09.03.2009 - 4:12 p.m.

There was a news story in the last couple of weeks about the "worlds ugliest cat", now (unsurprisingly) i have a couple of narks regarding this piece of tabloid toss.

Not ugly, an output from ugly people. When 'mad' scientists were doing this to people in the 20th century there was an outcry, but it's ok to do it to dogs and cats ?

First, when cousins produce off-spring and it's genetically challenged, no-one runs a headline "is this the worlds spazziest spack, come'on lets all look and point at the retard"

Of course not, it's considered Cruel, Unnecessary and Outside of normal behaviour, as a caveat to this, there are parts of the world and a great number of people who would shout and point all of the above, but we're generally better than those fuckwits so we'll maintain our dignity and move on.

Second, to anyone who has spent anytime watching animal documentaries, it is very clear that this cat is expressing phenotypes of lion, by this i mean that it looks liony even though it's a cat. This isn't such a great leap of a conclusion, lions and cats are related, both of these animals have the potential to be either depending on how the DNA contained is expressed by the cell mechanisms that convert it into animal. This liddle cat sits at the end of a long line of Sphinxy inbreeding, this process of recombining / inbreeding DNA has led to previously buried traits being brought to the fore, in this case, cat has expressed lionishness in that it has a mane and a liony face.

I present for the court's attention, exhibit a, the lion. The lion

If you've been close to a lion you'll have seen that the mane is straggle-y and wirey in texture and stretches from the head to the belly, in pretty much the same manner as this cat, cat also has a wide nose, wider than normal for cats but nearing normality for lions.

This supports a theory i've got that all DNA is the same, and it's only the machinery within the cell that changes what animal is produced, that's how we can have 99.3% the same DNA as gorillas or mosquito's (or whatever) but mummy gorilla's make more gorillas because the DNA is converted by gorilla cells, run gorilla DNA through a human cell you may get something approximating a human. Same applies to cats, ocelots, lions etc it's only because these animals have been separated as species for so long that they look different now, but inside they're all the same and given enough Mengele type experiments by "Breeders" you'll dig down to all sorts of animal, hidden behind the 'relevent' DNA currently being used in that particular species.

If aliens scanned all life on the planet it's fair to say they would see only one or two lifeforms depending on how sensitive their equipment is, plants and then everything else, because everything from bacteria to whales is based on exactly the same chemistry and chemical structure and chemical processes, plants are nearly the same with very small sustitutions in atoms and molecules but even plants use the same basic ingredients as everything else on this rock, so at an aggregated level there is only one type of life here, just in different shapes.

In people, hare-lips and growth defects in bones are DNA from our long animal history being expressed badly through human cells, because the human cell is not set up to process this DNA it comes out wrong, i'm pretty confident that if you ran the DNA that gives rise to hare-lips in humans through a rabbit's cell machinery the outcome would be a normal rabbit face.

A rabbits face, yesterday.

I was going to rant on about some other stuff, but i've run out of words, it'll wait