Summary:
Yes they do.
There's no reason why it shouldn't.
Yes it does.
Why would it?
And?
Crap analogies that have no meaning are not a substitute for rational arguments.
Nobody claims it came from nowhere. There's a difference between not knowing, and denying.
No it doesn't.
The laws of conservation only hold true within the universe. "Within" includes the time period for which the universe exists, so energy/matter being created along with the universe is perfectly allowable.
There's no requirement for evolution to be guided, nor for it to involve intelligence.
If you believe that this is not the case, you do not understand the evolutionary process. If your biology teacher does not believe it either, then he needs to find a job in which his ignorance will be less damaging.
Trash doesn't multiply through replication, and therefore can't be selected against.
Like I said before, crap and meaningless analogies are no basis for sweeping conclusions like the one you give above.
Which is utterly irrelevant.
Good question. Which of these seems like the better idea:
a) Study and observe the processes which are actually happening now, corrolate them against evidence from the past, derive a hypothesis that builds on prior art, and test that hypothesis,
b) Go with the first idea that pops into your head.
Creationist web sites say a lot of things.
Circular reasoning.
No it doesn't.
Read up on speciation and divergence. From CREDIBLE SOURCES.
No. Again, refer to speciation.
As you can see, you do not understand evolution. Come back when you do.