The Return of the Neanderthals!

[Assyrian]

Most Neandertals would pass for somewhat tough looking short, stocky humans. Only a very few of the men would look really different, with the very prominent brow.

I saw a program looking at how they would have sounded from a reconstruction of their larynx and they would have been more high pitched.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=c7M1Se-p7uk

 

[Chalnoth]

Now, I came across this article and was fascinated, at first, that scientist might be able to resurrect (or revive, for the sake of the term) the woolly mammoth, by means of little changes in DNA sequence of elephant embryos and over a period of time would become a bit more similar to that of the target DNA.

But the main focus of the article was that if we can induce change in DNA sequence of embryonic elephants over a period of time, then, technically, we can do the same with Neanderthals DNA.
To be more technical, the DNA from embryonic chimpanzee would be changed, not human embryos.

http://www.slate.com/id/2205310/?GT1=38001

But here is a question:
Given that it is a definite possibility or that we can actually revive the Neanderthals, should we resurrect the Neanderthal?
And if the Neanderthal was resurrected, will they [the Neanderthals] be treated as humans or primates?

Just hypothetical questions to ponder the future of humanity!

No. It'd magnify the racism problems we currently have a hundred fold, easily.

 

[Garyzenuf]

Neandertals were beyond a doubt, people, persons.

Most Neandertals would pass for somewhat tough looking short, stocky humans. Only a very few of the men would look really different, with the very prominent brow.

Please pardon my ignorance on the subject , but if Neanderthals were so similiar to humans, why did they die out?

 

[Chalnoth]

Please pardon my ignorance on the subject , but if Neanderthals were so similiar to humans, why did they die out?

I don't think anybody knows. As usual, Wikipedia has a survey of some of the general hypotheses currently available, but doesn't give much insight as to which is to be preferred:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_extinction

 

[Naraoia]

Please pardon my ignorance on the subject , but if Neanderthals were so similiar to humans, why did they die out?

I think the latest hypothesis was that we bred like rabbits and they didn't.

I also think it may have happened precisely because they were so similar to us. As we say where I come from, you can't have two pipers in the same pub.

From what little I remember about the theory of competition, it only takes a very small advantage for one species to win, and in some cases the advantage can be as simple as there's more of species 1 to begin with. And two species can only stably coexist if there's not much competition between them at all. Somehow I can't imagine that to be the case with humans

(Long live the Lotka-Volterra model Which, of course, describes an idealised situation but it does make the point that sometimes the outcome of competition depends on sheer luck)

 

[Bombila]

Please pardon my ignorance on the subject , but if Neanderthals were so similiar to humans, why did they die out?

As stated, it is possible they simply couldn't breed as fast as humans, and in tough times were unable to replace themselves - produce two children per male-female. H.sapiens wasn't doing so well during some of that era either - at times it is thought there were very few humans alive at all.

There is an outside but unlikely possibility that they did breed with humans, but these hybrid offspring left no modern descendants, and no recognizable Neandertal genetic markers. It is not uncommon to find a prehistoric human with no known genetic descendants - lines die out for many reasons, often just chance.

 

[Bombila]

I saw a program looking at how they would have sounded from a reconstruction of their larynx and they would have been more high pitched.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=c7M1Se-p7uk

I've heard that as well, but there's been a lot of research on human speech, and how much pitch is learned rather than innate in individuals. particularly, males learn to pitch deeper and females learn to pitch higher, and there's a huge variation. So the physical equipment is only part of the equation.

Neandertals had larger noses as well. A recent theory is that there was no real advantage to the big nose, it was just a physical consequence of their general facial structure. But it might affect speech.

Neil's a good example.

 

[Hespera]

Neanderthal averaged a larger brain than modern man.

So assuming they were not as bright as we are is being a bit arrogant.

One big difference is in the matter of physical strength. We would not stand a chance against them in olympic events requiring strength.

As for how they would integrate otherwise, i think if they proved to be capable of learning what it takes to live in modern society, they would do fine. I think if we are ever capable of bringing them back we have a sort of duty to do so. (I kind of hope someone would do the same for us.....)

 

[TheReasoner]

Neanderthal averaged a larger brain than modern man.

So assuming they were not as bright as we are is being a bit arrogant.

One big difference is in the matter of physical strength. We would not stand a chance against them in olympic events requiring strength.

As for how they would integrate otherwise, i think if they proved to be capable of learning what it takes to live in modern society, they would do fine. I think if we are ever capable of bringing them back we have a sort of duty to do so. (I kind of hope someone would do the same for us.....)

Sperm whales have significantly larger brains than us. Does this mean they are smarter?
Also interesting: Men have larger brains than women. Given that fact, can we then say that men am inherently more intelligent than women?

I don't think we can attribute intelligence to the size of the brain. Not exclusively.

 

[Chalnoth]

Sperm whales have significantly larger brains than us. Does this mean they are smarter?

She didn't say that. She said that it is arrogant to assume that we are smarter.

Also interesting: Men have larger brains than women. Given that fact, can we then say that men am inherently more intelligent than women?

While there is a correlation between brain size and intelligence, there are far too many confounding factors to conclude that men are on average more intelligent than women. It is, of course, possible that this is the case, but even if it is so that biological fact should not prevent us from seeking full equality, nor should it be an excuse to keep from doing so.

I don't think we can attribute intelligence to the size of the brain. Not exclusively.

Of course not. But it is part of the recipe.

 

[Bombila]

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal_dna/callaway-neandertal-genome-halfway-2008.htmlhttp://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews.../callaway-neandertal-genome-halfway-2008.htmlhttp://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews.../callaway-neandertal-genome-halfway-2008.html

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/myths-about-neandertals-2008.html

Links to two of many good informed posts about neanderthals - I picked these because they touch on some of the issues raised in this thread already.

 

[TheReasoner]

She didn't say that. She said that it is arrogant to assume that we are smarter.

True, perhaps. I suppose the time after they died out is not enough for us to have evolved enough to make a difference.

While there is a correlation between brain size and intelligence, there are far too many confounding factors to conclude that men are on average more intelligent than women. It is, of course, possible that this is the case, but even if it is so that biological fact should not prevent us from seeking full equality, nor should it be an excuse to keep from doing so.

Agreed

Of course not. But it is part of the recipe.

Of course.

 

[Chalnoth]

True, perhaps. I suppose the time after they died out is not enough for us to have evolved enough to make a difference.

Nor is it even certain that our evolution in that time was towards greater intelligence.

 

[TheReasoner]

Nor is it even certain that our evolution in that time was towards greater intelligence.

Good point.