Elemental Forums
The title says it all. As of now, we actually have the technological advancements to do it, as well as a fully sequenced Neanderthal Genome (at the moment, a few minor techniques are in the works that would make it easier). So if we could clone a Neanderthal without error, would you be okay with it? Why or why not?
Stromatolites are thought to have produce most/all of the oxygen we use today, and they are still around in Shark Bay, Australia. However, I'm over this discussion. Were arguing over the definition of purpose and the philosophy around it and it's really not that important.
All true, but the original life was (best guess) anaerobic, and its descendents can only be found around hot springs and thermal vents. Oxygen kills them in the laboratory, even though they make it. Oxygen utilizing organisms arose later after these guys pretty much relegated themselves to the most hostile places on the planet (to us).
As for the definition of purpose, I think its sort of important. Otherwise you start thinking that there is all some destiny and that we MUST breed ourselves into extinction because breeding is our purpose. The only people we need to satisfy are ourselves, there isn't some external hall monitor telling us where to go and what to do - "why we are here" , so what we choose as our purpose is really important.
We're too genetically different to interbreed with them, Servius.
It's a semantics argument. There is no general purpose to life, or really anything for that matter. It all just is. But if you look at things in smaller pieces, you realize they do serve a purpose now, even if they weren't 'created' in that vision.
Science says otherwise. Recent studies have found that 1-4% of DNA from certain groups of humans are from Neanderthals. Source
EDIT: Interesting note, scientists believe some of the major differences in DNA between us and Neanderthals is in the bone structure and cognitive areas. So that could mean despite brains that appear similar, and even a bit larger in terms of brain mass/body mass, they may think very differently from us and could never understand the world like we do.
That could be what we shared with our common ancestor. You do know that we share DNA with bananas as well?
LOL, we share more like 50% of our DNA with Bananas. They found specific genes that we share with them and not with every other animal.
EDIT: When I said them, I was referring to Neanderthals. Sorry for the wrong pronoun usage.
Yeah, but its not the SAME 50% 
some of us are much more bananish than others.
Finding a bit of homology between genes absolutely essential for all terrestrial life is nothing surprising, forgetting that at a certain point between any two stretches of DNA there HAS to be measurable similarity. There are only 4 letters. You try creating two strings, one million base pairs long, and see how hard you have to work so that only half the letters the same.
Edit: Specific genes shared with plants but not other mammals? You DON'T SAY. This I need to read about.
I wouldn't bring back a Neanderthal for the sake of just doing it. Having a Neanderthal to study could help us cure psychological or infectious diseases.
True, and the fact is a lot of our genes don't actually do anything(arent code for any proteins) and are just along for the ride. It was even suspected that it was other primitive 'life' trying to get an edge up and find an easy way to be 'reproduced'. However, recently it's been found that these non-coding regions actually seem to regulate other coding sequences. These 'dead' regions could also be very useful for acting as a buffer to harmful mutations, as mutations in coding regions are almost always bad and rarely result in good mutations that evolution is known for.
I'm now extremely curious as to what is in that 50%. I'm betting transposons and repeat sequences make up the bulk of it, but thats without going on medline and finding the reference. When somebody says there is similarity, I go OF COURSE there is similarity. Its been recently shown by statistical inference that all extant life began as one lineage (as opposed to multiple origins and interbreeding), so go back far enough and everything living is directly related. But if it really is specific things, I'd like to know why THEY were conserved and not other things, and why they were specifically conserved in this branch of the animals.
Weren't bananas the evidence of the existence of God because of their design?
Or does that go in the same section as with earthquakes being caused because of loose women and wild sex?
LOL. But it fits the hand!
Please tell me I don't have to go all evolutionary on this and explain why its hogwash... wild bananas look completely different than the selectively bred chiquita 'Cavendish' varietal which was largely invented by the indigenous people of what is now Papua / New Guinea.
Every fruit has a consumer that directed its evolution. In the case of avocados, it's an extinct sloth.
Is there any way to take karma away from someone?
No reason. Just asking.
I was completely unaware of MAGE... it is fabulous and, added to your idea, quite original. The surrogate mother would need to do a Cesarean section, but that's not very troublesome. I also believe the success rate of this procedure would be extremely low and I'm doubtful of the capability of different species embryo of surviving for long inside the uterus of another as I'm unaware of precedents in any other animal. Still, the only major quarrel I have so far is with the quality of the DNA sequence of the Neanderthal; I think you are quite aware the human genome has a few blind spots thanks to regions of highly repeated sequences. If that's the case, I wonder how many blind spots an extinct species with low coverage and shaky sampling would have. I do not buy into the idea we have a fully workable Neanderthal genome, we have a good approximation at best.
I think life, or existence itself, is a gift. Giving life to something, no matter the reasons, is the greatest act of kindness. Would you rather live a mostly comfortable life being pricked and prodded every day, or not exist at all? Live in a bubble, or never have a chance? Pretty simple to me, and the fact that it could potentially help millions of people, if not all of them, is simply a bonus.
I am saddened to be reminded of the largely uselessness of our genetic makeup. Maybe we can get Stardock to budget for some DNA coding efficiency experiments. 
Have you learned nothing from Jurassic Park. Nature always finds a way. The neanderthals were planning this all along.... waiting all these years for humans to bring them back to life so they can get their revenge.
If that shows up as a new movie on the SciFi channel, remember you heard it here first!
Wow...guess you haven't met many "humans".
ho hum.
As Phil Oaks sang, "Knock On The Door"
[With a knock on the door, knock on the door.
Here they come to take one more,
One more]
Politicians or Red Necks?
Why do you think life is a gift? And a gift by whom?
Please, to all those pandering the word 'life' left and right, define it clearly. You can't have an argument if people keep talking in different languages.
A gift from your parents, or whoever put your cells together in a petri dish. Don't get me wrong, I'm an atheist, I meant nothing religious in my post. Why do I think it's a gift? Are you serious? You would rather not have been born? I dunno about anyone else, but I could have been born in a cage and whipped every day of my life and I'd still be glad I was alive.
Life: The condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms.
I did say existence itself though, if rocks could think they should be happy their atoms and molecules came together as they did. The universe is a volatile place, the fact that anything exists at all is incredible.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
WinCustomize Forums
