Science / morality / evolution question on cloning....?

Question

If scientists were able to extract sufficient intact DNA from the remains of an early ancestor of man (such as Homo habilis, Homo erectus — or even Neanderthals) for the purpose of cloning the primitive human-like creature for scientific study, on what basis would you approve or disapprove?

For example, would cloning an ancient man be the same as cloning an animal, in your opinion, or would it be more like cloning a human?


For information on human evolution see:
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/species.htm

Adding on: The premise would be that the cloned creature would be studied throughout its life as a living experiment and not harmed in any way.

Answer 1

Well, then there are the questions that the theologians will have to settle for us and I am not sure they are up to the task.

1. Will the child have an immortal soul? If so, when did it enter the child?

2. Should the child be allowed to date and perhaps procreate with non-cloned regular children? I mean only after a long courtship and engagement and legal marriage regarding the procreation, of course.

3. Should the child be baptized? And in what faith? Baptist or Methodist? Certainly those are the only choices.

4. Should the child be circumcised if male? (Let us hope not if female.)

5. Which version of the Holy Bible should the child be allowed to read? I think most of us here would vote for the King James and not the NJV, but I am not certain.

6. Should the child be registered to vote in the United States when of age? Of course, Republican if so allowed.

7. And the most important question: did God put that DNA there to prove His existence and omnipotence or Satan to snare the unwary in the nets of science?

Good question.

Answer 2

Danielle,
Although it is not normally accepted to answer a question with a question....
but....what is the purpose for the scientific study? What question is looming that would make it okay to do a cloning on the Homo habilis, Homo erectus, or the Neanderthals?
It seems as though this is a search that leads right back to the bible. Since evolution is only a theory, the true answers go all the way back to Genesis1:1---

Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Then move down to verses 19-22 where the fourth day was created...

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Notice in verse 21...after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
This is the point where evolution goes amiss....after their kind...
God says it twice here and if you were to continue reading, you will see this multiple times.
God stressed the point that we will only be able to be fruitful and multiply after our own kind. That is why we are not able to reproduce with monkeys, sheep, horses, etc.
We did not crawl out of the water, grow limbs, and climb in trees, only to find a better way to "walk upright" as evolution teaches.
Therefore, if an experiment were to be done on the "Homo habilis, Homo erectus, or the Neanderthals," I truly believe that the results would conclude that these are "all man" and are in no way monkey. But....I am also sure that the entire results would not be published, since that would "scientifically" prove that evolution is a hoax!
I do not believe cloning is necessary.
I hope that helps with your dilemma. God Bless!

Answer 3

This is one of the best questions I have ever seen on this site.

I studied archeology, anthropology, and biomedical ethics at university and this never came up in any of the modules.

I would certainly say it would be wrong to clone one of these people just to study them. I would say it is wrong because they were people in a very real way.
"All those people, all those lives
Where are they now ?
With loves, and hates
And passions just like mine
They were born
And then they lived
And then they died " - Morrissey
What you must remember about our ancestors is that they were never primitive. They lived wonderful lives with colour and passion. Even before the stone age it is probable that wooden tools were used extensively.
At any evolutionary point where a creature is considered a homanid it is certainly intellectually more human than animal.

I would strongly disapprove of making a clone of any human just for scentific reasons. If cloning was needed for reasons like repopulating a decimated continent after a plague then I would not object to us repopulating with an extinct human species.
Also if an ice age threatened to wipe out humans all together (like in that film recently where everything freezes in a few hours because of El Nino) I would certainly want us to recreate homo neanderthalensis to colonise a world that homo sapiens could no longer survive in (Neanderthals could survive cold fantastically well).

I recently read a book called "Only Human" where Doctor Who meets a neanderthal, it is a fantastic book and very well written and researched. I really would reccomend you reading this, not only because I love Doctor Who but also because it demonstrates just how human people always have been.

Anyway that's the main points of what I have ton say on this excellent subject. Thanks for the question!

Answer 4

Unless it was a very early and primitive humanoid form, the question would be whether it was in fact human. We don't know the precise degree of biological development that occurred before God breathed into the biological being a spiritual nature and immortal soul, thereby making it human. The Bible tells us that God formed this biological being from inorganic matter ("the dust of the earth"), and also tells us that once the physical/biological body was fully formed, God then completed it as a human being. The Bible does not tell us about the process God used to form this biological entity, or how long the process took. Science sheds some light on that aspect of our creation. Since we cannot ascertain with certainly whether a particular humanoid creature, especially a relatively recent one, was human, the only morally sound route would be to err on the side of caution and not bring such a creature/person into existence. Even apart from the issue of cloning, you can't keep a human being in captivity for his/her whole life as a scientific experiment.

Answer 5

Great question. I don't think I can do it justice with only a few minutes of thought. My understanding is that these species were probably quite intelligent in many ways. With proper education they might be able to function well in the society. However, I expect that like homo sapiens, the children would need lots of love and attention to develop. I wonder if any existing humans could really give such a baby enough love?

Answer 6

I would approve with a qualification regarding the level of development of the fetus beyond which the level of or type of experimentation would be the critical issue. I think that in general terms, though, cloning a "human" precursor simply for the scientific "thrill" of cloning a "human" precursor would be fine.

Would this cloning be done with the object of allowing the embryo to develop into a fetus and then a full-term baby, or would the cloning be "halted" at a specific state of development?

Answer 7

Wow, that's deep. but okay..

It doesn't matter how the man came to be. He's still a man deserving of human rights and so forth. If yo extract enough DNA to bring for a sentient human being, then ( let's say this was done in the USA for brevity ) he would be a natural born citizen of the United States. He would have the same rights as any other citizen.

Same should hold true with self aware animals. any laws that protect animals should also protect them.

Answer 8

I approve on the understanding that the child would be raised in exactly the same way as any other child, would be accorded full human equivalence, and I would be much happier if more than one (of diferent sexes) could be cloned from different DNA samples so they could be with their own kind if we turn out to be too vile. And I think we might. And keep religion way out of the picture.

Answer 9

It would be the same as cloning a human, only primitive. Something like a republican I would think. We have enough of them, so I wouldn't want to see it done.

Answer 10

The cloned creature would be human, and a prisoner. That's why I'd oppose the idea.