How cool will it be, if we could reconstruct an extinct animal from the fragments of its fossilized genome? Such a project is currently being unveiled at the Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, where U.S. and German scientists have launched a project to recreate the Neanderthal genome:).
Gibraltar Neanderthal Child (Courtesy: RDOS)
The genome project should be able to tell us how much genetically identical (and different) our closest cousins really were. The goal thus is not to recreate a Neanderthal (which might be unethical since they are so similar to us and might have been capable of conscious thought), but to help reveal the molecular evolution of human beings.
But the techniques developed during this work can certainly be adapted to recreate other extinct creatures. Jurassic Park, anyone:D:D?
Gibraltar Neanderthal Child (Courtesy: RDOS)
The genome project should be able to tell us how much genetically identical (and different) our closest cousins really were. The goal thus is not to recreate a Neanderthal (which might be unethical since they are so similar to us and might have been capable of conscious thought), but to help reveal the molecular evolution of human beings.
But the techniques developed during this work can certainly be adapted to recreate other extinct creatures. Jurassic Park, anyone:D:D?
Building A Neanderthal
(Hide)
(Show)
9 Comments:
So! Next question. Why did every single last species of dinosaur die off? There must have been hundreds if not thousands of species. True, many suffered from gigantism and couldn't adapt, but many weren't gigantic. Many were the size of a large dog, a small horse, a large hog or a cow. Many reptiles survived and survived quite well; crocodiles, snakes, lizards, amphibians. Just because a sudden deep freeze appeared, the tropics didn't disappear, they just shrunk. So why did every species of dinosaur disappear when many species of reptiles survived? Maybe DNA testing on some of these recent, well-preserved finds will provide a clue.
Mike in Prairie Village
About dinosaurs. They did not die out! However, they evolved into what we today know as birds. Birds share a lot of morphological features with the dinosaurs, and even though the large dinos died out, the smaller ones adapted and took to the sky:).
Compassion: Fossils have been found of Neanderthals who lived into old age even after being so critically wounded that they could not find their own food. This suggests that someone cared for them.
Signs of tool-making are many. Bones from these sites often have abrasions from stone tools, and even tools have been found. But they are much more primitive than those made by stone-age humans.
Due to global warming, the glaciers in the crevasses of the Alps have been receding, and 2 or 3 frozen, well-preserved sites have been found. I assume this girl is a cast from one of those sites.
A couple of years ago, a grave site was found. In it a man who appeared to be of some importance, probably a clan chieftain, had been laid out with his best hides and furs and his best knives and spear points. His face had been painted with red ochre. Next to him was a small boy, probably his son. The boy also was in his best hides, his face painted, and he had a small knife. Fashioning tools from bone and flint and garments from hide and fur, painting (and cave paintings of Neanderthal have been found), and now, grave-site rituals says, at least to me, a high degree of sentience.
As far as the dinosaurs to birds, there was one class of dinosaur that a pterdactyl was part of that is thought to have evolved to birds. Recently, in southwestern China, a fossil of a pterdactyl-like creature was found that appeared to have quills of primitive feathers. However, its still very speculative at this point. And I don't think you'll find that raptors, herbivores, and the armor-plated creatures evolved into birds. Their bone structure was very dense to support their weight.
However, if pterdactyls evolved into warm-blooded birds, then how? I know nature and evolution have accomplished some amazing feats, but I have to ask, how did it evolve something from cold-blooded to warm? That involves creating the organs necessary to maintain a metabolism. I forget the organs that involves, to maintain a steady metabolism. But I find that amazing.
However, a well-preserved fossil was found in SW China, of a raptor, I think. It appeared to have the imprint of the lungs and possibly some of the heart. It caused some scientist to begin questioning if dinosaurs indeed were cold-blooded. This fossil had chambers in the heart that only warm-blooded animals are thought to have.
Mike
Prairie Village
I agree with you. Sciences like Physics are (mostly) observer-independent in nature. But social sciences can never be separated from the observer, so there is always a degree of uncertainty in any find. But the hope is that with more results, we approximate towards the 'truth'.
About the bird evolution. I am sure you have heard about the recent discovery of T-Rex soft tissue. Scientists have found that the tissue resembles those of the flightless birds, such as ostrich! So can we say that at least ostriches share some common ancestry with T-Rex? It could have evolved the same features independently, but it sounds unlikely.
It was described as short, stubby, large cranial, but heavy brow ridge hominid. It was shorter than Crow-Magnums (early Homo sapient sapiens)..and a definite "inferior" hominid (by the early fossil finders of the past-not strict and academically trained archeologists with all the new technologies of today).
Later in history, when a the original neaders bones were re-examined...and the discipline knew more about osteology than they did when the initial neader was found, it was discovered that this particular Homo sapien neanderthalensis had suffered from severe arthritis..
Thus, his bone structure was totally out of place with modern hominids...and that is how the Neanderthals got a bad rap. This one should go to the Mythbusters...
As someone pointed out, neanders took care of their own..this first neander was buried with tools and flowers and that might indicate some type of ceremony and cosmology of his and his family groups life. I doubt they would just throw good tools away because someone died?
And, it is obvious that they didn't float their old and sick out on a block of ice to be consumed by the ocean. To carry or take care of an adult arthritic person who was unable to care for themselves, in an environment where hunting and gathering mean everything for survival shows very human traits of care giving and possibly compassion.
One last thought, and just IMHO...yes, parts of anthropology are a social science...but you must remember that there are 4 disciplines within the field...linguistics, archeology, physical anthropology (hominid and primates-behavior, osteology, and anything else dealing with the medical and physical aspects of various species) and finally cultural anthropology (study of human behavior).
In the past, the bad rap went to the cultural anthropologist as a social science..but that has changed immensely..just as modern medicine (which is also an art ) deals in double blind studies for new drugs, the cultural aspect of anthropology integrated the same discipline as all the other sciences. Null hypothesis, test groups, double blind, et al. No longer is the field the anthropology of Margaret Mead (bad example since her work stunk!) but if you are worth your grain of salt in the field, you have to provide the discipline, stats, et al before you publish.
Because of advancements in modern technology, archeology and physical anthropology have long been held to a higher standard..
And, linguistics is an science in itself to show whether certain cultures or peoples are related to each other through their language...to possibly show movement of people and integration of societies and/or alignments. Just a tad bit different from a general Linguistics class in college..as far as goals..but the same discipline and skills which are quantifiable.
Is anthropology a true hard science? It means the "Study of man"...we are just as much a part of nature as the air we breathe, or the study of oxygen. We just have more variables than say chemistry (as we know it) and much more complex variables than chemistry as we know chemistry today (which might change tomorrow..you just never know)...
Our complex social variables (which change from one culture to the next-from one neighborhood to the next) make us very unique and it is this uniqueness that the discipline is trying to quantify...using scientific discipline, I would say that anthropology is still in its infancy...and isn't that grand?
So much garbage work was done in the 19th and early part of the 20th century....unfortunately too, many of the cultures studied are long gone now with the onset of modern communications...but maybe there is a chance to capture what was in the past by looking at the present..one of the key aspects of the field.
Post a Comment