Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

"Professor George Church of Harvard Medical School believes he can reconstruct Neanderthal DNA,His ambitious plan requires a human volunteer willing to allow the DNA to be put into stem cells, then a human embryo"

Full story here vvv
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2265402/Adventurous-human-woman-wanted-birth-Neanderthal-man-Harvard-professor.html


I found it a little late but what's your opinion on this xD? On one end it seems insane but then again they could raise him up and train him then modern man could test their skills against the man of old, we could have our very own Pickle xD!
http://i34.tinypic.com/vshvl2.jpg

um..

From what I've read and watched on studies on Neanderthal bone/body structure, they were on average about 3 times stronger than modern man.

I see a future where some sports are dominated by steroid pumped versions of these fools.

I would like to date an adventurous, kind, pretty women.

I don't know about the rest of that shit. It would make for some kinky role playing though.

Originally posted by Robtard
From what I've read and watched on studies on Neanderthal bone/body structure, they were on average about 3 times stronger than modern man.

I see a future where some sports are dominated by steroid pumped versions of these fools.
Emphasis on 'some'. I've seen some allegations that they'd have better endurance too, but their shorter legs would make them crappy sprinters, and I doubt they could dunk.

So basketball, futbol, short distance sprinting, and swimming would remain ours.

I have to admit that this(from the comments section) really cracked me up.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller

I have to admit that this(from the comments section) really cracked me up.
That guy's comment got voted down. I wonder why--are there people there who think that Church's ideas aren't nonsense?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That guy's comment got voted down. I wonder why--are there people there who think that Church's ideas aren't nonsense?
Same reason why comments like "evolution is a farce, fraud, fake and a faith!!!" ends up getting a hundred thumbs ups on a youtube video discussing such issues. The internet is an idiocracy.

yeah, we could train, them...,kinda like pets. Make them do all of our bidding. Genetically engineering slaves...,That is most certainly the next best innovation mankind needs. We can't live amongst ourselves with enough peace to last long enough for a social event. Yeah, this is just as good of idea as breeding dinosaurs with heightened intelligence.

We could use them as supersoldiers. Put them in power armor and call 'em Spartans.

Ah the daily fail. It never ceases to amaze me that the website is the most used news website in the world when in the UK, where it originates, the print version is ridiculed constantly for being a scaremongering joke that has only about 4 different front page stories. Immigrants, princess Diana, things that give you cancer and Madeleine McCann stories.

yep, couldn't have put it better myself Jaden.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
LMAO.

I guess it goes to show you that just being a Harvard professor doesn't preclude you being something of an idiot.

Eugenics has changed our thought process believe it or not.

Whereas once we were animalistic, unafraid of being nude, of raping a female, of eating an animal raw, of sifting through flooding marshlands in a tornado and lightning storm, of fighting off lions with a compound fracture in your wrist.

We could erase delusions of morality, fear, to survive in ways that our culture prohibits, this went to the very chemistry of our minds, and would be next to impossible for modern man to accomplish.

Some of these types of actual genetic differences lies in autistics, believe it or not. In fact, many animals with the autism gene are superior at skill related tasks to their peers.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Emphasis on 'some'. I've seen some allegations that they'd have better endurance too, but their shorter legs would make them crappy sprinters, and I doubt they could dunk.

So basketball, futbol, short distance sprinting, and swimming would remain ours.

All very true.

In fact evolution is producing better records in those specific sports, faster sprint times, etc.

However, as far as pure physical resilience, you can never beat a neanderthal.

Originally posted by Dolos
Eugenics has changed our thought process believe it or not.

how have eugenics changed our though process so far dolos? what eugenics are you even talking about?

most of this is untrue. are you saying any of it is desirable?
are you saying this is the product of eugenic?are you saying we should do this? why should we do it?

weighting the pros and cons, any social interaction inability is maladaptive among social animals.

Originally posted by 753
how have eugenics changed our though process so far dolos? what eugenics are you even talking about?

is that specifically to Dolos or can I go off on a Galton rant?

Originally posted by Dolos
Eugenics has changed our thought process believe it or not.

Whereas once we were animalistic, unafraid of being nude, of raping a female, of eating an animal raw, of sifting through flooding marshlands in a tornado and lightning storm, of fighting off lions with a compound fracture in your wrist.

That's not eugenics, that's evolution.

Originally posted by Dolos
Some of these types of actual genetic differences lies in autistics, believe it or not. In fact, many animals with the autism gene are superior at skill related tasks to their peers.

The "autism gene"? Really?

careful guys, there were almost certainly top down selective pressures, "eugenics", at play in the development of homo sapiens.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The "autism gene"? Really?

single gene? no, unlikely, and there is little to support Dolos' claim.

However, the heritability of certain linguistic and attentional traits does suggest there is a genetic component to autism.

Originally posted by Oliver North
careful guys, there were almost certainly top down selective pressures, "eugenics", at play in the development of homo sapiens.

Eugenics is a deliberate social movement to alter the genetic path of ones own species. Selective mating isn't eugenics.

Originally posted by Oliver North
single gene? no, unlikely, and there is little to support Dolos' claim.

However, the heritability of certain linguistic and attentional traits does suggest there is a genetic component to autism.

I'm aware there's probably a genetic component, its the idea of an "autism gene" (one that is apparently consistent across species) I was criticizing. Rereading perhaps I should have pounced on the amusing concept of "skill related tasks".

Originally posted by Oliver North
is that specifically to Dolos or can I go off on a Galton rant? knock yourself out, but as sym pointed out: sexual selection ain't no eugenics, neither is the establishment of mating priveleges according to social status in polyginic societies nor the deliberate mating of couples to cement alliances, or to maintain or consolidate power.


EDIT: I'm well aware lots of populations have been subjected to eugenics programs, specially in the early 20th century and many countries enacted policies to sterilize promiscuous women, gay men, jews, romani, aborginela populations and the mentally ill, but dolos's point was that modern traits as a whole are the product of eugenics.

I'd argue "eugenics" goes back as far as language selection, but if we are limiting it to what Sym said, sure, that is the Galton-ian type of eugenics that is largely isolated to more modern society.

I think there's a big difference between the kinds of unwitting eugenics ("proper breeding", avoiding mates with obvious deformities and mental handicaps, taboos against incest) that have gone on for all or most of recorded history, and the kind of eugenics where it becomes a societal rather than personal/familial undertaking, and where things like institutionalized sterilization and birth licenses come into play.

I'd argue that the pervasiveness of language almost necessitates a period in which we, as a culture, made such eugenic distinctions.

I agree it isn't the same as Galton, but to be honest, it seems more a matter of degree than of type.

Obviously such selection occurred before there were institutions in which to enshrine such a policy, but I do feel there had to be some type of top-down deliberate selection for language abilities.

Originally posted by jaden101
Ah the daily fail. It never ceases to amaze me that the website is the most used news website in the world

what?

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'd argue that the pervasiveness of language almost necessitates a period in which we, as a culture, made such eugenic distinctions.
why is that? is language really different from any other complex apomorphy of any group?

This is the craziest story I have read in ages.

It sounds really interesting. I love participate in it.

Holy crap, lol.

Know that the situation they'd put a neanderthal in is very different from modern society.

They are splicing homo-sapien and neanderthal dna here, the result is a person more capable in the survival setting of, say, colonizing a new world.

Of course modern people would be more suited for the stresses of the life we're living, and also of space travel.

What they are talking about here is space travel over hundreds of light years, when they do arrive on a super earth, they will have been frozen for centuries...and, imo, humanity will have evolved into an increasingly condensed silicon-based sentient intelligence, a singular collective consciousness that would find this emerging second humanity irrelevant.