I haven't yet encountered this theory, which says nothing about whether it's a good theory or not, just that I'm not conversant with it.

My first impulse is to wonder by what mechanism this foreign DNA would "snip itself" out of our genome and reassemble? The process of DNA tranlation and transcription is a multi-step one that takes place after cascading signals from the cell nucleus. In order for this theoretical reassembly of viral DNA to happen, we would need a built-in cell signaling pathway to initiate, sustain, and complete the process, and I don't believe such a thing has been discovered to date.

It doesn't sound like a likely scenario to me, but I haven't got a doctorate in molecular biology. I tend to disfavor this theory, but am willing to listen to evidence that will sway me.

.

If such a hybrid was actually created and permitted to develop to viability, I would consider it to be a human being, with all attendent human rights. Scientifically, a fascinating question. Ethically, a very bad one. Bringing such a hybrid into the world, if something viable could actually be created from ancient DNA as you theorize, would make a humanoid creature that may have all sorts of unfortunate physical and mental development problems, and its life is certain to be a very unhappy one.

As much as the result would be fasacinating to study, I would have nothing to do with it.

We can see altruists and egoists, aggressive and cowardly creatures in any species. As for aggressiveness, it is connected with genes, for sure. For example, when selective breeders tried to get non-aggressive fur-bearing animals, they also got a bad quality of fur.
Intraspecific competition is the cruelest one, because of particular ecological niche.
I don’t think that homo is more cruel, aggressive and immoral than any other specie. All creatures are in a permanent state of war.
About gene of aggression. I read that aggression is controlled by a group of genes and caused not by their activity, but vice versa – these genes should be “turned off”. In this case the organism doesn’t produce some Neurotransmitters, which amplify and modulate signals between a neuron and another cell. Thus, aggression isn’t a norm, but aggressive creatures are necessary for society (for defense, getting new resources etc).

Liz- I think this has a lot to do with 'man as a predatory animal,' a frequent Lawmage assertion.

Modern man--and by that I mean man within recorded or oral history--isn't able to live without war--and yet, some of us are happiest with peace.

Will the 'war' gene, which seems to be currently dominant among some homo sapiens, remain dominent? Or will the 'peace' gene ultimately take precedence?

Wax- WOW!
I think we can leave Neanderthal... the question is much more simple.

It can be boiled down to: what is man?
And it must include the statement: "some of us are happiest with peace."

Really?
That is interesting to say the least, who would "US" be?
More importantly perhaps what would "Happiest" mean?

Before we begin of course we must at least define the parameters of the question and at least the claims that have been made so far:
If one includes "Bright young Americans who have the wealth, comfort and well.. luxury; of pretending that such a thing was not won by severe violence then the answer is quite simple!"
You see that is where the claims of "civilization and man's higher purpose" come from!
People are always "happy" when affluence allows it.
But they forget what affluence is and it is far from free.

So what is man?
Has he... or more importantly could he change in some fundamental way?

The question itself always amazes me, and of course the answer is always shocking to those who receive it.

In a small way your question is quite silly; but in the end it is the quest of all entities "What am I, What is my goal and my worth?"

Man is what we have become but in the end we have not changed and will not change for millions of years.

I am sorry but the girl who stands up and declares that we should not kill our enemy... should not eat meat... should recycle everything we can... should "love our enemy" and so on is following the rules established by a pack hunting predator and may or may not gain the packs support.
But she is asking for it one way or another.
She may if she struggles win a short term battle just as others did in her past when they stood forth and declared, "We do not eat other humans!"
In that case a "more" (moral) was created which is carried by all who hear it and accept it.
But the problem of courses that mores have limits: I won;t eat human flesh but I will if I must because the fact is that I am much more and much less than others might claim: I am a predator. For better or worse I am the best predator that nature has produced thus far!

There is no known visible eco that I can not become the supreme predator in... none!
I can eat that which flies, that which swims, that which crawls and if I need to that which grows!
I can eat snales, and I can eat creatures that poison every other predator that seeks it!
I can not only live on scorp's and rattlesnakes I could if given enough time remove them from the biodiverse area in which I live!

I have survived to breed... which is the only thing that nature(GOD) cares about on algea!
Now I utilize it as a tool at my whim to salt or taste my meals because I can.
Yet still I have that afformentioned problem???

It is not new:
There have been many times when those among us have declared themselves too advanced to be human.
More power to them I say.
In Egypt they pretended to be Gods, but in Greece and Rome they simply declared themselves somehow better than the rest of us: simple predators nothing more!

Of course the sad fact is that each of them in the time they lived learned better as the walls they pretended could exist came crumbling down.

Then "we" had solid walls but today they are much less.
Yes: Man is a cultured creature who has passed far beyond those vulgar implulses and you can sleep well tonight knowing that most mean you absolutely no harm.

Now all I need is a crowbar and a sledgehammer and my contribution to the pack will be complete!

Hi wax,

Nice to read your posts again. Are people really happy when affluence allows it?

Wax, I have disagreed on your ideas on the real predatory powers of Man before, and I won't revisit them unless I must. Happiness? Happiness can mean many things. Harmony is a much better thing to aspire to.

Unless Man harmonizes with his environment, ultimately the environment will destroy him, because Nature is far more powerful than Man. I state this as a fact, not as some pseudo-religious mantra.

If society collapses, it may well be because of some of the things you find to be praiseworthy in Man.


Man has intellect, and is a predator because intellect has given him powers of killing far beyond the natural powers of his puny body. Man has intellect for many reason, many of them beyond the control of Man or his precursor species. Man *is* because of certain shifting currents within the flux of change within the universe, and it would not take many changes in such currents, to make it almost like Man never existed at all.

Wax, Buddha said "All we are is the result of what we have thought. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him."

Psychologist Daniel Coleman and the Dali Lama co authored a book, Destructive Emotions: A Scientific Study With the Dali Lama. Coleman said, "The very act of concern for others well-being in others' it seems, creates a greater state of well-being within oneself." Destructive states of mind are the root of human suffering.

How about we all just follow the "golden rule" and love thy neighbor? "One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts." Yoruba of Nigeria...

Most men and women are inherently good...but there is a certain group of people in our population who are not good and never will be. Their destructive influence needs to be recognized and stomped out!

Liz, it is modern man that came up with a disgusting faith like the Creativity Movment...no golden rule subscription here! Just a bunch of self centered modern humans believing the white race is superior to all.

Good and evil are not inherent. It is possible to support things like compassion from first principles, but calling it good or evil is just giving labels. True understanding of ones nature, will incline one towards compassion, but ones true nature is often hidden under the biological animal nature. One often sees the gross and coarse things, the apparent things, but they don't see the subtle things that lie underneath. I am verging on a discussion about Eastern Philosophy in the wrong forum.

Sure, as long as you are a human with a conscious. There is a small portion of our population who do not possess a conscious. They are "hallow" and have described themselves as such... A person with a conscious put in a position where he or she that has to kill, such as in a war or self defense often times develop ptsd because the act of killing is so opposed to what he knows is right and wrong. A person without a conscious who kill are the Jeffrey Dahmers...

Yes, I have much to say on this...but it is a topic of it's own. The whole man, has a conscious. I would guess Neanderthal man was no different.

The brain of the neanderthal was large, larger than a modern humans in size, but the shape of the brain was different, so thought processes, and the impacts that would have upon Neanderthal culture and technology would have been different from those a Homo Sapiens brain makes upon their own technology and culture.

Mental illness does not change this true nature, it just changes ones capacity to realise it.