I'll refute the claims of your pdf now

Secondly, bacteria did not morph directly into a human being, obviously. Ancient cellular life forms would have gradually evolved into a plethora of multicellular creatures over the course of 100s of millions of years. As multicellular life forms further evolved, they created new and more "complex" species, which continued all the way through the modern day. Humans did not evolve from bacteria, we evolved from an older primate hominid species.

As a visual, here's an interesting interactive evolutionary map where you can see a simplified tree showing how life changed over time, and you can even click any two species/groups and see what and how far back their common ancestor likely was: https://www.evogeneao.com/en/explore/tree-of-life-explorer

"It's circular reasoning because the definition of evolution changes between the first and second examples, resulting in an absurdity."

Firsly, that's not what circular reasoning means, but more importantly, they literally addressed the two types: "Biologists sometimes define two types of evolution based on scale: • Macroevolution, which refers to large-scale changes that occur over extended time periods, such as the formation of new species and groups. • Microevolution, which refers to small-scale changes that affect just one or a few genes and happen in populations over shorter timescales. Microevolution and macroevolution aren't really two different processes. They're the same process - evolution - occurring on different timescales."

"Creationists believe in and support the fact that one common DOG ancestor is the father of the wolves, coyotes, and other things, and that one common cat ancestor existed for cougars, tigers, etc, or one common horse for zebras, donkeys, etc. We are perfectly fine with that."

Great, because that is quite literally what evolution is, exactly as I also explained above, albeit incredibly oversimplified. What you seem to be missing is the fact that, if you continue to go back further, those common ancestors each have common ancestors with each other. For example, the ancient common ancestor of modern dogs and the ancient common ancestor of modern cats can both be traced back to an even more ancient and simple mammalian ancestor, that would eventually lead to canines and felines and other more specialized mammal groups.

Again, this can be shown in the link to the evolutionary tree map I sent you, by clicking on dogs and cats, which will show you their common ancestor and how far back it was.

"What we aren't fine with is the idea that our ancestor is soupy bacteria that was stuck by lightning and evolved into all living things."

Good, because that's not how science would explain it either. Evolution works just like how you described in your previous sentence, with every species sharing a common ancestor, but every common ancestor was simply one of many species at the time, with their own common ancestors. Common ancestors can continue to be drawn from every species, living or extinct, as the common ancestors continue to appear less and less "complex", until eventually the ultimate common ancestor of all common ancestors is single-cellular organisms. Bacteria is simply the eventual common ancestor of every common ancestor, through the exact same process as all evolution, but on a massively larger timescale. Again, that evolutionary tree map link helps simplify/visualize this.

"This particular aspect of evolution is impossible because bacteria (1) must have a host, aka a more complex life form to survive or they die within 48 hours, meaning that they can't have been the first living thing, their very nature requires another body to live in and multiply in (2) they reproduce asexually, meaning that they cannot pass along genetic information that could evolve to their offspring."

Firstly, there are more forms of single-celled/microbial life than just "bacteria", but more importantly: 1) not only do not all microbes require hosts to survive, but the time during the emergence of early single-cellular life on earth was significantly hotter and more hostile to modern life, but excellent conditions for the incubation and growth of micro-organisms. 2) Actually, studies suggest that asexual reproduction is MORE likely than sexual reproduction to lead to more significant genetic mutations (as shown in this study, for example: https://www.uta.edu/news/news-releases/2022/08/01/uta-study-asexual-reproduction-leads-to-harmful-genetic-mutations#:~:text=UTA%20study%3A%20Asexual%20reproduction%20leads%20to%20harmful%20genetic%20mutations,-Findings%20in%20whiptail&text=A%20team%20led%20by%20biologists,than%20those%20utilizing%20sexual%20reproduction.), not to mention the reduced, oxygen-less atmosphere would likely have further increased the levels of solar radiation at the time, likely leading to more mutations.

"Also as for DNA "evidence of evolution, Charles Darwin himself calculated that 96 percent DNA similarity must exist between two species for them to have directly evolved from one another..."

Again, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "evolved from one another" because, as previously addressed, species like humans did not "evolve from" chimps, we merely share a common ancestor with modern chimps.

"...whereas chimps and humans have only 85 percent similarity, according to more recent studies."

No, all recent studies show a +98% similarity. According to the American Museum of Natural History, "Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA. (https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/human-origins/understanding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps#:~:text=These%20three%20species%20look%20alike,98.8%20percent%20of%20their%20DNA.)" The 85% statistic you might be thinking of is actually with mice, which humans share around 85% of DNA similarities with (https://thednatests.com/how-much-dna-do-humans-share-with-other-animals/#:~:text=%F0%9F%90%AD%20Humans%20share%20around%2085,of%20their%20DNA%20with%20chickens.).

"The most problematic thing for evolution, however is that information cannot be created in DNA; indeed it can only be lost, meaning that while variations within kinds are possible, evolution on a large scale would violate one of the most elementary laws of genetics. So even if bacteria could breed, they couldn't pass on "new" information, such as that necessary to create algae, plants, and other life, through this process. Plus, evolutionists believe that algae was the next form of life after bacteria, but this too reproduces asexually and could not pass down the characteristics necessary to evolve."

Again, this is simply a misunderstanding of what process is actually taking place. The changes taking place are the result of genetic mutation, which is what changes the DNA to allow for the genetic variation necessary for evolution in the first place. Because you are right; without genetic mutation, no changes could occur, and the process of evolution would not have existed, thus no life beyond the earliest of microbes would have been able to exist. Genetic mutation is literally the foundation for all evolution.

(Part 1/2, continued...)