Before we resurrect the dinosaurs, let's maybe start with something smaller, like the passenger pigeon or the dodo.

>> ^oohlalasassoon:

Before we resurrect the dinosaurs, let's maybe start with something smaller, like the passenger pigeon or the dodo.


Yes! Bring back the tastiest most easily killed animals first.

Nothing can possibly go wrong!

Spared no expense!

how could anyone argue that a neanderthal boy should go to a zoo?

Apparently "hen's teeth" aren't necessarily quite as rare as advertised...

Zoo or Harvard? What's the difference?

Nature will find a way

>> ^zor:

Zoo or Harvard? What's the difference?


Zoo has a lot cheaper entry fee.

The range among modern human individuals is greater than the distance between modern humans and Neanderthals.

So resurrecting Neanderthals wouldn't tell us anything we don't already know about human behavior. (They'd like instinctual activities and not like to read etc.)

too bad they would probably all die from illness' they probably have no resistances to

I wanna see glow-in-the-dark mammoths.

I have a bit of an issue with Dr.Naku and his musings about biology, especially after seeing him butcher and mangle the theory of evolution and say that humans have "by-and-large" stopped evolving. Which is bullshit. (http://bigthink.com/ideas/26647)

I'm sure Dr.Naku is an excellent theoretical physicist, but he has shown that he doesnt really master biology all that well. I have a feeling he does the same thing here. There are all sorts of problems that might not be solvable here. Animals are more, biologically speaking, than a DNA "recipe" that you can simply "put into an egg", there are all sorts of evo-devo that comes in to complicate this tremendously. It is not at all clear that simply sequencing a genome (assumming its a complete and 100% accurate sequencing, which I'm pretty sure it isnt for the neanderthal and mammoth) that comes into play here. In other words, the limitation might not be our technology. Its a bit like the zoom-in-and-enhance-it problem you have in Hollywood movies. it doesnt matter if you have a billion-dollar computer from the year 4350 if the original recording is an old VHS tape of a CCTV recording.

@BicycleRepairMan

Science isn't 100% or nothing. Creating someone who is 95% neanderthal would still be scientifically useful.

Assuming that 5% wasn't important, right?

We've all seen alien resurrection!

>> ^dannym3141:

Assuming that 5% wasn't important, right?
We've all seen alien resurrection!


Yes, instead of using human genes for the missing 5%, consider using the genes of the deadliest alien species ever discovered.

>> ^Velocity5:

@BicycleRepairMan
Science isn't 100% or nothing. Creating someone who is 95% neanderthal would still be scientifically useful.


Well, thats not really how genes, genomes and sequencing works. You can sequence a genome 100% , but the accuracy might not be perfect, then you can sequence bits and peices to determine familiarity etc and that might be close to 100% in accuracy. The point is that just because someone says "we have sequenced the Neanderthal genome" that doesnt have to mean that that sequencing is even remotely useable as a cloning template or whatever.

And you cant just make a "95% neanderthal" and expect it to be "almost neanderthal".

The devil, or neanderthal in this case, is in the details, and what we have to work with, regardless of future technology is degraded bits of DNA thats tens of thousands of years old. Again, think about it like a video in recorded in low quality, its not going to be HD just because you have a fancy computer.

I googled this stuff to see if my skepticism was warranted: Here is a quote from one of the people who actually did the sequencing (taken from Wikipedia):

In February 2009, the Max Planck Institute's team, led by geneticist Svante Pääbo, announced that they had completed the first draft of the Neanderthal genome[3] An early analysis of the data suggested in "the genome of Neanderthals, a human species driven to extinction" "no significant trace of Neanderthal genes in modern humans".[17] New results suggested that some adult Neanderthals were lactose intolerant.[14] On the question of potentially cloning a Neanderthal, Pääbo commented, "Starting from the DNA extracted from a fossil, it is and will remain impossible."

So there you have it. Naku is, once again, talking shit, and should stick to his own field of study.

@BicycleRepairMan

That scientist gave his reason for the impossibility this way: "Paabo said because the Neanderthal DNA was scattered in imperfect fossils, the notion of cloning a Neanderthal was far-fetched." (Source.)


It sounds like he's talking about cloning one individual Neanderthal, rather than synthesizing a Neanderthal genome from many incomplete fossils.

Genomes are just a series of 4 letters... so future tech will only need the complete sequence of those 4 letters. Degradation like a video recorded in low quality doesn't apply... you either can determine which of the 4 letters is in that spot, or you have to get another fossil sample that has that location intact.


Yeah, Naku's value seems to be that he's a nice guy that the public can relate to.

>> ^Velocity5:

>> ^dannym3141:
Assuming that 5% wasn't important, right?
We've all seen alien resurrection!

Yes, instead of using human genes for the missing 5%, consider using the genes of the deadliest alien species ever discovered.


It's the only way to be sure

Sounds like the egg came before the chicken

I'm still holding out for the woolly mammoth cloning.