Protein sequence space is far too large to be searched and highly functional sequences (i.e., enzymes) are incredibly rare (~ 1 in 1077).
Turns out, we observed all sorts of mutations to protein sequences. Most don't do very much and they have no consequences at all. A few are harmful and tend to be removed. And a very few are useful to survival and tend to be added to the population genome. As engineers are learning, the process of random mutation and natural selection tends to increase fitness. AiG's assumption is that the process is random. But Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random.
The universe (space-time, matter, energy) had a beginning.
Many YE creationists denounce the idea of a "big bang" (discovered by a Christian minister, BTW). However, it fits nicely with an omnipotent Creator.
The laws of physics, the fundamental constants, and the initial conditions of the universe are fine-tuned to allow for the possibility of life.
We just don't know enough to say whether this particular universe was set precisely to produce life, or the sort of life we know developed because the initial conditions were what they were.
The number of genes in the simplest free-living organism is about 450.
We don't know enough about the simplest possible organism possible to say if this is the bottom limit at which self-sustaining reactions became living at about 450 genes, or if there's even a difference.
Life is based on a digital information processing system.
That's a common misconception. It's analog, and doesn't even have to use the same coding. There are a few exceptions in living things, in which a different coding works with the analog (nucleic acids) system.
Random mutation + natural selection has severe limitations as a creative mechanism that are now well understood.
For example, humans won't be evolving a second pair of arms, useful at that might be. However, no one yet has proven that anything seen in living things around us, could not have formed by mutation and natural selection.
So many highly improbable factors make Earth habitable that it is VERY unlikely that another truly “Earth-like” planet exists in our galaxy.
Which means that it's unlikely that living things of the sort we know, live elsewhere in the universe.
The “junk DNA” paradigm has been shown to be false. Most, if not all, non-coding DNA has function.
What creationists call "junk DNA" is properly termed "non-coding DNA." Some of it, like the human vitamin C gene is junk. Other parts have functions. And recently, it was shown that non-coding DNA is a common source for the evolution of new genes:
The origin of novel protein-coding genes de novo was once considered so improbable as to be impossible. In less than a decade, and especially in the last five years, this view has been overturned by extensive evidence from diverse eukaryotic ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The Cambrian (and other) explosions in the fossil record are not consistent with the Darwinian model of gradual evolution.
It was a problem decades ago. But now we know that there were complex animals living long before the Cambrian. The Edicaran fauna, including some still-existing phyla, lived millions of years before the Cambrian. BTW, Darwin specifically mentioned the fact that evolution would proceed at different speeds under different conditions. "Gradual" is not part of his theory.
Extensive post-translational processing (editing) of genes occurs in eukaryotes: the spliceosome and the splicing code.
Which evolved fairly early in eukaryotes. Evolution is able to take advantage of such processes.
The evolution of post-translational modifications
Volume 76, October 2022, 101956
Genes extensively overlap in the same or opposite directions within a stretch of DNA (overlapping codes).
Evolution of palimpsests:
