Professor Church, Neanderthals and the goal to increase diversity

Professor George Church, a Genetics professor at Harvard School of Medicine is concerned with the need to increase diversity as he believes that low diversity is the one thing that is bad for society.  We have to admit that a concern about “low diversity” is not something that occupies our waking thoughts, but the Professor’s  novel problem-solving approach for tackling “low diversity” is definitely the “stuff of nightmares.”

The Professor, who at one time must have possessed wit and sense, has now obviously lost both, because he proposes creating an entire race of Neanderthals!

He told the German magazine, Der Spiegel (18/1/13,) “I have already managed to attract enough DNA from fossil bones to reconstruct the DNA of the human species largely extinct. Now I need an adventurous female human.”
He is looking for a woman to act as a surrogate to give birth to we know not what!

Does this Professor sound like a man with all his mental faculties intact?

He is not worried about crime or unemployment or the drugs menace, oh no, these are obviously not bad for society (according to the Prof) but LOW DIVERSITY is!

Here we hear echoes of the liberal mantra so cherished by the guillotine-happy brigade of the French Revolution with their shouts of “Liberty, Fraternity, Equality,” to which today’s liberals could add “Diversity, Multiculturalism and Political Correctness!” The liberal mind hears no evil and sees no evil as evil does not exist (for them) so anything goes and that includes cloning Neanderthals!

Where will this man’s flights of madness lead us?

In conclusion, we wish to make it clear that we are Biblical Creationists and we believe that Neanderthals were human beings, not ape-men and not transitional forms.

See the Telegraph of 20.1.13

15 thoughts on “Professor Church, Neanderthals and the goal to increase diversity

  1. 66

    He told the German magazine, Der Spiegel (18/1/13,) “I have already managed to attract enough DNA from fossil bones to reconstruct the DNA of the human species largely extinct. Now I need an adventurous female human.”


    The Neanderthal’s were human? And they’re not actually extinct yet, just “largely extinct”, meaning that there are still a few of them left? Then where can I meet them?

    I’m not sure that I believe this story, to tell the truth.

    The professor may not have all his priorities totally skew-whiff after all. He says he needs an “adventurous human female”. I wouldn’t mind one myself.

    • It would be an incredible feat of science if he could achieve it but as he is neither trying to nor is he even working in that area it seems that the article you are referencing has some serious errors.

      In response to the misreporting (and silly unresearched reactions such as this blog post) he has responded.

      “ I’m certainly not advocating it, I’m saying, if it is technically possible someday, we need to start talking about it today.”

      He also said

      “He blames a mistake in an article he says was written off an interview in the German magazine Der Spiegel, badly misinterpreting what he said — that such a cloning might theoretically be possible someday — and arriving at the conclusion that he was actively looking for a woman to bear a cave baby with DNA scavenged from ancient Neanderthal bones. He suggested poor translation skills may be part of the problem”

      He also says he was not even involved in the sequencing of Neanderthal DNA as his research focuses on ways to use genetics, DNA and genome sequencing to aid in improving health care and developing synthetic fuels, materials and other products — not reproducing ancient human species.

      I think you might credit these as worthy areas of work

      I think you need to research your blog posts more thoughtfully, especially if you are going to make judgements of the person you are judging.

      Perhaps you would like to retract both your assertions of his work and you character assassination attempt.

      By the way what you believe Neanderthals are is neither here nor there, what is important is what they actually were and for that the bible will be a useless reference guide (as it is in most things)

      • “Perhaps you would like to retract both your assertions of his work and you character assassination attempt.” [golfieni]

        To whom are your comments addressed, in a posting that is physically in response to my posting containing my comment, “I’m not sure that I believe this story, to tell the truth.”

        Are you the resident “thorn in the flesh” on this new-to-me blog?

      • Apologies it went in as a reply instead of a thread of it’s own. My fault.

        As for being a thorn in the flesh – if you perceive that pointing out loose reporting and inaccuracies is a thorn in the flesh then so be it.

  2. Once again Susan you have dug out a totally sensational news item that has been proven to be factually incorrect, the professor has refuted these claims completely. Your credibility has taken yet another plunge further down the plughole. You should get a job with the daily mail.

  3. You disgusting woman. Praveen lost his wife and child and all you care about is his credibility as a bereaved husband? Shame on you. As usual. But of course you are incapable of feeling shame.But I think you have it coming to you anyway from what we know….

    • Are you threatening me Sir? If so, you are forgetting one very important thing, I have God as my Defender and Protector. You had better assure us that you are not involved in any plot of any kind and have no knowledge of such. If you do not provide such reassurances, we will have to take action.

  4. I think your credibility Susan should be the topic of discussion here these days. You have none. Simple as. Stop obsessing about the husband of a murdered woman, you cannot change what happened to her and you wont change what will happen to those religious bigots in that maternity ward who killed her.
    And your article here is about a story that has been disproven. Ha. Ha. Ha. Credibility? you would not know credibility if you took it in your mouth and sucked on it. XXX

      • John, yes it does and yes it does. Praveen Halappanavar’s wife was murdered by religiously bigoted medical staff in a hospital in a staunchly Roman Catholic anti-abortion-for-any-reason-at-all country called the Republic of Ireland. And Susan supports them. Basically in her mind a woman has no right to decide what happens to anything inside her own womb. Chew on that and stop being so high and mighty.

        • Sir,
          Perhaps the hospital concerned would like to know that you have repeatedly accused the medical staff of murdering Savita Halappanavar, as they could sue you for slander and false accusation. They did not murder Savita, and we are sure they do their best for all their patients including their unborn patients. Do you consider the abortion of millions of unborn babies as murder? If it is not murder, what is it?

        • I am unable to reply to James’ posting of January 26, 2013 at 7:26 pm, using a reply button on that post.

          I read about the death of the wife of Praveen Halappanavar, which I found distressing. I had read about it when it happened, and again recently, after his name appeared here.

          I am not a Roman Catholic, but I have been aware for at least forty years that it has been ethical (even in the opinion of the pope, I believe) and lawful to kill an unborn child to save the mother’s life. This used to happen in the UK occasionally, long before the Abortion Act 1967.

          I am wondering whether the danger in which Mrs Halappanavar was in was realised in time. I am wondering whether the comments attributed to the midwives (that intervention wasn’t possible because Ireland was a Roman Catholic country) are misquoted. It seems a silly thing to have said. If not, there is a likely to be civil liability for the avoidable death. There could also be criminal guilt, of gross negligence manslaughter. But it is absurd emotionalism to accuse anybody of “murder” in the circumstances.

          Earlier reports I read at the time, didn’t major on Roman Catholicism. Instead they mentioned (if I am not confused) some badly drafted statute law in the Irish Republic. Frankly, I wish legislators would leave the common law to do its stuff, and not try to tinker with it so much.

          In my mind, a woman does NOT have a moral right to ask somebody else to kill her child for any and every reason or none. I think that that is an outrageous belief to hold.

          But I wouldn’t have hesitated myself, to kill with my own bear hands, a non-viable foetus that was endangering the life of his or her mother, who was in the throes of a miscarriage the child was bound not to survive, if that was going to make the difference between the mother surviving, or dying with the unborn child. But would killing the foetus that was being aborted have saved the mother’s life? How? And if so, did anybody realise this? The civil action will find out what happened, and who was to blame, for what, if anything. And the Irish Parliament will have to mend the law.

          I’d have broken the law to save that mother, if the facts had been as presented in some reports, and there was a silly law. I find the facts that some reports assert a bit hard to believe though.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s