Slashdot Mirror
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?"
>found it unlikely.
Ahem, you are talking about one of the horniest species on this planet.
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...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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.
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.
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.
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
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...
why does a jab at a right-winger get modded up funny, but an equally clever jab at the left get's left alone?
Imagine having a species that is intellectually qualified to do 90% of our work but doesn't have the same rights as humans.
Beautiful.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
because it's funny when you mock people in power. left-wingers have no power, ergo...
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...)
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.
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.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.