciation is microevolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus the tiny genepool and the fact that every creature must have carried all of the deseases that infect that species. It's surprizing any of then survived he 40 days. I mean noahs family must have had:
Chicken pox
small pox
flu- inluding H5N1
common cold
typhoid
yellow fever
west nile virus
malaria
marburg
Aids
ebola
TB
hepititu s
etc
Don't even think about the numbers of STDs that would have been on board.

Oh wait its a story isn't it.

Wrist Structure

[richyoung]

I read somewhere (Sci. Am.?) about someone trying to teach primates flint-knapping and throwing skills. Turns out that they understand the usefulness of the blade fine and try to create them when they need one, but they're hampered by the skeletal structure of the wrist, which is much stouter because of the need to support body weight while walking. They can't get the little wrist flick that we can that ads so much to throwing. The best an ape can hope for is chucking a rock hard against another one, and looking for sharp edges in the resulting random fragments.

So our ability to walk upright gave us the ability to use projectile weapons (i.e., hunt things faster than we are) AND create edged tools/weapons AND spark fires. Not a bad deal, IMO.

Re:Wrist Structure

[Puba the Fool]

Not a bad deal but I still get back aches.

You mean "comedians"

[tepples]

However, they may show an unusual propensity for certain types of communication. For instance, perhaps they will be highly gifted in doling out sharp pejoratives, such as "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!"

You mean in stand-up comedy or in acting?

Cro-Mags!

[payndz]

So long as they don't find and clone Cro-Mags. Didn't those bastards kill Gimli?

fforde

[Macgrrl]

Has anyone else here read any books by Jasper Fforde, I'm reading one at the moment, and was just getting my head around the idea or genetically resequenced and resurrected Neaderthals...

Wait for 2029

[fbform]

July 06, 2005: Project to sequence genome of Neanderthal Man begins.
September 3, 2009: Genome of Neanderthal Man sequenced.
March 21, 2012: Neanderthal Man cloned.

Aug 13, 2029: Neanderthal man sent back in time to 1984. Tries to kill Sarah Connor.

Bits and pieces still there in Western Europeans?

[Easy2RememberNick]

No offence meant but I think people in France and the Northen Spain areas have some Neanderthal genes floating around in them.

Just purely going by looks, wern't Neanderthals supposed to have large noses, a stocky build? Their funerals appeared to be elaborate with lots of flowers used, cave paintings, just a generally arsty kind of being.

Basque peoples are supposed to be very different genetically from most other Europeans. Maybe there was some influence there. Basque peoples, if I rememeber my history, used to be known as peaceful and tended to collaborate rather than fight an enemy (e.g. Roman Empire, also the reason for the Basque language not being a Romance language?).

Just a theory! Take it with a grain of salt.

Re:Yes! Imagine the possibilities....

[donutz]

Saying he was like a neanderthol just because he had a funny shaped head is incredibly stupid and closed minded.

Who says he's closed-minded? It may have been an ignorant statement on his part, but yours sounds like a closed-minded assumption to me.

oblig.

[Anonymous Coward]

Could this open some eyes and increase interest in alternative (Neanderthal, Nonhuman) offerings?

Re:Yes! Imagine the possibilities....

[Max_Wells_SH]

I've always thought it was foolish to speculate that modern humans and Neanderthals did not interbreed.

Jared Diamond addresses this in his book "The Third Chimpanzee". He suggests that while Neandarthals and Cromagnons are related species, that doesn't imply they're so closely related that a Cromagnon would want to have sex with a Neandarthal--anymore than a human would feel the urge to have sex with a chimpanzee, despite, again, being such closely related species. A Cromagnon, Diamond speculates, would probably have found the idea as repulsive.

Ronald Wright suggests the opposite in his own book, "A Short History of Progress", but his argument seems to stem from his idea that he is related to Neandarthals due to a ridge at the back of his head. Given the two, I would have to agree with Diamond here.

Damn, you are dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

It must suck to be so dumb you can't even comprehend how dumb you, and thus go spouting your stupidities in a public place frequented by actual intelligent individuals who can all see your dimwittedness immediately. But then, you are too dumb to comprehend what I'm trying to say here, so I'm just going to give up.

Thinking, not throwing

[TFGeditor]

The reason Man became the apex predator was because of the ability to think, reason, and plan. e.g. Homo sapiens figured out how to drive entire herds of herbivores over cliffs, eliminating the need for throwing or jabbing.

Re:Thinking, not throwing

[theguyfromsaturn]

Neanderthal could and did do this. Didn't save them.

Re:Yes! Imagine the possibilities....

[MightyMartian]

I'd wager that there are probably some people out there that would have sex with a chimp, but if any have tried, it seems very likely that they did not survive the attempt. Humans pick some pretty strange sex partners, and a Neandertal would have been a helluva lot closer to the norm than some of the creatures you can find people having sex with.

Re:Yes! Imagine the possibilities....

[The Lynxpro]

"Jared Diamond addresses this in his book "The Third Chimpanzee". He suggests that while Neandarthals and Cromagnons are related species, that doesn't imply they're so closely related that a Cromagnon would want to have sex with a Neandarthal--anymore than a human would feel the urge to have sex with a chimpanzee, despite, again, being such closely related species. A Cromagnon, Diamond speculates, would probably have found the idea as repulsive."

What? The Neanderthals didn't have a James T. Kirk amongst their midsts, willing to propagate their genes by any means necessary? Actually, that's pretty unbelieveable, knowing how males of the homosapien species acts. Even with the harshness of racism over the past few hundred years did not preclude intermixing, even when it was illegal in certain societies.

I'd say that any species that resembles humanity would be a viable candidate for mating by our ancestor's thinking.

What about Neanderthal or Cromagnon homosexuality? Perhaps such practices on a widescale led to their demise...that and their women being kidnapped/raped by homosapien males.

I can't believe I'm even typing this, but speculation is fun, no matter how ridiculous...

New Reality Makeover Show

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine all the new reality makeover shows for neanderthals! Reality dating, etc. will all be exciting again! Hurray!

Historically, HS wipes out almost all competition

[mveloso]

In general, Homo Sapiens pretty much will wipe out anything that looks like a competitor/threat, including other Homo Sapiens.

This has extended itself to the modern times, though it's been toned down somewhat by the various mores and moralities.

Things wouldn't be any different for our ancestor Homo Sapiens. I'd guess that they'd be even more aggressive towards Neanderthals, due to the larger size and bigger heads (and brains) of the Neanderthals.

If they weren't so big, they probably would've been domesticated or enslaved.

Real Cave Women knock their geeks over the head

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to say it, but wouldn't knocking someone over the head and dragging them away be about as good a show of "fitness" as a cavegirl is likely to get? I think the palentologist geek probably was right to project their own issues onto the paleolithic geek.

Re:Bits and pieces still there in Western European

[Anonymous Coward]

Cave paintings by Neandertals? I don't think so. You seem to be mistaking artwork from early homo sapiens.

Or perhaps

[TCaM]

the female offspring of such a union were sterile while the male offspring were not. This would account for the lack of neanderthal mtDNA in modern hybrid descendents.

Darwin's Radio, by Greg Bear, best Science Fiction

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO, the Science Fiction novel to read about Neandertahl DNA, modern Human DNA, and the evolutionary process that shall lead beyond us is: Darwin's Radio by Greg Bear. Winner of the Nebula Award, Winner of the Endeavor Award, Nominated for a Hugo Award. Michael De Luca has partnered with the SCI FI Channel to develop DARWIN'S RADIO and DARWIN'S CHILDREN into an 8-hour original television series.

Professor Jonathan Vos Post (I've taught a Human Evolution course several times)

Re:Bits and pieces still there in Western European

[Easy2RememberNick]

No, I know what you mean I did mean Neanderthals.

I've seen reports (either TV or the web) of Neanderthal cave art of some sort, it's not as common and I think it's a fairly recent discovery.

I for one...

[dick johnson]

I for one welcome our new stone-tool-using overlords!

Re:There is no such thing as the neanderthal ape m

[truckaxle]

There is no mention of neanderthals in the bible. Well in Genesis 6:4, this statement is made "There were giants in the earth in those days". sounds like it could be reference to neanderthals. Also some Deuteronomy 2:20 "A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead" Hmmm

I have Pleistoscene pork in my fridge

[swschrad]

want some?

"Could this be the start of a Pleistocene park?"

[njh]

Too late:
http://www.acmi.net.au/CFBE0820A7C349B19C45831BCDD 53721.htm

(Or maybe you were looking for Nick Park, of Wallace and Grommit fame?)

Re:"Could this be the start of a Pleistocene park?

[Anonymous Coward]

With an accent like that, you have to be from New Zealand...

The sequence starts....

[Rixel]

ug og ....

Hmmmm

[mnmn]

Christianity:
Kill the godless Giants! Else God will send another flood (global warming)

Islam:
Theyre not believers and the meat is not halaal. Put them to work for glory!

Judasim:
Another race of people who will take the sacred land of Israel from the Chosen People. Loan them money and charge interest!

Hinduism:
Theyre untouchables. Just stay away.

Buddhism:
Peace dude! Theyre Yetis.

Warcraft players:
Farm them and arm them!

Counterstrike players:
Aimbots!

They are from the ice age... the legs... my god

[Scrameustache]

hmm... i wonder if rohypnol works on neanderthals?

Forget that, I wonder if nair works on them!

Re:More valuable than your average endangered spec

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how much hype there is about protecting the average endangered rat or bug, I'd think you'd have environmentalists worldwide backing such cloning.

That's why I never get the least bit upset about endangered species. If we're so concerned about them, just take massive samples of their population and when cloning is possible, reconstitute the species. I know, it's easier to save the species in the first place, but it would be a fallback. Of course, you'd have to save the cultural stuff too (recordings of bird songs, etc.).

there's some done already

[ediacaran]

There's one neanderthal DNA sequence already in ncbi:

"Homo sapiens neanderthalensis mitochondrial D-loop, hypervariable region I."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/viewer.fcgi?db= nucleotide&val=7769684

I doubt that there will be enough good dna for anything like a full sequence as it is unstable over periods of thousands of years.

Re:there's some done already

[Anonymous Coward]

It goes 5'-UGUGUGUGUGUGUG-3'

Re:Oh great, even cheaper labor. But can they code

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but only in Ook

Interestingly, there's a .net compiler for Ook, Ook#.

I'll let you draw your own analogies ;)

Re:Oh great, even cheaper labor. But can they code

[yaweh]

nice brain. this discussion brings to light the theory that paleantologists have subscribed to for 100 years that neandertal man walked and perhaps lived next to homosapiens and the only thing that comes to your mind is how we might be go about exploiting some group of people as "even cheaper labor". dont look now, but you might be the caveman. :)

Neandertal, still here?

[Schwarzchild]

Some believe we interbred with them and "absorbed" them.

I can totally believe in something like this because I have seen people who do look a lot like a cross between a human and a neandertal. They also seem to be a bit on the dumb side.

Now one may think but there don't seem to be any hybrid enclaves. Still, it might be possible that the people I've seen are genetic throwbacks and they had normal human looking parents.

a newscientist article

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans owe their big brains and sophisticated culture to a single genetic mutation that weakened our jaw muscles about 2.4 million years ago, a new study suggests.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4817

Re:Gnome??

[x_terminat_or_3]

LOL

don't know what the point is

[atheist666]

I once attended a lecture by Craig Venter, one of the two big honchos that was largely responsible for the Human Genome Project. He said that the similarity between humans was profound, and actually the similarity between chimps and humans was also extraordinary - to the point that you could just treat the chimpanzee as another human variant, at least in terms of DNA sequence. So scientifically speaking, there's not much point in sequencing the whole Neandrathal genome, since it'll be 99.999% identical to what we've already got. However, it may be interesting to compare select regions between Homo sapiens and Neandrathals... This would be much cheaper and quicker than sequencing the whole thing... But then again, there are a lot of DNA sequencer jockeys looking for more DNA to sequence. It's just that MY research grant funding agency wouldn't fund such work (not that I have one...)

Could you please expand

[leehwtsohg]

Could you please expand what exactly is this scientific law you speak of? "Gravity" is actually neither a law nor a theory, but rather a word.

Now, if you mean "Newton's law of gravity", then that is indeed a theory which is now thought to be an approximation at low mass. Currently, the accepted theory is the general theory of relativity, which states that energy(mass) behds the space around it, and all objects just continue their path on straight lines in this warped space.

And, the problem is that conceptually a current problem of physics is that the general theory of relativity is conceptually somewhat at odds with the theory of quantum mechanics, so that we are actually sure that we've got at least one of them "wrong" somehow, probably both.

So, currently the theory of evolution is more accepted in science than "newton's law of gravity" and, to some extent even "general relativity".

Surely I can't be the first

[blackpaw]

Neanderthal porn ...

In all likelihood, they already have results

[John Hawks]

I have a post on this topic on my anthro weblog.

To make a long story short, with this group of researchers, the odds are that there already have been some results that haven't yet been reported.

My own guess is that they have cloned the FoxP2 language gene -- a gene that the same lab is responsible for most of the work on. The arguments presented by this group have consistently been critical of the likelihood of contamination if the results are like a modern human gene. This leads me to believe that their results probably show this gene to be non-humanlike, which wouldn't be a surprise, since the gene itself has undergone a recent selected change in humans.

Anyway, check out the link for more info.

Re:In all likelihood, they already have results

[nizo]

Interesting weblog :-) So do you think it is even possible they can recover a whole DNA strand to clone, or is that just wishful thinking on my part?

Re:In all likelihood, they already have results

[John Hawks]

Ancient DNA is generally fragmented into pieces only a few hundred nucleotides long (in comparison to a total genome length of 3 billion). To reconstruct longer sequences, a complete series of damaged fragments is needed, with enough overlap to connect them together. So in my opinion, even fairly short segments of around 100kb are far more effort than anyone is likely to put into it.

On the other hand, this reconstruction of the genome from short fragments is exactly the "shotgun" approach that Craig Venter successfully used in the Human Genome Project. With enough computerization, who knows?

--John (John Hawks Anthropology Weblog)

Re:come back in a few billion years

[Anonymous Coward]

"Come back in a few billion years time and see what you've got."

I'm fairly sure what you'll get is, still, bacteria.

MOD PARENT UP!

[BerntB]

OK, not so much brain work needed to move legs around rocks and holes when running.

Also, thanks to first Anon. Mod that up, too, plz.

Second Anon comment -- I think we safely can assume that there were quite a few critical mutations... :-)

Soviet Russia

[mabraham]

In Soviet Russia, evolutionary theory modifies YOU!

Re:come back in a few billion years

[mabraham]

In a petrie dish, sure. The environment is constant and there's only thing to outcompete is the rest of your species of bacteria. Not a good climate for speciation.

Now try a constantly-changing environment with location inhomogeneity. You can't avoid speciation now, because at different times and places, different solutions to the "survival problem" will be optimal. Locally, evolutionary processes will converge to those optima, but the targets are moving...

Re:Gnome??

[FrontalLobe]

When are you people going to learn?!

Gnome != Troll

Genocide?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but the whole mass-genocide thing sort of hinges upon an pre-existing, coherent social identity.

In prehistoric times, humans were tribal and nomadic. Tribes were matriarchal in structure, as the only way to derive parentage was through maternal lines, as there was almost no monogamy whatsoever. Very decentralized.

Its likely that there was raid behavior among tribes, the same type of raid behavior that can be found in some species of chimps and apes. In monkey raids, members of a tribe or clan would go out, kill a few members of a competing group preferably in the middle of the night, and come back, in a hit and run sort of deal.

But this decentralized, raiding approach to life doesnt really coexist peacefully with the image of huge numbers of a population going out and systematically killing huge numbers of another population, in an organized way. That didnt happen in human history until we settled down and started farming communities, which in turn led to greater group identity. Greater group identity = us vs them mentality = potential for genocide, a potential that didnt exist when we were nomadic.

Throws like a girl?

[Latent Heat]

Hey, I bet at least half of the people here were told at one time or another that you "throw like a girl." If you didn't, you would rank much higher on the social dominance order, be more attractive to babes, and wouldn't even know about this place.

What a relief. Now I can tell people that as a kid, I could throw like a cave man.

It's "frightens and confuses"

[Latent Heat]

I believe "frightens" goes before "confuses", and the word confuses is drawn out as the sentence trails off.

The whole effect is of a too-slick lawyer trying to pass himself off as just an ordinary Joe. Or Neanderthal.

why cant they just clone one?

[yaweh]

they have plenty of known neandertal DNA, which isnt that old, some as young as a few hundred years. old dried out DNA just zips itself back together in water, why cant they use it to clone one? we could send him to an ivy league school and make him president of the US and everything :)

Re:More valuable than your average endangered spec

[jericho4.0]

Species do not exist entirely seperate from each other, and ignoring extiction events "because we have a backup" is suicidel. We either live sustainably, or we do not. The results of each path sould be pretty obvious.

Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

A) You can't just save the cultural stuff. What are you going to do, show a cloned water buffalo a videotape of water buffalos looking for a watering hole? Build a robot lioness to teach cloned lions how to hunt?

B) There are significant non-genetic formation factors. The temperature and chemical balance of a mammal's uterus during fetal development are important in forming a healthy animal. They change over the course of the gestation. That means an exctinct mammal cloned in a similar mammal's uterus is not likely to be *precisely* the same as the original animal was.

Close enough to fool the eye, but different enough that you're losing biological information. A cloned quagga is not an infallible guide to what wild quagga were like.

C) The placenta also feeds antibodies to the new infant, and the infant will be exposed to any foreign bodies that are occupying the host mother. Just as humans had a huge problem when someone got AIDS from a monkey bite or some such, trying to raise a whole new population from cross-species cloning could introduce messy new plagues.

D) You need a similar host species to do the cloning. It's easy to suppose the cloning of a mammoth if you have elephants available as hosts. You may run into problems A through C, but at least you can try. However, if all the elephants are gone, in what uterus will you clone new elephants? A dairy cow isn't going to cut it.

Re:Bits and pieces still there in Western European

[yaweh]

not just france and spain, but the UK and most of western europe. anthropoligists would probably speculate on the family tree of anyone with an occipital bun. an occipital bun is a bulge at the base of the skull by the spinal chord believed to assist as a counter-weight for neandertal heads and also as protection against neck injuries. feel the back of your skull, then feel the base of your best friend's or your girl or boy friend's skull. chances are, one of you may have an occipital bun, ouch!! there's also the heavy brow ridge that runs accross the forehead along the brow that some folks have, that ain't human either. and no, neandertals didnt have "large" noses, they had stout, turned up noses, round, flared nostrils. short and stocky builds, yes. they were in fact so close to homosapiens that many anthropologists believe unquestionably that humans absorbed both neandertals and homosapiens.

Re:"Could this be the start of a Pleistocene park?

[linzeal]

Fuck you, Mr. Jingoism you right bastard.

grr

Just what I was thinking

[ynotds]

Maybe the only way Neanderthals managed to coexist with modern humans for 15,000 years was that they dominated local encounters, often confiscating the victims of successful human hunts the way bigger cats do on National Geographic Channel today.

Humans could survive and prosper at the margins because of their more varied diet and generally greater adaptability, so were never in danger of being globally exterminated by the competition they suffered in Neandertal territory.

But gradually humans impacted the environment and tilted the balance so there were less and less places Neandertals could make their traditional living. Their populations fragmented, they were on a one way road to extinction.

I preffer Neanderthal KDE

[gazpa]

I preffer Neanderthal KDE

Michael Chrichton's new book...

[Singen]

In an experiment gone horribly wrong, Scientists bring back animals, Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens and set them in the iron age...

It's going to be called, Ironic Park.

Re:Historically, HS wipes out almost all competiti

[CmdrGravy]

If there was a "war" between Neandertals and Humans you would still have to account for why Humans were the winners and not the Neandertals.

Neandertals had been around for a long time and must have been effective hunters and able to use their environment successfully to achieve their goals.

I believe it has been suggested that Neandertals favoured wooded ground since the most effective techniques for hunting in forests favoured the Neandertal physique whereas Humans favoured open grassland where their physique gave them their maximum advantage for hunting.

It seems likely that Humans venturing into forests to do battle with Neandertals are quite likley to end up dead and vice a versa with Neandertals going out into the open so in effect the deciding factor would actually be the environment.

It's both

[Mr2001]

The "law" of gravity tells you that if you drop an object on Earth, it'll accelerate toward the ground at 9.8 m/s^2.

A theory of gravity tells you why that happens. Maybe it's because mass curves spacetime, or because mass emits gravitons which then impart a reverse force when they strike another mass, or because the Invisible Pink Unicorn is magically pushing everything together all the time. A good theory will agree with the common observations of gravity we see every day (i.e. the law), but will also make predictions about less common cases that can be tested experimentally.

More aptly...

[LPetrazickis]

Slashdot.org, so easy to use even a cave man could do it

I think you mean:

Slashdot.org: So easy to use we can't even get the damn cave trolls to stop

This is very loose scientific work

[Chreo]

This is most likely a publicity stunt as the previous work on such old material have been very "unscientific" and very overhyped by the researchers before. You really need to check how DNA degrades before taking this news at face value. DNA degrades very rapidly unless preserved under extraordinary conditions. Consider that the size of DNA fragments that one has gotten from doing PCR on ancient DNA is very short (less than 300 bases) and that by using such very "recent" material as mumies. Previous results on neanderthal is most likely due to contamination through the lab work. What is even worse is that this group (at the MP institute) have almost "exclusive" rights to peer review articles done on acient DNA which means that they can block others papers. This is science at (almost) at it's worst.

Stupid question ....

[gstoddart]

Well, I'm buried deep in the article, so I'm not sure I'll get a response ....

Can anyone explain how we come to be in posession of 30,000 year old neanderthal DNA?

TFA makes no mention of it.

Re:Bits and pieces still there in Western European

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh. That is interesting. I will have to search for it now because I love to learn about that kind of stuff especially when it challenges long held assumptions.

Neanderthal DNA Sequence Predictions

[mindpixel]

http://www.mindpixel.com/chris/2005/07/neanderthal -dna-sequence-predictions.html

Neanderthal had slightly larger brain volume than we do. I believe this is because they had an extra neocortical layer. This layer I think functioned normally, however I think that because of the problems of mantaining omniconnectivity between the top layer and the thalamus, that an eight-layer total thalamocortical system of neanderthal would have had slightly less hypersurface area and that as a result they had shorter immediate memory.

If you imagine each neocortical layer and the thalamus as dimensions defined by the possibility of local inhabition, and where between layer inhabition is not possible, [except in the special case of the TRN which is really outside the system and acts as a focus control] you can visualize something like this:

Here are eight points in one dimension:
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8

There are seven steps between 1 and 8.

In two dimensions:
1-2-3-4
5-6-7-8

Now there is much less distance between 1 and 8. This process continues until we get to seven dimensions where it starts to reverse and the points begin again to seperate. At seven dimensions, hypersurface is maximum. It is why PCB boards have no more than seven layers. And I think why IBM's most advaanced NMR quantum computer hit a developmental wall at seven qubits. And it is why I think why your immediate memory is seven digits wide and I think why humans are here and neanderthal is not.

Neanderthal DNA can be compared with the DNA of humans, bats, and cetaceans, all of which have different neocortical lamination counts. I expect something related to the reeler gene will be implicated. Or we may discover a whole new set of lamination controls, all of which I have previously predicted will be sensitive to hypersurface area.

Re:Bits and pieces still there in Western European

[Easy2RememberNick]

That's what we humans do, we learn new things :)

I for one...

[relaxrelax]

I for one, welcome the return of our neanderthal overlords.

Re:Bits and pieces still there in Western European

[yaweh]

yes and no