Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Geneticist seeks woman to help make a cloned cave baby


NanuqoftheNorth

Recommended Posts

GenomeWeb caught what must be an interesting Q&A with George Church in Germany’s Spiegel Online (I can’t personally attest to the original story as it is behind a paywall). The Harvard Medical School geneticist is quoted as saying that eventually, an “adventurous female human” will be needed to be the surrogate mother for the first Neanderthal baby in some 30,000 years.

This isn’t the first time Church has talked publically about cloning a Neanderthal, or at least a near-Neanderthal. In 2009, when the Neanderthal genome was first reported, the New York Times described a scenario in which a current day human genome could be tweaked into the “Neanderthal equivalent” with tools of molecular biology. Eventually, this could lead to a Neanderthal-like embryo in need of a surrogate mother.

While the idea of reviving Neanderthals may sound farfetched, take for example the work of biologists to clone endangered or extinct non-human animals (see “Stem-Cell Engineering Offers a Lifeline to Endangered Species”). In 2009, the extinct bucardo, a subspecies Spanish ibex, was cloned from a frozen skin sample. The newborn died immediately due to respiratory failure, but its birth suggests that resurrecting extinct species may be possible. http://t.now.msn.com/george-church-says-human-woman-could-bear-neanderthal-baby

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be the purpose of this?

Would we treat this "human" as something we'd put in a cage and treat as a chimp?

There are a lot of philosophical questions to be answered.

Keep it in a cave. Cave baby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's my understanding that neandertals are morphologically different from modern homo sapiens but not significantly different cognitively (their brains being, on average, larger than homo sapiens.) so I'd assume it could live a normal life.

G5 is right though, lots of complicated philosohical questions to consider here. I hope the researchers have adequately addressed them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Hello, soccer fans [crickets, tumbleweed flies by]. The World Cup kicks off in less than 2 weeks and, well, 🇺🇸USA USA USA🇺🇸 and all. We beat Senegal 3-2 yesterday in a tune-up friendly at BoA, with Christian Pulisic finally entering the scoring column.  How will we do in the World Cup once our tournament kicks off on the 12th? Well, there are 48 teams (assuming Iran is there) and it feels like one of two thing happens: we get grouped for the first time since '98, or we make it to the Round of 16 for the third time in the last four World Cups. I tried out the lottery for an Atlanta game and struck out, so yesterday was as World Cup as I'll get for in-person ($285/ticket for like Norway vs $39/ticket for USMNT right beforehand was a layup).  The U.S. has a travel-heavy schedule in group play, playing in LA, Seattle and LA. Real road warrior mentality being built. Glad the east coast gets worse kickoff times for a NA World Cup than a Qatar World Cup.
    • Well, that's the thing. Drafting players only for their physical measurables as you are suggesting only really happened during 2024, and X unfortunately has become the poster child for that. To be clear, it's not necessarily about drafting RAS over skill, but RAS over NFL-readiness and/or a solid body of work. Lots of players show skill in college, but those skills don't necessarily translate to the NFL for a multitude of reasons. But, getting back to the main point, to be clear, I believe that our FO is still enamored with physical gifts (who wouldn't be?), but now they're letting Dr. Eric Eager's proprietary system--his "secret sauce" prioritize the players that the Panthers draft, and it seems like it weighs not only a solid body of work, relative to a college career of course, but consistent gradual improvement as evidenced by production pretty highly. 
    • Its a good article about how pathetically bad our past drafts ('23 and '24) have been. Building the team in '23 since we weren't ready yet and taking your qb in '24 made so much more sense in hindsight. Ladd McConkey over XL is pretty much a given but not sure it does as much to change Bryce's trajectory as the author suggests.  As bad as '23 and '24 drafts were, the '25 and '26 really give me hope.  
×
×
  • Create New...