>>28136751>thats an example, i could have just said dogs and cats, same thing.>implying there is zero chance that dogs and cats will eventually need to develop gills and a possible way for that to happen is splicing our DNA with an aquatic creature>why are dogs and cats involvedWhatever word you choose to use is involved because you are the one who chose it.
>one assumesWelp, there's your problem. Especially in the Pokemon world, considering Mewtwo exists. Of course its intelligent to recognize patterns and repeated occurrences but to then assume nothing is is possible is silly.
>but what does back in your eyes meanIts irrelevant. There is no "back". Just because you or I see something as "back", whatever we choose "back" means, has no bearing on what evolution does. Our perception is a way for us to explain things, but it is not the guideline that has to be followed.
>Evolution would never allow for one species to mate with another so genetically far from it, no matter how much progress or "gene splicing" is involved.Oh, so you have perfect knowledge of every and all aspects and limitations that restrict evolution? It must be nice to know the definitive limits of life.
