Ethical Question: Cloning Neanderthal

Ralph said:
The truth being pointed out is both the modern elephant and the example found in fossil remains in North America are both of the Same Species...both are not examples of a supposed MACRO EVOLUTION claimed by the Darwinan Cultuists...but both are ELEPHANTS, the Mammoth clearly adapted to the harsh northern extreme climates....through "micro evolution" but the DNA signature never varies unless there is a MUTATION or something has been omitted from the DNA strain, then you have a deformed elephant not a new species of elephant.

News Flash.....even Elephants have hair...I have worn an Elephant Hair bracelet for decades. If you take an Asian
Elephant to an extreme northern climate, and it lived long enough to reproduce and carry on the bloodline...that hair would grow longer with each generation...the average weight would change depending upon diet, hell the tusks would adapt to the new environment over time. That's called "mirco-evolution"....and its a documented fact of science....or one could never prove that a wolf and a chihuahua are of the same family tree, there has been no MARCO EVOLUTION...the DNA remaining in both can trace that family tree.

A Rose by any other name is still a Rose...there is nothing new under the sun. A good example of proving that nothing can be documented to have had a Darwinian Evolutionary change...are the facts of LIVING FOSSILS. Some were presented by the pseudo philosophers calling themselves experts on evolution in an attempt to prove that fish grew legs and eventually became warm blooded mammals. But the example used was a big lie....they were using the coelacanth as evidence that it lived and died over 65 million years ago...and the fossil remains proved it was beginning a Darwinian Evolution change...it was GROWING LEGS. But...real science proved the fact that the Coelacanth never went extinct and it was never changing into anything other than what its DNA had programmed it to be....a fish that is still living today. What does this prove? If that fish fossil was from 65 million years ago its just another example of how NOTHING HAS CHANGED in over 65 million years.
Click to expand...

Another example of evolution:

The Pygmy Mammoth
 
Taft2016 said:
Which was going to be my next question to Throbbin' Dick.... he doesn't quite get the point of the exercise.

Then again, he didn't know there was a difference between "right and wrong" and "right and wrong."

I wonder how he is with "right and left" and "right and left"?
Click to expand...

What's right is what's left when all else is wrong.

Mork from Ork
 
TheDonald said:
It's really similar to what happened with the Indians in America. Sure there were wars, but they were not eradicated. The only way that they survive is by the creation of reservations, but not all Indians went onto a reservation, those Indians accepted the new society and interbred with the people, and some became very successful. So there was no real genocide, just one more adequate mammal.

This is an Indian.............

Shania_Twain_-_Come_on_Over_Alternate_Cover.jpg
Click to expand...

The definition of genocide does not require the death of every single member you ignorant trash bag.
 
Ralph said:
The truth being pointed out is both the modern elephant and the example found in fossil remains in North America are both of the Same Species...both are not examples of a supposed MACRO EVOLUTION claimed by the Darwinan Cultuists...but both are ELEPHANTS, the Mammoth clearly adapted to the harsh northern extreme climates....through "micro evolution" but the DNA signature never varies unless there is a MUTATION or something has been omitted from the DNA strain, then you have a deformed elephant not a new species of elephant.

News Flash.....even Elephants have hair...I have worn an Elephant Hair bracelet for decades. If you take an Asian
Elephant to an extreme northern climate, and it lived long enough to reproduce and carry on the bloodline...that hair would grow longer with each generation...the average weight would change depending upon diet, hell the tusks would adapt to the new environment over time. That's called "mirco-evolution"....and its a documented fact of science....or one could never prove that a wolf and a chihuahua are of the same family tree, there has been no MARCO EVOLUTION...the DNA remaining in both can trace that family tree.

A Rose by any other name is still a Rose...there is nothing new under the sun. A good example of proving that nothing can be documented to have had a Darwinian Evolutionary change...are the facts of LIVING FOSSILS. Some were presented by the pseudo philosophers calling themselves experts on evolution in an attempt to prove that fish grew legs and eventually became warm blooded mammals. But the example used was a big lie....they were using the coelacanth as evidence that it lived and died over 65 million years ago...and the fossil remains proved it was beginning a Darwinian Evolution change...it was GROWING LEGS. But...real science proved the fact that the Coelacanth never went extinct and it was never changing into anything other than what its DNA had programmed it to be....a fish that is still living today. What does this prove? If that fish fossil was from 65 million years ago its just another example of how NOTHING HAS CHANGED in over 65 million years.
Click to expand...
WHAT THE FUCK DOES ANY OF THAT HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT I SAID?

I told you before Ralph you drunken imbecile, NEVER FUCKING QUOTE ME
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top