01Sep 2023 by Post

What “Resurrecting” the Woolly Mammoth Would Mean for Darwinism

artificial wombs, biological information, Charles Darwin, Colossal Biosciences, dodo, elephant, embryos, Evolution, Financial Times, gene editing, George Church, ghost lineages, horizontal gene transfer, inheritance trees, Intelligent Design, pig organs, Pleistocene Park, Sergey Zimov, Siberia, Tasmanian tiger, Texas, viruses, woolly mammoth
Intelligent design would become the most likely hypothesis to abductively explain the data of life's history. Source
Read More
14Apr 2022 by Post

Ecuador’s Highest Court Grants Rights to Wild Animals

animal rights, animals, bacteria, Climate News, Congress, courts, Culture & Ethics, deer, ecosystems, Ecuador, elephant, fish, forests, geological features, germs, habeas corpus, human exceptionalism, individual animals, insects, Laws, Life Sciences, nature right, New York State, plants, rivers, Switzerland, viruses, water
Nature rights apply to individual animals. And, one would assume, to be consistent, to individual plants, insects, water, and (what the hell) germs too. Source
Read More
29Feb 2020 by Post

Judge Wishes She Could Rule Elephant a “Person”

Alison Y. Tuitt, animal personhood, animal rights, animal welfare, beach sand, Bronx Zoo, chimpanzee, Court of Appeals, Culture & Ethics, elephant, elephant sanctuary, Eugene M. Fahey, financial penalties, habeas corpus, Happy, human exceptionalism, judge, New York Supreme Court, Nonhuman Rights Project, sentience, trial court
Having failed to have a court declare chimpanzees to be persons entitled to habeas corpus protection, the Nonhuman Rights Project next tried the same thing with an elephant named Happy, that — not who — is held in her own pen at the Bronx Zoo due to behavioral conflicts with other elephants. This case also just failed. But before we applaud and say, “Well, of course,” it is clear that New York Supreme Court (the name of the trial court in that state) Justice Alison Y. Tuitt only dismissed the case because she felt bound by precedent. Happy to Meet You Justice Tuitt clearly wanted to declare Happy a “person.” Indeed, she took the time to quote from a non-binding statement in the above-referenced chimpanzee case by Court of Appeals…
Read More