Rieske says that melanin is a natural sunscreen, but evolution is disproved because Inuit* people have darker skin. Apparently this guy has never been far north, where the amount of snow and sunlight can give white people sunburn in minutes.
*eskimo is a racist term, but Americans are rarely aware it is, so I'll give him a pass.
In fact, I rarely do full debunkings of fundie posts, but what the hey.
#1: Birds, and some other animals, could not have evolved
Rieske mainly takes issue with the wings of birds, and their light bones. He claims that wings "evolved" into hands, even though this is the reverse of accepted evolutionary theory.
Coelurids such as Coelophysis and Compsognathus evolved lighter bones for agility and speed. Millions of years later, their Jurassic descendants evolved feathers for better heat retention. Eventually, certain species of coelurids evolved flatter arms so they could jump higher when hunting insects. These eventually evolved into wings for gliding and then, true flight.
OP also misunderstands evolutionary theory about how fish came to be air breathers. Why would a fish go on land? To escape predation. Once every fish could go on land for a few moments, the sharks simply waited in the water until the losers crawled back in. After millions of years, fish evolved with lungs so they could stay on wet beaches for hours. The sharks started chasing them onto land, so fish evolved stronger fins for locomotion on land. Eventually, the fish became self-sufficient on land, and evolved to be more efficient on land, which made them less adapted for water.
#2: Gaps in the fossil record
This is a long section, easily rebuked. If there's a gap in the fossil record, creationists demand explanation. Suppose a fossil neatly bisects the gap. Bingo, twice as many gaps! Take that, Darwinists!
Rieske follows up with a lot of hooey about supposedly fake fossils. In case of the ones (like Piltdown Man) that are known to be fake, guess who proved them fake? That's right, it was evilutionists!
#3: There should be more "dead" branches in the evolutionary tree
So, what, is Rieske not satisfied at the number of extinct species? 99% of species ever to exist are extinct. Some were wiped out by humans, but the vast majority went extinct long before homo sapiens startled killing dodos.
#4: Cells are too complex to have evolved
Amino acids didn't crash into each other at random and form Golgi apparati and cell walls. They formed simpler forms of life, though still complex on a cellular level, which gradually developed to a high level of cellular complexity. But keep in mind this only had to happen once, anywhere on Earth, but still took millions of years - showing there were very long odds on it.
#5: Sperm and eggs prove evolution is wrong
Rieske: Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain.
Maybe Lamarckian ones do. That form of evolution is, of course, discredited. Environment, and internal conditions, cause random changes in cells, not guided ones, which is what makes offspring different.
#6: DNA error proves evolution is wrong
Rieske seems to think that very fast mutation, such as from radiation, is good - the more the better. But mutation at high rates tends to cause cancer and birth defects as a result of too many mutations overwhelming the body. Because mutations are more beneficial in small amounts, it takes billions of years for a complex body system to evolve.
#7: Second Law of Thermodynamics proves organization cannot come from case
"Organization" and "Chaos" are not perfect words for low and high entropy, but they're easy enough to understand. From an entropic point of view, the sun used to be more organized than it is now, as it had octillions of tons more hydrogen and less helium. Earth is now more organized, as the sun "gave" some organization to Earth. It's not a perfect example, but I've used the same terms as the website used.
#8: Chromosomes prove evolution is wrong
Despite Rieske's claims, it is possible for mutations to change the amount of chromosomes in an organism. People with Down syndrome have an extra chromosome, but they are still sometimes capable of reproducing.
#9: Evolution of stars is impossible
Darwin didn't say anything about stars, and astronomy has nothing to do with biological evolution. Next, please.
#10: There's no evidence that conditions on Mars were suitable for the evolution of life. There's bitter dispute over which conditions are necessary for any life to evolve, but at least 2 of the disputed conditions (above 0 temperature, and a large moon) are not present on Mars.
#11: This is no longer a top 10, but I'll keep going. Radio silence from space proves evolution is wrong.
There are many reasons we might not be contacted by other species: We are alone in the galaxy
Other species do not have the ability to transmit radio signals toward us
We do not have the ability to intercept alien radio signals
Aliens may be using technology more advanced than radio waves
Aliens may have observed our history of violence and decided not to contact us
Aliens may have decided not to contact us for scientific or social reasons
Considering the dispute over the amount of alien life there may be, it hardly seems suitable to "debunk" evolution based on the amount of alien contact.
#12: Timelines and archaeology prove evolution wrong
Despite Rieske's claims, there is strong archaeological evidence that humans have existed for tens of thousands of years. There are primitive tools and structures dating back 50,000 years, and there are even Ancient Egyptian records which go back 12,000 years - to the end of the last ice age. This ice age, as well as many others before it, prevented human civilization from getting very far.
#13: Statistical Mathematics prove evolution wrong
Rieske does not cite any of the math supposedly used to disprove evolution. And then he neatly and spontaneously Godwins himself, so the debate is over. I'll just point out that the Nazis saved bibles and burned texts on evolution, then I'll be on my way.