Again, we have this situation where rhetorical questions are posed in the hopes that, if answers aren't given, then we should just shrug our shoulders and ignore the evidence that we have for the sake of a theory without evidence (creationism). But if you really care about the answers (I contend that you don't), here are my own...
1.
How did life originate? Evolution doesn't even try to answer this question. It's like if somebody described to you the orbits of the planets in our solar system and you reply "Oh yeah? If that's true then you must know how their orbits started!". It's a
different subject.
2.
How did DNA code originate? Again, it's a different subject, but at least this one has some
good answers.
3.
How could mutations... create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living thing? How does a language like Latin spawn such huge differences, becoming the variety of "romance" languages that
it did? A little bit at a time, over a long period of time.
4.
Why is natural selection... taught as evolution? Like the last question, the way that this is posed attempts to inject false premises into the argument that scientists wouldn't agree with. The answer to this one is that natural selection (along with artificial selection) is the driving process behind evolution. The arguments made after the question again assumes (like questions #1 and #2) that evolution answers the question of where life came from... it doesn't. Evolution describes why life on this planet is diverse.
5.
How did new biochemical pathways... originate? This is suggestive of Michael Behe's ideas that complicated things don't have structural support as they are being constructed, but we have countless examples that biologists have discovered. For a non-biological example, one could ask "How did Michaelangelo paint the Sistene Chapel ceiling? Could he fly?" Of course not -- he used scaffolding, which was later removed when it became unnecessary. Similar structures in organisms disappear over time, and our hindsight makes it difficult to believe that they were ever there because we don't see a need for them *now*.
6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? The evidence doesn't demonstrate a designer. If it did, the current theory would include one. We have examples of things in nature that look designed but aren't, which means that the appearance of design isn't enough to prove a designer -- we ought to be skeptical and instead wait until we have evidence of a designer before positing that theory.
... I'm on my lunch break, and it looks like I just don't have time to get around to all of these (at least right now). But my main point is that just because you have a question that scientists can't answer (assuming that they actually can't answer it) doesn't mean that your answer is any better. Most of these questions have a false premise behind them (such as questions 1, 2, 7, and 8 that all misunderstand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis) or have claims inserted into them that scientists haven't claimed. I do want to address the one good question among them though, which is #14...
14. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? Again, this makes the misunderstanding that evolution describes the beginning of life (it doesn't). But it also makes the assumption that evolution has stopped happening, which is not true nor has it ever been true. I can give you a real-life example of evolution in humans...
My daughter's mother had a bad hip for childbearing... the opening for escape was too small. My daughter had to be born via C-section, just like her mother. The fact that more and more children are being born through C-sections is evidence of evolution. There was a time when, if a child couldn't be born naturally, that child couldn't be born at all and thus would have no opportunity to pass on his or her genes (in other words, they were "selected" out of the gene pool). However, a change in our environment (the introduction of C-section surgery) allowed these children to be born, pass on their genes, and thus make such genetic variation a part of the human gene pool. It's not as if these people who can't birth naturally are "better" than others (in fact, you could argue that their genes are worse for survival) but rather they fit the environment to which they entered. Small changes in the environment cause small changes in gene pools, and these become part of what it means to be "human" (since we are made up of a variety, and any one characteristic is merely a piece of a bell curve rather than a universal characteristic... if such a characteristic were so different, that person or persons would no longer be considered "human"). Most of denial of evolution stems from a misunderstanding of what evolution is.
