This may be evolution, but it is a type of evolution that even intelligent design people would agree occurs. The idea that comes into my head when I hear the word "evolution" is a process by which life as we know it developed from very, very simple organisms.

The process mentioned in the article is not this. No new genetic information has been added to the gene pool. All that has occurred is that existing genes have been rearranged. You cannot continue the same process and get a cow or an elephant. The way mutations are worked into the gene pool seems, to me, to be the main interesting thing about evolution, and this article has nothing to do that.

Also, now I really want a pet fox.

No, that seems reasonable. I just have a hard time believing that this artificial meat is going to get to the point where it tastes better than a good vegetarian meal. I'm not a vegetarian, but it does seem to me that meat is frequently added to meals by habit, even though it often has little to bring to the flavors and nutrients of the rest of the meal. This artificial meat seems like it would only worsen that problem.

I'm not sure why this product is even necessary. Is a vegetarian diet really that awful that we need to market meat that doesn't come from animals to supplement it? If eating the flesh of previously living creatures is disgusting to you, why is fake meat any more appetizing? It's easy to say that it's takes less resources to produce than real meat, but how does it compare to the vegetable foods that we already have, and that are already quite delicious? Furthermore, from a culinary standpoint, it doesn't seem likely that it will ever match meat from a real animal.

By that logic, negative numbers and fractions are cop-outs. Fractions came about because people defined away the limitations on division, even though it doesn't make sense in some cases (1 1/4 cows doesn't make sense.) Negative numbers came about because we have defined away the limitations on subtraction (-3 cows makes even less sense than 1 1/4 cows.)

I don't know what would make it ok to define away those limitations, but not ok to define away the limitations on roots. Just like negative numbers and fractions, complex numbers are full of meaning in some situations, and completely meaningless in others.

Actually, these newly released manuscripts shed no new light on the subject. I don't think it has ever been disputed that the contents of the New Testament were canonized "by committee." Furthermore, it is generally assumed that "fallible men" were not only involved in the canonization, but also the actual writing. These things have never been contradictory to orthodox Christian belief.