Lets review, ikester,

How does disease enter the picture? By producing chemicals? By changing what chemicals are produced in the body?

Are you saying that chemical reactions don't behave according to the laws of chemistry because chemicals can alter the chemical reactions?

Perhaps it is "not always true" because it is not the real truth? Evolution does not say that only the fittest survive and only the fittest reproduce in every generation, just that they tend to survive and reproduce more often than less fit organisms.

Of course "fitness" is a bit of a tautologically circular term when used this way - those that survive and reproduce are "fit" and those that do not survive or reproduce are "unfit" and the differential ability of the fit vs the unfit to survive and reproduce is then begged by the definition.

When used this way though, we can see that the "non-dominant males" that succeed in reproduction are fit and that dominance is not necessarily the only way to achieve fitness.

Actually there are. We can predict, for instance, that if a drought should occur in an area for an extended period of time, that then the organisms living there would adapt traits suitable to the dryer conditions or perish. Can anyone predict exactly what those traits are? No, because that would mean predicting random mutations. Can we predict a general trend that would show over time from generation to generation? Yes, because we would assume that natural selection would continue to operate and that this selection would then choose between which mutations that do occur by which ones offered a survival or reproductive advantage, so that over several generations you would see a shift towards traits better adapted to the dry conditions.

This is no different from probability theory, a mathematical theory that is incapable of predicting whether the next coin toss will be heads or tails, on any toss, while it is capable of predicting long term trends without predicting a single step along the way.

Are you saying probability theory is not scientific? That it cannot be tested?

Curiously this does not show that there is a "highest point" in evolution.

You also need to define what you (or what you think evolutionists think) "higher" means. What is the metric that is measured? Length of DNA? Number of segments that are not repeats? Amount of "information" carried by the DNA (and now you need to define what is meant by "information" and what metric is used to measure that)? Number of DNA changes from some (assumed) base common ancestor (and how do you count changes that are added and then deleted by intermediate steps)?

How do you define "kind" so that you can tell when this change has occurred? If you don't define a limit then there is none, and all life could be one "kind" descended from one common ancestor.

Several species have evolve to use their wings underwater instead of the air: if the definition of "bird" means flying through the air, then they have become a different kind. You can compare the behavior of penguins to seals - in and out of the water - have penguins become part of the "seal kind" (or is "penguin" a new kind?)? They no longer have flight feathers and they have evolved a layer of fat that does not exist in other birds:

And there are other adaptations to extreme cold living conditions.

When is change enough change? How do you know? Are cats and foxes different enough? What about sugar gliders and flying squirrels (cute eh?)?

With respect,
Enjoy.