Mediate how exactly? They still can't contribute to the "gene pool" since there is no pool. Asexual reproduction involves no transferral of genes within a generation, only from parent to child.

On average, for the same number of generations, they would go through the same number of mutations. (This is of course disregarding things that would directly damage DNA ("free radicals")). The only effect that having them "inbred" (you really need to see this), in a lab is that the researchers can monitor and control the whole process.

I think the point the GP was making was that there was no reason that they couldn't exist...

The reason Starcraft currently sucks with a track pad is because you're using a single-touch interface, and even if you aren't, Starcraft is limited to only recognise one point of mouse input. If the "pinch" (for zoom), "drag" (for pan and rotate) and other (eg, tilt camera, see this TED video (you can skip to the "flying across a map" section)) gestures were available, as well as the larger input surface as shown in the video, I think that this input would be easier than using a mouse!

As is also shown in the video, you still have a keyboard (look near the end), so shortcuts are still available. I wouldn't mind betting that most of those 300+ actions are performed via shortcut keys.

There is probably a reason that plants (or more specifically, their ancestor) gave up asexual reproduction a long time ago. From memory, the currently accepted reason was that it allowed for more variety in the gene pool and therefore could allow for more agile adaptation to changing environmental factors that are impacting an organism's survival.

For plants that we're trying to domesticate (see: Artificial Selection), faster evolution is probably better.

Easy, use direct messages, you can only direct message people who are following you, so just make @my_house follow you and the others who you want to have access.

I think the order would be more like:

1. Sell to customers who blindly trust in it.
4. PROFIT!!!
3. ???
2. Fail to detect anything on many an occasion because it most likely isn't perfect.

I'm pretty sure GP is talking about (radiative) wireless transmission...

How can the movie companies afford to continue to make them?

No no, Geology rocks, Biotech grows on you

And if the inhabitants are nothing like humans but have a dominant religion claiming that they were "created in god's image"?

Or does that just mean that their religion is wrong (like all the other ones on Earth)?

Yep and if you do an even more elaborate experiment, where you put detectors at each slit, but then wire the detectors up to the same output (ie, the electron is detected, but you don't know which one detected it), the wave function doesn't collapse until it hits the screen!

Actually, you did:

Of course. If you take a thousands of years old, massively inconsistent and largely edited book to be a 100% true version of events, then so be it. For the majority of the scientific world, you'll find that it takes a lot more.

Of course they are, not only is there no evidence for anything existing outside of the observable natural world, is it the consistency of the universe that allows us to survive. This comes back to why planes stay in the air. If the universe's laws for physics were variable, we'd have no way of building planes. Today they work, tomorrow airfoils have to be reversed to match the changing rules. Today the petrol in your car is just flammable enough to run the engine, tomorrow your engine explodes and the day after, petrol is as reactive as water.

This question assumes that a god exists. Since there is no evidence for a god, why would I believe in one?
If there was evidence for a god, I'd believe. If god was performing miracles left right and center now (like the bible says he was thousands of years ago), I'd be more inclined to believe. This isn't a "god exists and people don't believe in him" game, this is a "god may or may not exist, and the only evidence for his existence is the bible" game.

With no god, this point is moot, but perhaps we could look to other religions for your answer? Muslims need to uphold the 5 pillars, 4 of which are physical actions. In the case of Islam, faith alone is not enough to garner "acceptance" or "rejection".

There are things that are out of man's control (such as meteorites, for now), but other than natural events, there is no reason to believe that man's "destiny" is controlled or even influenced by external factors. With this being the case, why would anyone trust in a source that says that man's "destiny" is controlled by supernatural factors? The reason is that they were raised to believe so, or were convinced by someone.

Who's we? How do I know YOU experience green the same as I do? Computers today are not advanced enough, but this article discussed advanced, conscious Artificial Intelligence. There is no evidence for a soul, and no reason that the physical events inside the human brain can not account for qualia and consciousness. If the brain is just electrical and chemical reactions on a hugely complex scale, why can't we simulate that in silicon or some other medium?

These two statements are contradictory. If you assert that the soul is separate from the body, you assert that the "soul" exists, making you a believer in the supernatural. There isn't anything wrong with you being a believer, but as stated by GP:

Asserting that souls exist and then claiming that the existence of souls is unknown are not compatible.