"Good Questions to Ask an Evolutionist"

[The Grand Nudger]

1. While some molecules do combine to form larger structures such as amino acids, it has been shown that this always results in a mixture of left- and right-handed amino acids that is not used in life. Since this is true, is there some other explanation for how the molecules useful for life might have formed? (Be prepared for an answer involving “given enough time it could happen.”)

Not an evolutionary question.  

2. Since oxygen is known to destroy molecular bonds, and since the lack of oxygen in the atmosphere (meaning no ozone) would cause all potential life to be destroyed by ultraviolet rays, how could life have formed? (Be prepared to follow up with a question about hydrolysis—water decomposing molecules.)

Not an evolutionary question.

3. Since water breaks down the bonds between amino acids (a process called hydrolysis), how could life have started in the oceans?

Not an evolutionary question.

4. The National Academy of Sciences defines a theory as “a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence” and science as “the use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena.”3 Does this mean scientists can reproduce how life originated or test any step of the process for how life evolved? If not, then how can evolution qualify as a theory?

Not an evolutionary question, with the exception of "test any step of the process for how life evolved" to which the answer is a simple yes, we can.  

5. Microsoft uses intelligent programmers and complex codes to create the Windows operating system. However, information in DNA is millions of times more dense and complex. How could the process of evolution, using natural processes and chance, solve the problem of complex information sequencing without intelligence? (Be prepared for an answer involving “given enough time it could happen.”)

It doesn't.  

6. Bill Gates (founder and former CEO of Microsoft) recognized that the processing capabilities of DNA are “like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”4 Using all their intelligence and all the modern advances in science, have scientists ever created DNA or RNA in a laboratory through unguided naturalistic processes? If not, then isn’t the origin of life still an unverified assumption?

Not an evolutionary question.

7. DNA, RNA, and proteins all need each other as an integrated unit. Even if only one of them existed, the many parts needed for life could not sit idle and wait for the other parts to evolve because they would dissolve or deteriorate. Is there any compelling (observable) evidence for how all these components evolved at the same time or separately over time?

Yes.

8. Isn’t it true that whenever we see interdependent complex structures or codes we automatically assume an intelligent person had to put them together? So why do we assume that DNA, or RNA, or a cell, which is more complex than any computer ever designed, happened by chance? Doesn’t that seem to go against good science and logical thought?

No.

9. Is there any observed case where random chance events created complex molecules with enormous amounts of information like that found in DNA or RNA? If not, then why should we assume it happened in the past?

Yes.  

10. A living cell is composed of millions of parts all working together and is considered more complex than any man-made machine. Then, since the process of evolution has no blueprints (cannot plan for the future) for building something, since over time things tend to deteriorate unless there is a mechanism in place to sustain them, since virtually all known mutations decrease genetic information (or are neutral), since natural selection would not be operating until the first cell formed, how could the process of evolution ever assemble something as complex as a living cell with all its information content?

Not an evolutionary question.

11. Since we started with finches and the finches stayed finches, isn’t this just an example of variety within a kind?

Sure. If finches are a kind.

12. Since we started with bacteria, and the bacteria that became resistant to the antibiotic remained bacteria, isn’t this just another example of variety within a kind?

Sure, unless finches are a kind.  

13. What naturalistic evidence could actually disprove that evolution is the explanation for life on earth (or the formation of the universe)?

Modern Synth isn't a theory on abiogenesis , nor is it a comment on cosmology.