Wanted: 'Adventurous woman' to give birth to Neanderthal man

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?

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

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.