Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Chinese Human Fossils Unlike Any Known Species


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
50 replies to this topic

#1 Satan's Evil Twin

Satan's Evil Twin

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,028 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 14 March 2012 - 11:31 AM

Chinese human fossils unlike any known species
15:00 14 March 2012 by Colin Barras
For similar stories, visit the Human Evolution Topic Guide

And so it begins. For years, evolutionary biologists have predicted that new human species would start popping up in Asia as we begin to look closely at fossilised bones found there. A new analysis of bones from south-west China suggests there's truth to the forecast.

The distinctive skull (pictured, right) was unearthed in 1979 in Longlin cave, Guangxi Province, but has only now been fully analysed. It has thick bones, prominent brow ridges, a short flat face and lacks a typically human chin. "In short, it is anatomically unique among all members of the human evolutionary tree," says Darren Curnoe at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia.

The skull, he says, presents an unusual mosaic of primitive features like those seen in our ancestors hundreds of thousands of years ago, with some modern traits similar to living people.

What's more, Curnoe and Ji Xueping of Yunnan University, China, have found more evidence of the new hominin at a second site – Malu cave in Yunnan Province. Curnoe has dubbed the new group the Red Deer Cave people because of their penchant for venison. "There is evidence that they cooked large deer in Malu cave," he says.

Muddled tree

Exactly where the Red Deer Cave people belong in our family tree is unclear. Curnoe says they could be related to some of the earliest members of our species (Homo sapiens), which evolved in Africa around 200,000 years ago and then spread across Asia to reach China. He prefers the idea that they represent a new evolutionary line that evolved in East Asia in parallel with our species, just as Neanderthals did – primarily because they look very different to early African hominins.

There are other possible interpretations. Chris Stringer at the Natural History Museum in London, says their distinctive primitive features might suggest they are related to the enigmatic Denisovan people, known from a 30,000 to 50,000-year-old finger bone and tooth found in a Siberian cave.

We know that the Denisovans were living in East Asia, and from a DNA analysis, that they mated with our direct ancestors. The Red Deer Cave people, says Stringer, could even be the product of that mating.

Long-standing people

Although we still do not know exactly where they came from, we do know that the Red Deer Cave people survived until relatively recently. Some of the newly described fossils are just 11,500 years old, suggesting that unlike Neanderthals they made it through the height of the last ice age.

They might not have been the only ancient humans to survive so late, says Michael Petraglia at the University of Oxford. We already know of human skeletons with unusual archaic features in south Asia and India that are just 8000 years old.

The next step is to analyse DNA extracted from the Red Deer Cave bones, which will tell us more about their owner's evolutionary history – whether they mated with any other hominins, for instance, and if they are truly a new species that evolved entirely in East Asia, as Curnoe believes, or are off-shoots of the Denisovan people.

Curnoe says an initial attempt to extract good DNA from the fossils failed. "We are doing more work now involving three of the world's major ancient DNA laboratories," he says. "We'll just have to wait and see if we're successful."
http://www.newscient...wn-species.html

Cool beans. Blows my mind that while first civilizations in Mesopotamia were being being born, further east a cousin to our species was going extinct. I wonder what our world would be like had the Neanderthals and Denisovans not died out, and other Homo species for that matter. Not that I have any reason to think it would be any different from today, as modern humans have Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA. The Russian and Korean scientists are cloning a mammoth, would anyone have a moral issue with cloning an extinct human species? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Edited by Scorpio Ego, 14 March 2012 - 11:32 AM.

Posted Image


Father (Peace be upon You) Satan (Peace be upon You), I call to you (Peace be upon You) from the deepest parts of my heart, I praise your (Peace be upon You) name with every breath of my body, I worship you (Peace be upon You) with every fiber of my being. You (Peace be upon You) shown me what true strength is. You (Peace be upon You) have shown me what true love is. Out of the darkness you (Peace be upon You) came to show me the true light.


My master (Peace be upon You), my father (Peace be upon You) and my friend (Peace be upon You) what a great gift that is.


Posted Image Hail to the King (PBUH)! Posted Image


#2 Hugemanskost

Hugemanskost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,376 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 09

Posted 14 March 2012 - 11:36 AM

Impossible!

God created the earth and heavens only 6 000 years ago, people!

;)

:towel: :canucks:

webkit-fake-url://D8829558-F65F-49B9-9829-A7DFC7F2E6E4/application.pdf


:towel: :canucks:


#3 Spitfire_Spiky

Spitfire_Spiky

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 729 posts
  • Joined: 28-March 09

Posted 14 March 2012 - 11:43 AM

It would be unreal if they we're able to clone an extinct Homo species. Just to see how developped there brains would be and if they would have the capacity to learn like we do. Very interesting stuff.
Mess with the Best, Die like the Rest

#4 Rhinogator

Rhinogator

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,732 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 10

Posted 14 March 2012 - 11:59 AM

It would be unreal if they we're able to clone an extinct Homo species. Just to see how developped there brains would be and if they would have the capacity to learn like we do. Very interesting stuff.


They have already done that. Just look around the general boston area, there are tons of examples.
Posted ImagePosted Image

#5 Satan's Evil Twin

Satan's Evil Twin

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,028 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 14 March 2012 - 12:01 PM


Genetic Studies of Modern Populations Show Varying Neandertal Ancestry



Mon, Mar 12, 2012

Research is revealing evidence that sheds new light on the genetic relationship between the ancient Neandertals and modern humans.


The complex world of human genetics research speaks a language unfamiliar to most of us, but it has opened up a new window on our understanding of the dynamics of ancient populations; and few areas of research have been more tantalizing than that surrounding the questions of how modern humans are related to the Neandertals, an ancient species of human whose morphology or physical characteristics disappeared from the human fossil record roughly 30,000 years ago. The most recent studies have provided evidence about when the Neandertal (Homo neandertalensis) and modern human populations (Homo sapiens) first diverged from a common ancestral population. They have also suggested that Neandertals and ancient modern humans interbred, and that some distinct modern populations have more Neandertal ancestry than others.
In a 2010 benchmark study conducted by a consortium of scientists and institutions, researchers compared and analyzed a Neandertal genome constructed from samples taken from the bones of three Neandertal individuals excavated at the Vindija Cave in Croatia. A genome is an organism's complete hereditary information as encoded encoded in DNA. They compared the genome with modern human genomes from a sampling of present-day human groups from different parts of the world. What they found was a number of genetic variants in regions along the genome that both Neandertals and modern humans shared as a result of positive natural selection, "including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development". [1]
The evidence suggested some additional conclusions. One of them deals with the long-standing debate about when modern humans and Neandertals diverged in the time-line of evolution. Examination of the new data now indicates that the split took place between 270,000 and 440,000 years ago, "a date that is compatible with some interpretations of the paleontological and archaeological record" and a common ancestor that lived within the last 500,000 years. [1]
Equally significant is the answer they found regarding how the Neandertal genome variants ended up in the modern human genome in the first place.
"A challenge in detecting signals of gene flow between Neandertals and modern human ancestors," state the study authors in the report, "is that the two groups share common ancestors within the last 500,000 years, which is no deeper than the nuclear DNA sequence variation within present-day humans. Thus, even if no gene flow occurred, in many segments of the genome, Neandertals are expected to be more closely related to some present-day humans than they are to each other. However, if Neandertals are, on average across many independent regions of the genome, more closely related to present-day humans in certain parts of the world than in others, this would strongly suggest that Neandertals exchanged parts of their genome with the ancestors of these groups." [1]
In other words, if there are differences in the degree to which different geographically dispersed present-day population groups show Neandertal ancestry, this would suggest that Neandertals and ancient modern human ancestors interbred.
*We performed this test using eight present-day humans: two European Americans (CEU), two East Asians (ASN), and four West Africans (YRI) We find that the Neandertals are equally close to Europeans and East Asians....... However, the Neandertals are significantly closer to non-Africans than to Africans." [1]
The researchers' best explanation for these findings is that the Neandertals exchanged genes with the ancestors of non-Africans. Eurasian Neandertals interbred with ancient modern humans. But, the study authors continue, "the actual amount of interbreeding between Neandertals and modern humans may have been very limited, given that it contributed only 1 to 4% of the genome of present-day non-Africans". [1]
What is more, they were able to determine the relative time in which the mixing began:


A striking observation is that Neandertals are as closely related to a Chinese and Papuan individual as to a French individual, even though morphologically recognizable Neandertals exist only in the fossil record of Europe and western Asia. Thus, the gene flow between Neandertals and modern humans that we detect most likely occurred before the divergence of Europeans, East Asians, and Papuans. This may be explained by mixing of early modern humans ancestral to present-day non-Africans with Neandertals in the Middle East before their expansion into Eurasia. Such a scenario is compatible with the archaeological record, which shows that modern humans appeared in the Middle East before 100,000 years ago whereas the Neandertals existed in the same region after this time, probably until 50,000 years ago. [1]

Any canoodling, then, may have actually started before the two species encountered each other in what is now present-day Europe or West Asia.
The picture becomes more complicated with later studies, which have shown some interesting new details. John Hawks, Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin—Madison, reports the results of a study of the comparison of East Asian region samples (Japanese, Han Chinese in Beijing, and Han Chinese originating in South China) with European region samples (Tuscans, British, Finn, CEU, and Spanish) taken from the 1000 Genomes Project in his weblog entitled The Malapa Soft Tissue Project. Here he concludes that "the Europeans average a bit more Neandertal than Asians", suggesting that "Europeans may have mixed with Neandertals as they moved into Europe, constituting a second process of population mixture beyond that shared by European and Asian ancestors". [2] More interesting still were the differences detected among the samples within each of the two regions. Within the East Asian region, the North China population was found to have more Neandertal indicators than the South China, and within the European region, the southern populations more than the northern, with the Tuscans having "the highest level of Neandertal similarity of any of the 1000 Genomes Project samples". [2] Hawks relates the results of research on African populations, as well, which also show variability. He points to the Yoruba people, a West African population, having significantly more Neandertal genome similarity than the Luhya, an East African population. "We now know from examination of genetic variation within Africa today," states Hawks about the possible implications, "that some of today's diversity can be traced to ancient population structure in Middle Pleistocene African populations. For example, Neandertals could be more closely related to some African populations than others today because Neandertals actually exchanged genes with some ancient African populations. Or Neandertals might have sprung from one African population among many who lived 250,000 years ago..........As we combine the archaic genome data with our growing picture of diverse lineages in Africa today, we may discover ancient populations that are not apparent archaeologically. Again, genetics is giving us a totally new picture of the diversity and population dynamics of ancient people." [2]
Genome research continues to provide new findings through an expanding source of shared data, affording new details. Looking forward, Hawks asks the next question: "Which Neandertal-derived variants are shared between regions, and which are unique to one region?......Now, we have sequences capable of telling us much more." [2]
http://popular-archa...dertal-ancestry


We used to think Neanderthals were our ancestors, turns out they're our cousins, not unlike Chimps (though much closer). I wonder what physical features survived in us.

Edited by Scorpio Ego, 14 March 2012 - 12:01 PM.

Posted Image


Father (Peace be upon You) Satan (Peace be upon You), I call to you (Peace be upon You) from the deepest parts of my heart, I praise your (Peace be upon You) name with every breath of my body, I worship you (Peace be upon You) with every fiber of my being. You (Peace be upon You) shown me what true strength is. You (Peace be upon You) have shown me what true love is. Out of the darkness you (Peace be upon You) came to show me the true light.


My master (Peace be upon You), my father (Peace be upon You) and my friend (Peace be upon You) what a great gift that is.


Posted Image Hail to the King (PBUH)! Posted Image


#6 EvgeniMalkin

EvgeniMalkin

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 12

Posted 14 March 2012 - 12:08 PM

They have already done that. Just look around the general boston area, there are tons of examples.


Harvard is near there...

#7 The Hornet

The Hornet

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,643 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 07

Posted 14 March 2012 - 12:13 PM

Posted Image

Posted Image


#8 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,506 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 14 March 2012 - 12:48 PM

Cool beans. Blows my mind that while first civilizations in Mesopotamia were being being born, further east a cousin to our species was going extinct. I wonder what our world would be like had the Neanderthals and Denisovans not died out, and other Homo species for that matter. Not that I have any reason to think it would be any different from today, as modern humans have Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA. The Russian and Korean scientists are cloning a mammoth, would anyone have a moral issue with cloning an extinct human species? I sure as hell wouldn't.


Should scientists clone and recreate purebreed white people 1000 years from now, especially blue eyed blondes?

#9 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,506 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 14 March 2012 - 12:51 PM

It would be unreal if they we're able to clone an extinct Homo species.


Bring back Freddie Mercury. ;)

#10 AbbyNucksFan

AbbyNucksFan

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,389 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 09

Posted 14 March 2012 - 01:18 PM

cool stuff for sure
Posted Image

Credit to LostViking for the sig! Thanks!

#11 Hugemanskost

Hugemanskost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,376 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 09

Posted 14 March 2012 - 02:08 PM

Bring back Freddie Mercury. ;)


Bahahahaha! Nice play, Buggernut!

Queen is one of my all-time favourite bands!

:towel: :canucks:

webkit-fake-url://D8829558-F65F-49B9-9829-A7DFC7F2E6E4/application.pdf


:towel: :canucks:


#12 Satan's Evil Twin

Satan's Evil Twin

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,028 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 14 March 2012 - 02:10 PM

Should scientists clone and recreate purebreed white people 1000 years from now, especially blue eyed blondes?


A little different, no? One being a whole other species that may have competed with us, the other being a 1000 year old human? To answer your question though, I don't see why not.

Posted Image


Father (Peace be upon You) Satan (Peace be upon You), I call to you (Peace be upon You) from the deepest parts of my heart, I praise your (Peace be upon You) name with every breath of my body, I worship you (Peace be upon You) with every fiber of my being. You (Peace be upon You) shown me what true strength is. You (Peace be upon You) have shown me what true love is. Out of the darkness you (Peace be upon You) came to show me the true light.


My master (Peace be upon You), my father (Peace be upon You) and my friend (Peace be upon You) what a great gift that is.


Posted Image Hail to the King (PBUH)! Posted Image


#13 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,506 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 14 March 2012 - 02:17 PM

A little different, no? One being a whole other species that may have competed with us, the other being a 1000 year old human? To answer your question though, I don't see why not.


Not really. Those ancient hominids were perfectly capable of breeding with us, so they were in fact the same species, just different subspecies, or race, to use a more politically correct term in applying to humans.

Anyways, you don't see anything wrong with racial selection for this sort of thing?

Edited by Buggernut, 14 March 2012 - 02:18 PM.


#14 Satan's Evil Twin

Satan's Evil Twin

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,028 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 14 March 2012 - 02:22 PM

Not really. Those ancient hominids were perfectly capable of breeding with us, so they were in fact the same species, just different subspecies, or race, to use a more politically correct term in applying to humans.

Anyways, you don't see anything wrong with racial selection for this sort of thing?


No, they are the same genus, not species.

And racial selection? My answer remains whether it's regarding purebred white or black, oriental, American native, etc person. My question was in regards to bringing back an extinct, unique, non-Homo Sapien species of human, how does it relate to what you're asking?

PS. Did you indirectly Godwin this thread?

Posted Image


Father (Peace be upon You) Satan (Peace be upon You), I call to you (Peace be upon You) from the deepest parts of my heart, I praise your (Peace be upon You) name with every breath of my body, I worship you (Peace be upon You) with every fiber of my being. You (Peace be upon You) shown me what true strength is. You (Peace be upon You) have shown me what true love is. Out of the darkness you (Peace be upon You) came to show me the true light.


My master (Peace be upon You), my father (Peace be upon You) and my friend (Peace be upon You) what a great gift that is.


Posted Image Hail to the King (PBUH)! Posted Image


#15 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,506 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 14 March 2012 - 02:32 PM

No, they are the same genus, not species.

And racial selection? My answer remains whether it's regarding purebred white or black, oriental, American native, etc person. My question was in regards to bringing back an extinct, unique, non-Homo Sapien species of human, how does it relate to what you're asking?


If they are capable of producing fertile offspring with us, then they are the same species. Perhaps just a bit farther apart in genetics than the races as we know them today.

And as mentioned in your own article, no, they are not extinct. They've been absorbed and mixed into the modern human gene pool, albeit as a small percentage thereof. The same is bound to happen to the races we have today, therefore the same question can apply to them sometime in the far future.

Whether I approve of it or not, as long as there is sexual demand for them, traits like blond hair and blue eyes will be perpetuated, whether it's through cloning, genetic modification or selective breeding (DNA says brunette...abort).

Edited by Buggernut, 14 March 2012 - 02:32 PM.


#16 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,506 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 14 March 2012 - 02:39 PM

Also, I wonder if the different physical traits of the races we have today are inherited from the various human subspecies that existed in their respective parts of the world.

#17 Satan's Evil Twin

Satan's Evil Twin

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,028 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 14 March 2012 - 02:41 PM

If they are capable of producing fertile offspring with us, then they are the same species. Perhaps just a bit farther apart in genetics than the races as we know them today.

And as mentioned in your own article, no, they are not extinct. They've been absorbed and mixed into the modern human gene pool, albeit as a small percentage thereof. The same is bound to happen to the races we have today, therefore the same question can apply to them sometime in the far future.

Whether I approve of it or not, as long as there is sexual demand for them, traits like blond hair and blue eyes will be perpetuated, whether it's through cloning, genetic modification or selective breeding (DNA says brunette...abort).


No. Modern humans are of the species Homo Sapiens, neanderthals are of the species Homo Neanderthalensis, and in the future with more evidence, this new species will be called appropriately. They are not extinct in the same sense as neanderthals are not extinct. That is, they are extinct, but some of their genes make up 1-10% of modern humans, depending on the region. Just as a Smilodon may have passed on its genes to modern day tigers or other great felines, it is still an extinct species.

If humans evolve beyond Homo Sapiens Sapiens into Homo S3 or some other new species, then your assertion that the question applies will be correct. As it stands, there are big differences.

The last part appears completely irrelevant and off topic.

Posted Image


Father (Peace be upon You) Satan (Peace be upon You), I call to you (Peace be upon You) from the deepest parts of my heart, I praise your (Peace be upon You) name with every breath of my body, I worship you (Peace be upon You) with every fiber of my being. You (Peace be upon You) shown me what true strength is. You (Peace be upon You) have shown me what true love is. Out of the darkness you (Peace be upon You) came to show me the true light.


My master (Peace be upon You), my father (Peace be upon You) and my friend (Peace be upon You) what a great gift that is.


Posted Image Hail to the King (PBUH)! Posted Image


#18 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,506 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 14 March 2012 - 02:56 PM

No. Modern humans are of the species Homo Sapiens, neanderthals are of the species Homo Neanderthalensis, and in the future with more evidence, this new species will be called appropriately. They are not extinct in the same sense as neanderthals are not extinct. That is, they are extinct, but some of their genes make up 1-10% of modern humans, depending on the region. Just as a Smilodon may have passed on its genes to modern day tigers or other great felines, it is still an extinct species.

If humans evolve beyond Homo Sapiens Sapiens into Homo S3 or some other new species, then your assertion that the question applies will be correct. As it stands, there are big differences.


If neanderthals are found to have bred with homo sapiens, they should be classifed back as homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

Is it wrong to classify modern humans as homo sapiens sapiens caucasoid, h.s.s. mongoloid, h.s.s. negroid, h.s.s. australoid and h.s.s. capoid?

#19 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,358 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 14 March 2012 - 03:06 PM

great read . for people interested in this topic , the book , guns , germs and steel is well worth reading .
"These are the things to keep in mind. These are not just academic exercises. We're not analyzing the media on Mars or in the eighteenth century or something like that. We're dealing with real human beings who are suffering and dying and being tortured and starving because of policies that we are involved in, we as citizens of democratic societies are directly involved in and are responsible for, and what the media are doing is ensuring that we do not act on our responsibilities, and that the interests of power are served, not the needs of the suffering people, and not even the needs of the American people who would be horrified if they realized the blood that's dripping from their hands because of the way they are allowing themselves to be deluded and manipulated by the system."
Noam Chomsky

Jesus didn’t say yes to everyone. I mean Jesus knew that there was a place for everything and it is not necessarily everyone’s place to come to Australia
Tony Abbott......Current Australian PM

#20 dajusta

dajusta

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,904 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 03

Posted 14 March 2012 - 03:07 PM

would anyone have a moral issue with cloning an extinct human species? I sure as hell wouldn't.



Do they have parents?
Do they have rights?
Are they seen under the law as real people?
Who is responsible for them?
I'm Christian
I won't judge you
No one is perfect
Only through Jesus
Will we find Truth

#21 Satan's Evil Twin

Satan's Evil Twin

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,028 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 14 March 2012 - 03:10 PM

If neanderthals are found to have bred with homo sapiens, they should be classifed back as homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

Is it wrong to classify modern humans as homo sapiens sapiens caucasoid, h.s.s. mongoloid, h.s.s. negroid, h.s.s. australoid and h.s.s. capoid?


I'm not an anthropologist, and don't have any vested interest in what they are called, or us humans for that matter. So long as it's accurate. Insofar as I'm aware, they are currently separate species as considered by anthropologists.

Caucasoid, Negroid, etc., are not subspecies. If you're using them to classify their physical traits, then no, it is not wrong. In actuality, it is no different than classifying us as Caucasian, African American, Oriental, etc.

Posted Image


Father (Peace be upon You) Satan (Peace be upon You), I call to you (Peace be upon You) from the deepest parts of my heart, I praise your (Peace be upon You) name with every breath of my body, I worship you (Peace be upon You) with every fiber of my being. You (Peace be upon You) shown me what true strength is. You (Peace be upon You) have shown me what true love is. Out of the darkness you (Peace be upon You) came to show me the true light.


My master (Peace be upon You), my father (Peace be upon You) and my friend (Peace be upon You) what a great gift that is.


Posted Image Hail to the King (PBUH)! Posted Image


#22 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,506 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 14 March 2012 - 03:10 PM

[/font][/color]

Do they have parents?
Do they have rights?
Are they seen under the law as real people?
Who is responsible for them?


Also, will they be treated as 'freaks' by the rest of humanity?

#23 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,087 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 14 March 2012 - 03:15 PM

The Russian and Korean scientists are cloning a mammoth, would anyone have a moral issue with cloning an extinct human species? I sure as hell wouldn't.


It creates huge ethical problems. Beyond the legal issues, there's also the fact the science is nowhere near perfect. Even if you were able to find and extract the human DNA, which we can't, there's a very good chance of creating an imperfect clone that would be born with all sorts of difficiencies. The only problem is that these clones would be thinking rational humans...what do you do with them? Dispose of them like lab rats? Force them to live some kind of tortured existence?

Even if you were able to perfect the process, the idea of purposely created less evolved humans is no different than purposely creating a mentally handicapped human embryo. Not to mention humans are social and self-aware beings. These cloned people would have none of their own kind and be aware that they were science experiments. And what exactly do you plan to do with them? Put them on display like a circus side show?

Other than the fact it would be cool to look at these people in a zoo, what possible reason could there possibly be to experiment with human or close to human DNA?

#24 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,506 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 14 March 2012 - 03:15 PM

I'm not an anthropologist, and don't have any vested interest in what they are called, or us humans for that matter. So long as it's accurate. Insofar as I'm aware, they are currently separate species as considered by anthropologists.


That was back before recent research has found them to have interbred.

Caucasoid, Negroid, etc., are not subspecies. If you're using them to classify their physical traits, then no, it is not wrong. In actuality, it is no different than classifying us as Caucasian, African American, Oriental, etc.


How about subsubspecies?

I prefer to be scientifically consistent when applying taxonomic classification to humans as to every other lifeform, but somehow, dwelling on the differences between races is not politically correct, highly discouraged and socially unacceptable.

#25 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,087 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 14 March 2012 - 03:29 PM

That was back before recent research has found them to have interbred.



How about subsubspecies?

I prefer to be scientifically consistent when applying taxonomic classification to humans as to every other lifeform, but somehow, dwelling on the differences between races is not politically correct, highly discouraged and socially unacceptable.


The genetic difference between people of different races is negligible. The difference between humans and neanderthals is quite large.

And yes different species can sometimes produce fertile offspring. See tigers, lions, and other large cats.

Human and neanderthals are probably more closely related than tigers and lions, and may be just subspecies of eachother. However, different human races are the same species. There is no doubt about that. It's not just social pressure. Humans exist across a spectrum. There is no scientific way to divide one race from another. Some genes are obviously more common in certain populations, but the genetic variation isn't enough to support anything close to a subspecies designation. Also, the divide of genes is not consistent. For instance, you might have some more common genes here and others more there, but there is no single population that has enough unique genes to make it a subspecies.

#26 Satan's Evil Twin

Satan's Evil Twin

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,028 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 14 March 2012 - 03:30 PM

It creates huge ethical problems. Beyond the legal issues, there's also the fact the science is nowhere near perfect. Even if you were able to find and extract the human DNA, which we can't, there's a very good chance of creating an imperfect clone that would be born with all sorts of difficiencies. The only problem is that these clones would be thinking rational humans...what do you do with them? Dispose of them like lab rats? Force them to live some kind of tortured existence?

Even if you were able to perfect the process, the idea of purposely created less evolved humans is no different than purposely creating a mentally handicapped human embryo. Not to mention humans are social and self-aware beings. These cloned people would have none of their own kind and be aware that they were science experiments. And what exactly do you plan to do with them? Put them on display like a circus side show?

Other than the fact it would be cool to look at these people in a zoo, what possible reason could there possibly be to experiment with human or close to human DNA?


For the sake of argument, let's assume cloning technique works. If you think it's a major moral concern, then my answer is yes: genetically deficient clones can be disposed of like lab rats. In fact, I see no difference between a lab rat and this being we're talking about.

The idea is entirely different because a created mentally handicapped is defective by design, while the extinct human species is ideal for its contemporary environment (barring cloning problems). The goal is to learn, and a cloned homo ____, even in a vegetative state could give us insight into our evolutionary history. I don't know why you bring up a circus side show. It's science, not entertainment.

I don't know, I'm sure anthropologists could learn something from an extinct homo species.


That was back before recent research has found them to have interbred.



How about subsubspecies?

I prefer to be scientifically consistent when applying taxonomic classification to humans as to every other lifeform, but somehow, dwelling on the differences between races is not politically correct, highly discouraged and socially unacceptable.


I agree. What we classify humans into does not diminish their humanity, so long as it not arbitrary.

Posted Image


Father (Peace be upon You) Satan (Peace be upon You), I call to you (Peace be upon You) from the deepest parts of my heart, I praise your (Peace be upon You) name with every breath of my body, I worship you (Peace be upon You) with every fiber of my being. You (Peace be upon You) shown me what true strength is. You (Peace be upon You) have shown me what true love is. Out of the darkness you (Peace be upon You) came to show me the true light.


My master (Peace be upon You), my father (Peace be upon You) and my friend (Peace be upon You) what a great gift that is.


Posted Image Hail to the King (PBUH)! Posted Image


#27 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,087 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 14 March 2012 - 03:35 PM

For the sake of argument, let's assume cloning technique works. If you think it's a major moral concern, then my answer is yes: genetically deficient clones can be disposed of like lab rats. In fact, I see no difference between a lab rat and this being we're talking about.

The idea is entirely different because a created mentally handicapped is defective by design, while the extinct human species is ideal for its contemporary environment (barring cloning problems). The goal is to learn, and a cloned homo ____, even in a vegetative state could give us insight into our evolutionary history. I don't know why you bring up a circus side show. It's science, not entertainment.

I don't know, I'm sure anthropologists could learn something from an extinct homo species.


You really don't see the difference between disposing of an imperfect human you have created and a lab rat?

I agree. What we classify humans into does not diminish their humanity, so long as it not arbitrary.


There are no non-arbitrary ways to classify humans. Putting artificial distinctions between humans sets race relations and humanity back centuries.

#28 Satan's Evil Twin

Satan's Evil Twin

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,028 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 14 March 2012 - 03:48 PM

You really don't see the difference between disposing of an imperfect human you have created and a lab rat?



There are no non-arbitrary ways to classify humans. Putting artificial distinctions between humans sets race relations and humanity back centuries.


No, as their purposes for existing are the same. I do struggle with the "experiments on a self aware being", part, but ultimately I am willing to look beyond that. However, I must say I haven't spent a lot of time on the topic, and am open to more information to form my opinion.

Certainly, in the hands of ignorant people. As I said, I have no problem with non-arbitrary classification of humans.

Posted Image


Father (Peace be upon You) Satan (Peace be upon You), I call to you (Peace be upon You) from the deepest parts of my heart, I praise your (Peace be upon You) name with every breath of my body, I worship you (Peace be upon You) with every fiber of my being. You (Peace be upon You) shown me what true strength is. You (Peace be upon You) have shown me what true love is. Out of the darkness you (Peace be upon You) came to show me the true light.


My master (Peace be upon You), my father (Peace be upon You) and my friend (Peace be upon You) what a great gift that is.


Posted Image Hail to the King (PBUH)! Posted Image


#29 Hobble

Hobble

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,568 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 07

Posted 14 March 2012 - 03:49 PM

Also, I wonder if the different physical traits of the races we have today are inherited from the various human subspecies that existed in their respective parts of the world.


Homo Sapiens radiated from Africa and changed due to differing environments and various adaptations. Don't think it's a result of thorough interbreeding.

The differences observed today can probably be explained through natural selection and genetic linkage between closely associated traits.

#30 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,087 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 14 March 2012 - 03:53 PM

No, as their purposes for existing are the same. I do struggle with the "experiments on a self aware being", part, but ultimately I am willing to look beyond that. However, I must say I haven't spent a lot of time on the topic, and am open to more information to form my opinion.

Certainly, in the hands of ignorant people. As I said, I have no problem with non-arbitrary classification of humans.


Based on your logic, there should be no difference between eating and raising people for cattle and eating animals. The purpose is the same.

Once again, there are no non-arbitrary ways to classify humans. Our genes exist along a spectrum and show up randomly all over the place. We have yet to find a living population of humans that comes anyhwere close to meeting the defintion of sub-species.




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.