My vehemence in rejecting this is because of the almost stupefying acceptance you and other evolutionist have that blind chance could evolve such interlocking systems which are far more complex than any computer chip yet designed and manufactured by man. I know since I have designed a few myself.
B: Well then, you're behind the times. I pity the company you work for. Because things like electrical circuits are now being designed by "Genetic Algorithms" which are mathematical algorithms which mimic Darwinian evolution. In fact Genetic Algorithms such as the Monte Carlo Method have been a staple of mathematicians and engineers for decades. I suggest you consider retirement, and let a younger generation of engineers who know what they are doing have a crack at it.
You have to believe there is magical pixie dust within nature itself, or even worse, that the addition of complex interactions of biological materials, somehow gives them the ability to produce even more complexity.
B: THat biological materials have complex properties and interactions is a fact of nature. Again, here we have a creationists that is at war with reality.
And this all the way up to the human brain, the most complex thing we know about in the natural universe. Where does it ever end?
B: Beats me.
Someday this theory will produce an all knowing God that will punish evolutionists for never believing in Him in the first place. And you would have no problem with THAT god, cause your EVERYTHING that has ever happened MUST have happened via evolution theory is set like concrete in your minds.
B: Ah yes, when all else fails, and the creationist runs out of arguments, he threatens the opposition with hell. That sums up creationism folks..
I've already given you a perfectly reasonable explanation of symbiosis that you give no reason for rejecting other than that it upsets your religious pre-dispositions. No doubt next year you'll still be saying that no-one has ever explained symbiosis to you from the POV of ToE.
You continue to shout that no transitional forms exist in the fossil record despite having been shown references to numerous TFs. Amusingly you attack Arch'rix as a TF on the grounds that some biologists think it is a bird and others think it is a reptile. Difficulty in classification is exactly what one would expect with a TF; like the ape skulls that scientists think are TFs while creationists all give them different human/not-human classifications. (the creationist credo being that no ape skull can be difficult to classify, difficulty in classification is a defining characteristic of transition)
What is your problem with the other phenomena that you mention? Let us imagine the highly intelligent being from the planet "designia" who has never heard of or seen evolution, and tell him how it works by fixing tiny alterations that improve fitness in the gene pool while rejecting tiny alterations that are deletrious and allowing drift through tiny alterations that are neutral. I would expect that creature after some long thought to predict that mimicry and symbiosis, parasites and mitosis would occur.
Curiously the things you see as an argument for design I see as an argument against design. Why would a designer make a stick insect good at mimicry while its predators are good at discernment? The ToE explains this as an arms race between the species. A designer would just make the insect less good at mimicry and the predators less discerning. There's no need to make them good at it. Nature is over-designed from the POV of an aware designer.
But nature is rather poorly designed as well as overdesigned from the POV of an aware designer. Obvious improvements can be suggested for (eg) the human body but evolution has not found these because no evolutionary intermediates on the pathway to the improvement that aren't deletrious exist. This wouldn't be a difficulty for your designer though so why don't our bodies work in a more sensible way to achieve their effect with less complexity and innefficiency?
You have to believe there is magical pixie dust within nature itself
No, you are the one who wants to believe in supernatural intervention, not me. The whole point of ToE is that it says there isn't any pixy dust (as I think you know which begs the question why do you word your attack that way). As you have said most mutations or miscopyings aren't beneficial, but natural selection works to select for those which are beneficial (however rare they are) and to select against those which are deletrious (however common they are). You never talk about natural selection do you? The real way in which competing phenotypes select for the continuation of the genotype that caused them. You characterize the whole process as random without acknowledging that nature is a selection engine forever culling the less fit and promoting the reproductive prospects of the more fit.(fit being a value-free term in this instance)
Why don't you find out EXACTLY the complexities of any symbiotic relationship
It wasn't that complex all the way back. It got that way through many generations of gradually increasing co-operation as the increased symbiosis improved the reproductive chances of individuals in both species.