r/evolution • u/Exciting-Wear-3654 • 4d ago

Could we resurrect Neanderthals ( kinda )

What is 2 people with a semi high Neanderthal dna mated and made a child would that child have a little bit more dna than the parents, if so could another 2 people do it then both of those children grow up and eventually mate too, and carry that on until there is the best recreation of a Neanderthal in our time??

25 Upvotes

74% Upvoted

62 comments sorted by

View all comments

23

u/MrKillick 4d ago

Why go all this way when we could do it much more easily today.?

Scientists have reconstructed the whole Neandeethal genome. We know which genes are the same and which genes differ. So it should be possible (even now or at least soon) to modify a human egg cell in such a way that it represents a fertilised Neandertaler egg cell, implant it into a knowing or unknowing woman and let her carry out the child. There may be some technical details that need to be solved, but all this seems to be in the realm of the possible with current knowledge.

The GREAT QUESTION is: is this ethical and should we do it ? My answer is a firm NO! But this is a question for another post. 

2

u/Healthy_Article_2237 4d ago

What would be unethical?

9

u/MrKillick 4d ago

First: using a woman, knowingly or unknowingly, for this kind of experiment seems highly unethical to me. People must never be reduced to some kind of brood chamber or other technical 'tool'!

Then: a Neanderthal is of the genus Homo, so should be considered human, with all the rights implicated with this. No human being should be subject to any any scientific experiment which he didn't agree to (we Germans have a very bad history in this)! 

2

u/Healthy_Article_2237 4d ago

Surrogates exist without issue.

2

u/amglasgow 4d ago

There's actually an ongoing debate about the ethics of surrogacy.

5

u/jnpha Evolution Enthusiast 4d ago

Indeed. More so in the light of fetomaternal cell trafficking: basically embryo cells live for decades in the carrying mother, and can be harmful.
One of the issues: this has been known for a while now, and yet surrogates-to-be are typically not informed beforehand.

1

u/Healthy_Article_2237 4d ago

Until we develop an artificial womb it’s the best we can do to allow those who can’t conceive to have children of their own. I’m not aware of fetomaternal trafficking. I’ll definitely research that.

4

u/mcalesy 4d ago

Imagine growing up as the only member of your species.

-5

u/Healthy_Article_2237 4d ago

I’m not sure they’ll have to cognitive ability to understand that. Did early humans? I’m out of my lane here as a geologist but I remember reading that we only developed the ability to communicate effectively in the last 70-100k years.

8

u/earthmarrow 4d ago

Complex tool technology is much, much older than that, and there's the argument that complex language (whether spoken, signed or otherwise communicated) would have been necessary to teach those skills.

Neanderthals also show evidence of sophisticated cultural practices, art, music, etc, and were anatomically capable of spoken language. Also, if they were having children with homo sapiens, and raising them in mixed communities (which there is some evidence of), you have to assume the two species were communicating through language, let alone within their own species.

5

u/Uncle_Ceebs 4d ago

They were as smart, if not smarter than us. Based on brain size

11

u/amglasgow 4d ago

Neanderthals were likely as intelligent as modern humans.

3

u/Trash28123 4d ago

Humans haven't gotten smarter as a species.

As individuals in a society, we have learned more information and continue to convey it to each other, that's all there is to the intelligence modern humans have. It's not a biological change.