Sorry, but I'm of the mind that, it they're being "dishonest" then why not email them with a response? It's my understanding that they routinely answer them on their site. Also, if you're in fact "studying" yec's then one would think you'd do more observation, and less antagonizing.
They are dishonest, and since you asked nicely I will go by them, point by point and explain why:
1.
How did life originate? This question is not related to evolution. There has to be something there for it to evolve. The subject that you want to talk about here is abiogenesis.
2.
How did the DNA code originate? See the explanation above.
3.
How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? This is the first valid question that actually relates to evolution, and it has many answers. There is an interesting
article about this subject here. Please follow the link, I will not copy and paste giant walls of text.
4.
Why is natural selection,
a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? Natural selection is evolution, and evolution is natural selection, I cannot stress this enough. The ones trying to redefine evolution are creationists, not evolutionary biologists.
If you accept natural selection you accept evolution. Period. The question should not be whether evolution is natural selection or not (which it is), but rather, if natural selection can generate the diversity of life seen in nature (which it can).
5.
How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? By the sums of it's parts. All enzymes in complex pathways could have worked independently and performed other functions. Ever heard that the saying "the whole is greater that the sum of the parts"? That's what it is.
6.
Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Living things do not look like they were designed. The question is flawed because the assumption is flawed. Living things evolved to occupy their present habitat. Some species closely related to kangaroos look like wolves in Tasmania. Evolution and common ancestry offer explanations to that: they evolved to fill the niche because there were no wolves. Why would a designer create wolf-like kangaroos in Tasmania instead of just putting already designed wolves there?
7.
How did multi-cellular life originate? There is a lot of research ongoing in this topic, for updates check
this website and
this website. Again, not pasting a wall of text.
8.
How did sex originate? This is not an easy question to answer simply because there are many competing hypotheses to explain it. And I am sure this is the reason why creationists ask it. If you want a good explanation of how the field looks at the moment,
check here. But let me put this very clearly to you, the fact that we do not clearly know how sex evolved does not invalidate evolution. It is not even evidence against evolution. That would be like saying that since we don't know what Jesus' dietary preferences were, he really did not exist.
9.
Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? The most misleading question so far. Even though there are hundreds of transitional fossils, we do not expect there to be "countless millions". The process of formation of fossils is a very rare event, the fossil record is very incomplete, the fact that we do have transitional fossils is already exceptional.
10.
How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Even though evolution has the potential to change species very quickly, it also favors the persistence of species that are doing well, as long as their environment remains constant. In other words, evolution does not require that everything changes.
11.
How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? The most misleading question so far. "Blind chemistry" did not create altruism and morality, complex behavioral, ecological and biological interactions among organisms did. Here is a list containing explanations for the
evolution of altruism and morality.
12.
Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Here they use a quote by Dr. Philip Skell using his title and highlight the fact that he is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, the highest honor a scientist can get nationally in the US. Typically though, they do not mention that his field of expertise is chemistry. Evolution is not story telling, evolution is data gathering, and all the data collected in evolutionary biology studies fits evolutionary theory and not a supernatural creation or "intelligent design".
13.
Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? If you think this question is important, I have this to ask you: Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to creationism? Again they cite the above article by Skell to support they assumption that there are no "scientific breakthroughs due to evolution". This is a blatant lie. All of biology relies in evolution. But even with all of that said, if you are interested in hearing the answer to this question
check this website.
14.
Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? Another false assumption, evolution is not a theory about history, it is a theory about how organisms evolve and adapt to their environments.
15.
Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? To support this assumption they use a quote by Karl Popper. What they do not say is that, a few years later, after reading about the material, Popper also said this:
"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection, and I am glad to have the opportunity to make a recantation." Source: Popper, K (1978). "Natural selection and the emergence of mind".
Dialectica (32): 339–355. I can tell you that there are many ways to refute evolution. Let me give you one example, the Bible says that fruit bearing trees came before fish, a fossil fruit tree older than all of the fossil fish that we have today not only would be evidence against evolution, it would also be evidence for creationism.
