"Fine tuning involves the adjustment of many small details, so trial and error is often the best way to do it."
In fact I'd say it is more a trial and error solution aided by the power of computers than it is an application of evolutionary theory.
That's pretty much Darwin. Fine tuning by variation and selection (trial and error) until you've fined tuned into new species.
You haven't told me at what point change stops. What is the limit to the number of changes that can go to fixation across a population group by mutation, natural selection and drift, and what is the mechanism that halts change?
You could try asking Douglas Axe, couldn't you?
You like talking about giraffes, so how would you explain the genetic differences between the 7 existing sub-species without doing so in the light of evolution? Were there 14 giraffes on the Ark?
Recent research by GCF and partners has shown that there are four distinct species of giraffe in Africa. Two of these species have two and three subspecies respectively. All species and subspecies live in geographically distinct areas across Africa and while some of the species/subspecies have been reported to cross-bread in zoos, there is little to no evidence that this occurring in the wild.
I'd explain these the same way I'd explain horse/zebra/donkey. They are all descended from the kinds on Noah's Ark. The horse/zebra/donkey also prefer to breed with their own but can cross breed.
But how many are on the Ark? If it's ~4,500 yrs ago, then the genetics tell you that there would have been ~14 giraffes on the Ark. (They have diverged too far to descend from one pair). And what about the Samotherium? There would also have to be loads of equids on the Ark.
And once again, what is the mechanism that stops populations of organisms changing over time into new species (kinds)?
To account for all the non-homologous genes by deletions would require the common ancestor to have had hundreds of surplus genes available for deletion.
Hundreds? On the Y chromosome? And why would the genes being "surplus" in chimps mean they were "surplus" in the common ancestor? And where does "macroevolution" come in"? With one deletion? Ten?
Unless these genes were nonsense then this is a large loss of information, and if they were nonsense why did the common ancestor have them?
Perhaps they were sufficiently advantageous to the common ancestor for them to be retained, but not for the chimps. And "loss of information" is common in evolution, as is gain. We don't have gills and scales; birds don't have teeth.
On the subject of micro and macro in relationship to human/chimp differences, Taq has just started a thread on the subject here. Message 1.
If you'd care to support your view that evolutionary processes are inadequate for increasing information in the life system, I've started an information thread here. Message 1