On the other hand, while we may not split into two species, GM could very likely divide the human race into super-enhanced "Alphas", a partially modified middle class, and an underclass composed of rejects that were not modified for various reasons. (Ethical qualms, religion, financial restrictions.)

Or maybe it will just be two almost separate species of modified and unmodified, but with the same class roles as above. Then we could really grow to be like the Morlocks and Eloi.

Hmm...this makes me think of the Morlocks and the Eloi from The Time Machine.

Evolving into a new species? Most likely. Adaptive radiation makes us evolve into multiple species? Perhaps.

However, I don't think the world is divided enough as is to currently entertain the possibility of the haves and have-nots separating into distinct species.

I think free will is one of those things where people can debate for ages but no clear answer will emerge. It's one of those topics where people's definitions vary a lot, and the moderator didn't provide one. My personal definition is the ability to have conscious control over decisions.

What I was referring to when I said "when free will exists" was the existence of a conviction that we have conscious control over decisions. This belief can never be truly correct or incorrect, because everyone has different concepts of free will.

What's so bad about homosexuality? It's not like homosexuals are less able to raise kids. Being gay doesn't make you evil.

It's been proven that they taste about the same. Preferences are mostly caused by advertising.

From a totally evolutionary standpoint, the mutation necessary to create the species of chicken must have occured in either the reproductive organs of the parents of the chicken or during the growth in the egg. Either way, the first evidence of a new species would be in the egg.
EDIT: Nevermind, I didn't see badbee's argument.

The literal meaning of something has no impact on how it is interpreted today. The words cool and hot, for example, have meanings in some contexts that are totally different from their literal interpretations. True, there is no way to truly prove the nonexistence or existence of a divine creator either way, but atheism generally means the lack of belief in any organized religion.

More reasonable. There's evidence for evolution, but none for God.

What exactly does your personal faith count for in the context of a debate? If, say, a Buddhist believes that Jesus never existed, doesn't this counter your argument? Or, if there is logical proof against the existence of Jesus or God, is your faith repudiated? Or is faith above the influence of reason?

I don't understand this argument. Are you saying that because Jesus has been purported to have performed miracles, he is only a preacher and not supernatural? Aren't miracles supernatural?

It doesn't matter if what humans call free will is actually an illusion, and all our choices are predetermined by our environment and genetics. As long as people believe that they have control over their decisions, then free will exists.

Yes. How do these things prove the existence of a divine being?