Ignoring the fact that you just copied and pasted this, I'll have a stab at it for as long as I can stomach
1. Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information. Related to this are problems with the Darwinian mechanism producing irreducibly complex features, and the problems of non-functional or deleterious intermediate stages. (For details see: "The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information," "Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones's Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum," "Opening Darwin's Black Box," or "Can Random Mutations Create New Complex Features? A Response to TalkOrigins");
Patently false. This would quite literally be the very first thing descirbed by Darwin...we call that "Natural Selection" and he also proposed "Sexual Selection" and you hit on another one later when we get to Gould and Eldredge and "Punctuated Equilibrium."
2. The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution. (For details, see "Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record" or "Intelligent Design Has Scientific Merit in Paleontology");
Also patently false. Both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are observed in the fossil record (even some ideas as to "Punctuated Gradualism" have popped up but are more or less just occurences of one then the other occurring).
Examples of gradualism include: horses, whales, fish-reptile, etc
Examples of punctuated equlibrium include: trilobites, brachiopods, molluscs, etc (quite a few in each category, but the gradualism examples are more well known so I was more specific)
3. The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand "tree of life." (For details, see: "A Primer on the Tree of Life");
What? I don't understand that at all. We have phylogenies showing common ancestry and descent, and they are pretty clearly in agreement with evolution.
4. Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient;
Not so. Look at something like any one of the genetic diseases that plague humans. Why do they still exist? Why are they not selected out of the population entirely? (even though they are highly detrimental to survival). They persist because genetics can mask carriers of the trait, who pass it on unknowingly. Meaning that in any given population that is very large, selecting out a trait is mathematically impossible (limit theory)
5. The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant -- at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely. (For details, see "Convergent Genetic Evolution: 'Surprising' Under Unguided Evolution, Expected Under Intelligent Design" and "Dolphins and Porpoises and...Bats? Oh My! Evolution's Convergence Problem");
What? I am baffled again. If natural selection is a viable theory, then different organisms living in similar envrionments, should converge on the same solution to a problem. AKA, convergent evolution. I have no idea how you think convergent evolution would go against evolution.
6. The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code. (For details, see "The origin of life remains a mystery" or "Problems with the Natural Chemical 'Origin of Life'");
A "god of the gaps" argument? And we actually have explanations for that too, you just reject them.
7. The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development. (For details, see: "Evolving views of embryology," "A Reply to Carl Zimmer on Embryology and Developmental Biology," "Current Textbooks Misuse Embryology to Argue for Evolution");
They don't. And we understand through things like HoX genes, how, when, and where organisms in differing phyla differ in their development.
In any event, this sounds like a criticism of "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny", which we know to be false in science. Aka, you're trying to beat a dead horse.
8. The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species. (For details, see "Sea Monkey Hypotheses Refute the NCSE's Biogeography Objections to Explore Evolution" or "Sea Monkeys Are the Tip of the Iceberg: More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism");
Geology does a great job of explaining that mate. Continents shift as they ride upon the lithospheric plates that move across the surface of the Earth. Ever wonder why Africa and South America look like puzzle pieces that should fit together? It's because they did during the Mesozoic!
9. A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called "junk" DNA. (For details, ] see: "Intelligent Design and the Death of the 'Junk-DNA' Neo-Darwinian Paradigm," "The Latest Proof of Evolution: The Appendix Has No Important Function," or "Does Darrel Falk's Junk DNA Argument for Common Descent Commit 'One of the Biggest Mistakes in the History of Molecular Biology'?);
A long list of inaccurate predictions? You mean, hypotheses? Ergo, failed hypotheses? Of course! They can't all be right, now can they?
And we have explanations for vestigal organs and junk DNA. (like the hind limbs on a whale)
10. Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe).
- See more at: What Are the Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution? - Evolution News & Views
Perception of our future selves is a extremely benefical trait (and that is the gist of what you are getting at with the ability for forethought).
As to music and art, a study recently found that despite differing countries and cultures, most people converge on the same idea of the perfect piece of art. A landscape of a grassy plain with a low-branching tree in the background and a source of water. Sound like our ancestral savannas much?
