Evolution Logic

The difference between 'micro evoluiton' and 'macro-evolution' is the number of steps. The way evolution works is through many many small steps.If there is enough small steps, the change between the 'ancestors' and the 'decendants' is enough to make them new species.After all. you can not walk from Istanbul to Bagdad in a single step. It takes many many steps, but eventually, you go from one country to another.

No, actually, that is not true. You don't need an 'increase in information'. That is just a strawman that is promoted by the Dembski group. You have have a 'decrease' of information,and still have it be evoluiton. The scientific defintion of biological evolution is
'The change in alleles over time'.One example is the evolution of the tape worm. In the past, it was a more 'complicated' organism.. but it no longer needed a lot of the
functions, because it was using those functions provided the host.Another one is the cave dwelling species. Over the years, the 'functional eyes' were a detriment, and they lost the information to
make functional eyes.

Other than the claims of some old old books, there is no evidence of that.Supernaturla explainations are irrelavent to science. The evidence also shows that evolution has occured. That is a fact. The model on how and why evolution occurs is the theory.

No, that is not what he is saying at all.What he is saying is that the natural conditions of the early atmosphere will , through normal chemical reactions, create the chemistry that is the basis for life.If we look at the moon of Titan, we can see that an atmosphere that we beleive to be similar to Earth's early atmosphere has complex organtic molecules. This would be needed if life were for form from natural chemical reactions.It titan wasn't so far out and cold, it too might have developed life.Home – Physics World

On the contrary.. peopel have listened to them.. looked at what they are saying, and found their claims to be lacking.For example, one great new 'LAW' that dempski claims to have discovered is the law of conservation of information. This 'Law' is supposed to prove all sorts of things for the I.D. proponents.However, it can not be tested, it can not be demonstrated. From a scientific point of view it is meaningless.I'll tell you what though, Maybe you can come up with some scientific
experiemetns that demonstrate this 'law' of dembski's?? He hasn't been able to.

I do believe that you are right that brain size (within a certain bounds) does not mean much when it comes to intelligence, but rather the size of certain sections of the brain (the area that deals with intellence was a much high percentage of the 'hobbit' brain).HOwever, on average , the brains of blacks is slightly smaller than of whites.. The brains of asians are slightly larger. The key her is 'on average'. There is much more variation within a group that between the different ethnic groups. This goes back to the "bottleneck" event that happened 70K to 80K years ago.Also, the difference in brain size between the different genders in the same ethnic group is greater than the brain size differnce between
the brain size of the same gender accross the ethnic group. Yes, there is a trend, but the difference is small enough to be totally irrelavent.