Rounds are as follows. Round 1) rules. 1: No trolling. 2: movies/games may be used as a referenced not used to base your argument. 3: we are civilized people, no flaming. 4: be polite and Respect/weigh both sides of the debate. Round 2) Opening arguments for/against. Round 3) Rebuttals. Round 4) new arguments. Round 5) closing arguments.
It seems to me that with proper medical and scientific caution we could Literally evolve thousands of years with cross species genetics. My argument is two fold.
First with the research into the human genome we are undertaking and the fact that many species offer bountiful benefits to humans, its logical we make cross-species genetics our next human evolutionary step.
Secondly with this ability it would allow a large diverse population of hybrid sentient beings such as Lizardmen (Think Argonians for any ES players.) Cat/neko people (kaijit), birdmen. Bipedal hybrids offer new opportunities for our scientific curiosity and enjoyment for those who seek to change themselves into a hybrid for the benefits the species crossing would provide.
While true nature intended for only like to produce like we are looking at a evolutionary step. We as human beings posses the ability to take our DNA and manipulate it to our will. Needless to say while breeding with other hybrids may present a problem. the issue with reproducing a hybrid with a human or two like hybrids would not be an issue. Using cross-species genetics the ability to transplant favorable genetic traits into another often human body to gain those traits, Would create vast genetic diversity and life that would be used for space exploration if their anatomy proved favorable to colonize an environment that would prove hostile to humans. On a side note besides any drastic changes in appearance such as scales instead of skin you could as theorized in "The Amazing Spiderman" film take the ability to regenerate lost cells on command from a zebra fish and then implant it into a patient with dementia the medical benefit would be tremendous and viable to answer if not cure to a normally life threatening disease.
ha aha just as I have expected you have fallen into a trap. what about the dangers if we go Willy Nelly taking genes from other animals and putting them in humans bad things can and will happen. now its time for a good quote "science is like trying to find something in a pitch black room" combining genes is like putting spikes the copy itself in that dark room you have a chance to step on one and when you do there is nothing you can do to take it out sense there would be copy upon copy and we would have another problem on our hand do we really want to take a chance like that
Aha you have fallen into mine. The dangers of implanting genes you pose is no more hazardous than the experimentation we do on animals for genetically superior ones that would produce more food. We have already started genetic manipulation when we started feeding hormones into the animals we raise on farms or in the supplementary vitamins we ingest to gain muscle or even lose weight. We are already messing around with the Human Genome all we are speaking about is a matter of degree, while you can try and head for the conservative and "Ethical" high ground you neglect the fact that most of your world is already genetically manipulated. And as for finding something in a dark room You have only proven that science is a matter of trial and error when pursuing an end. When you get a spike in your foot you learn that there is an issue linked to that step. and while more problems may arise that is just how humans will find ways to evolve.
I have yet to hear one medical or scientific counter argument that displays why we as a whole species could not use the genetic traits favored in other animals to our own advantage and evolve along the way. To acknowledge a point made earlier. Science is a scrutinous business that requires more caution than gun ho antics. While Hollywood portrays such genetic crosses as a perverse and often reckless act. Science is rather meticulous in logging hours of data. Yes accidents may occur but when you look at accidents such as the discovery of penecilin. they are often fruitful to man kind.
To even further my point "Nature" itself creates genetic manipulation let alone cross species breeding. Take a look at the Liger. a seemingly mythical creature that is real not because of man but because of the need to create diversity. Mutations create brand new strains of a species formerly though impossible. As humans we are merely seeing how far we can go, what can we do to create new ways of life and sentient ones at that. Ethics and conservative motives hold no grounds in science when the very ethics you seek to use are contradictory in and of itself.
I have to say that last argument was rather ill conceived and the grammar involved made your point muddied and rather invalid. If you are saying that nature alone has the power to do such things then why are we as humans capable of doing so? Why would "Nature" create something that is capable of copying its abilities? The simple answer is it didn't. "Nature" merely gives the doors and the questions that Humans want answered. If anything the nature you are purposing is more of a reactive force than a driving one. While the "Ethical" high ground you try to reach crumbles under the quakes of science and reason that I have purposed I give you a gift.
Nature is Science, Science is Nature. To explain Nature you must use Science. To further Science you must bend and mold Nature. Nature is more like a wild beast yet to be tamed. Science is the beast tamer working closely with the animal while figuring out its complexity and design and then how to use that design in its favor. Scientifically speaking we have been able to create corn and Wheat that can last longer droughts and larger yields because we have tampered with their "Natural" complexity and design. Medically speaking We have been able to eradicate disease by mutating and changing the disease itself into a cure. Venom a genetically lethal agent is recombined to make Anti-Venom a cure for the same source in which it was contrived. If you want to stop the evolution of mankind that is posed in Cross-Species Genetics Then you would first have to remove the vaccines and cures for known diseases and let them run rampant. Check.
I'm not against science I'm against the thought of humans trying to get inside an animals dna take it out put it inside another animals it is immoral and can have great consequences not only for animals but for plants fungi and even the solar system humans will push the boundaries of science until it brakes and when that happens the unimaginable can happen. the world is okay as it is minor changes are needed but genetically changing an animals dna is un needed we survived for thousands of years without it and we can survive another thousand years without it and until the day we die we will never need it.
And as i have previously mentioned the "Ethical high ground holds no water in science. We survived because we evolved. This is evolution on an accelerated scale one that we can and are breaking. To play to your ethics while furthering my point. "The power of The power of God lies not in nature but in man, not one man or a group of men, but in all men. Man has the power to create and destroy." Humans are meant to create new ways to survive. A hybrid with the abilities and genetic attributes of a gecko would be able to climb walls effortlessly and stand upside down on large construction projects. With such an ability mankind would be able to rapidly expand and build things that would take ten times as much effort if done by a normal human. A hybrid camel would be able to survive in the desert for long archaeological digs with almost not food or water. A hybrid with the ability to breathe underwater such as that of a seal or walrus would be able to do otherwise dangerous work with underground mining and cabling without the need of an oxygen tank and for longer periods of time. With such cross breeding in place the human species as whole will diversify as it was meant to be.
For a more medical approach think of felines who have contracted the AIDS virus. In their genetic bodies lies the ability to turn the virus into a cancer. With that capability chances of removing the virus with Chemo therapy or other cancer treating agents go exponentially and with less damage than having to constantly ingest large amounts of highly destructive drugs daily. Not to mention the economical benefit. There lies within the human genome remnant genes that are similar to that of any species we put up to compare it with. by crossing these genes together the introduced genetics would trigger long dormant ones that would hold numerous health benefits. Game, set, match.
although I must say you are a good debater you have one little thing to worry about I have been saving this until the end. the end of the debate and the end of you just seem to go well together. the costs. will Americans want to spend millions of dolor's to pay for a cross spices they will barely pay to keep a hospital for children with cancer open and alt of Americans don't have the money to give, the rich people wont give money because they are to stingy and don't care about the welfare of the people just the welfare of themselves and another thing the risks I think you understand the risks of mutations and crossing a species genetics. these living things can and will die if we do this if you kill thousands of cats trying to find a cure for a rare cancer strain will you be saving the spices or hurting it. so I guess the next answer you want to ask yourself is when is this sort of treatment okay. you have never stated that nor will you get a chance to I have saved this strong point for the end you have been a good debater but again not a great one.
Reasons for voting decision: Con, a "trap"is not a trap, you are supposed to make rebuttals (Conduct Pro). Con failed to use punctuation in his first round and continued making mistakes through the debate (spelling and grammar Pro). Con tried arguing with subjective reasoning in an objective manner (arguments Pro). Con, contrary to what he said, is not an expert debater.