While I tend to also wave away philosophers as it always boil down to unclear definitions, I don’t think your argument answers the question at all. From “it ha

While I tend to also wave away philosophers as it always boil down to unclear definitions, I don’t think your argument answers the question at all. From “it has the genetic makeup of a cow”, you’re saying that what make a cow a cow is the genetic makeup. But then part of that ADN defines the cow? What can vary, by how much, before a cow stops being a cow? The point is that you can give any definition of “cow”, and we can imagine a thing that fits this definition yet you’d probably not consider a cow. It’s a reflection on how language relates to reality. Whether it’s an interesting point or not is left to the reader (I personally don’t think it is)