So now you're saying that they are not more homicidal, just more stupid? That's not very helpful either.

Well, guess what. Mathematics and technology don'r give a damn how rich and connected he or anyone else is. They have always worked and they will always work in the same way. There will always be a chance to transfer bits between two parties without anyone else knowing what's going on. The possibilities are so limitless that you can't possibly plug every hole through which data could leak between people.

That's not "micro-evolution", that's overeating. That has nothing to do with genetics, which is what evolution is about. In addition, what "micro-evolution"? Once a reproductive barrier is established, the two populations will necessarily diverge, and the differences will continue accumulate. There's no "micro" in it, the scale of eventual differences is just a matter of waiting long enough.

That is very much true. Fortunately, planet Earth is not one of these (i.e., isolated systems), as a single view of the Sun by day tells you - there's been a lot of of energy flowing over us in the past few billions of years, fueling winds, the water cycle, and ultimately the chemical processes that caused us to be here. This localized and temporary decrease of entropy of Earth is naturally paid for by the increase of entropy of the Sun. The sum total of the change of entropy is still positive, though.

Answer to what? What's the problem with entropy? I don't see any, you'd first have to present one.

The last time I looked into a mirror, I didn't look like a pocket watch, I did, however, look like a bag of organic molecules. Now we know that nuts, bolts, cogs, and wheels don't spring up in nature by themselves, but on the other hand we have observed complex organic molecules arising when simple elements are banged together using some energy. Doesn't that at least nudge you into realizing how flawed your analogy is?

You don't know that life is an unnatural state. Scientists operate with the idea that it actually may be perfectly natural, if not inevitable, given the laws of physics around here. So far, the results look promising to me. Don't expect this problem to be solved overnight.

Sounds like wishful thinking to me. How do you know that this "ability" is not an illusion caused by our way of perceiving things?

"Hairy issues"? You mean "fictional issues made up by people who don't actually understand science but feel qualified to talk about it"? The rhetoric itself ("irreducible complexity") is a shibboleth of creationists ignorant of the methods of real scientific inquiry, since actual scientists took their time to analyze that notion and found it wanting.

So did sex drive and survival instinct. There is a body of evidence that this is simply some sort of a biological mechanism that has evolved to shape our thought processes into something that is tangibly beneficial to our individual or group survival. It does not immediately imply that this idea has any value as far as the objective truth about our existence is concerned.

So here things can't "just exist" and "somewhere else" (where the "creator" was before his alleged act of creation) they can? Again, you're proving the utter lack of qualification on part of most human beings to ponder on all things cosmological. I guess our brains are simply too small and the body of knowledge we have amassed still leaves a lot to be desired and we'll just have to wait for many questions to be answered, at least a few decades, if not centuries. But I'm still waiting to be presented with any sort of rational argument on behalf of the superstitious crowd as to why they are more likely right than the others, since all of their arguments smell of emotional pressure and inability to distance oneself from the problem.