I take it wasn't anything to do with Rosie's genome?

Genome? No.
Teenager? No. *laughter* Sorry. I know I already composed those answers, but I must have previewed and failed to post.
Egg? No.
Dismembered corpse? No,
Shoal of fish? No.
Alive? Yes.*applause, as much from relief than anything else*
I say again, you need to examine your assumptions. Some of my answers have involved very careful parsing of the questions.

Troop of monkeys? No. *smattering of applause, none the less*

Just clarifying the answer to Chalky's initial question:
Is this thing normally expected to become a human being?

*Before he can even answer, the audience applauds the decision to return to Chalky's question*
Normally expected to become a human being? The thing described by the words of the cards is definitely* expected to become a human being.

*There are imaginable ways in which this might not happen, but they are highly improbable.

I suppose that is abstract really, but might at least clarify whether I'm thinking in the right ballpark.

Humorous? Not at all. If anything, the opposite.
Chromuhsome? No.
The glint in Dujon's wife's eye? No. And not even the right ballgame, never mind the right ballpark.
Dare I say: Examine your assumptions?

Posterity? No. *smattering of applause*

Second coming? No.
Descendants? No. It was only a smattering of applause!

ANIMAL
IT IS NOT a stem cell, the next Dalai Lama, an embryo, a humanoid, a primate, unique, a mammal, fictional, a spermatozoon, a body part or product, the genome, a teenager, an egg, a dismembered corpse, a shoal of fish, a troop of monkeys [drew some applause], humorous, a chromosome, glint in a father's eye, posterity [drew a smattering of applause], the second coming, descendants, Dujon backing out of here for a few hours hoping for a wifely eye glint.

IT IS: definitely expected to become a human being, edible [but unlikely to be eaten], a collection of things [but 'collection' and 'things' are not the best words to use], alive [drew relieved applause],

Are there more than 100 of these? No. *substantial applause*
BRAAAIIIINNNSS? No.
Would you need a microscope? No.
Chalky's summary is accurate but must be, I will remind you, carefully parsed. And perhaps it should also include the answer to her first question: It is not yet a human being.

Do we need to examine definition of human being? No. That's not where your confusion lies.
Exist at present time? Yes. *some applause*
Clone? No.

e.g. more than one mammal.

Subject of political controversy? It has a connection to political controversy but is not to my knowledge the subject of pc.
Sex? No.
Yes if plural? Yes! *substantial and relieved applause*

Siamese twins? No.

... and I think it has been fairly obvious for some time that the answer is in the plural - just look at the yesses.

And yet it becomes a human being.