Foxes with dog-like behavior?

One last thing that you refuse to answer:

In our argument on the difference between physical constraints (e.g. oxygen levels, gravity, resource availability, competition) and genetic constraints, you ended the argument by simply claiming "Genetic restraints come into play massively."

The fact that there were giant dragonflies millions of years ago when oxygen levels were higher implies more causality in the aforementioned comparison than your supposed genetic restraints and size.

More on stuff you refuse to answer:

Give me an example of fraud that has something to do with evolution (i.e. not recapitulation theory) discovered by anti-evolutionists for which there is recent controversy (rather than a written statement in 1931 or so denouncing such-and-such skeleton as that of a monkey's).

Evidence that Hedylepta existed outside Hawaii a thousand years ago or more (before bananas were introduced to the islands).

"I have provided quotations from top scientists that you have not even dared comment on."

I just noticed this sentence. Seems like a misplaced challenge, seeing as you haven't replied to any of the following challenges I've directed towards you:

Present a scientifically-sound counter-theory to evolution.

Explain why genes cannot mutate beyond a certain "plane".

Tell me what alma mater at which you allegedly studied genetics, and under which professor.

"...amino acids, which are as you said "complex molecules", having "unlikely" "autonomously formed" then miraculously created proteins which then miraculously created DNA thus starting life as we know it. You know what we call this? A secular miracle."

I refer to the autonomous formation of amino acids through atomic affinity in the same way one could refer to gravity as an autonomous force. That is, a physical self-initiating occurrence.

Or do you believe gravity is a "miracle"?

Abiogenesis is the study of how life came about from non-life.

Evolution is the study of how ALREADY ESTABLISHED life (DNA synthesizing, etc.) adapts and changes to its environment and propagates these changes through offspring, with these changes accumulating and leading to speciation.

So, no, abiogenesis doesn't have much to do with evolution.

There is no other explanation for the fact that no Hedylepta have been observed outside Hawaii for the last thousand years, strongly implying that if Hedylepta were ever introduced to Hawaii, they were introduced long enough ago that they are quite exclusive to those islands.

I say again, if you find evidence that Hedylepta have been observed outside Hawaii in a natural environment before or around the time bananas were introduced to Hawaii, you might have a point. Until then, nope.

"How did these "single self-sufficient chloroplast-esque structures" evolve? And I take it this is still only a hypothesis?"

As I've said three or four times, it is very hard to determine the earliest beginnings of organisms as single-celled organisms don't fossilize. I'm not sure if we ever will find a way to be able to analyze such early single-celled organisms, but at this point in time asking for such information is asking for omniscience.

The laws of Thermodynamics are just that: Laws. In the realm of science, you can't get away with a few years in jail for breaking laws. You can't do it. Kenetic laws are the same. You can't break them in the realm of science. If something goes against the laws of Thermodynamics and Kenetics, then you've got a problem, a BIG problem.

"So you're saying that modern medicine is a form of selective pressure which keeps SCA going? In this case, why not remove modern medicine?"

Because that's an issue more of eugenics and ethics, not evolution. The part relating to natural selection is the fact that humankind has taken advantage of knowledge and medicine to be able to negate selective pressure in certain situations.

Then tell me, what thermodynamic or kinetic laws are being broken in my explanation of a potential abiogenetic hypothesis?