Except by some amazing (read: impossible) fluke, you could substitute any known life form for "chimpanzees" in the above sentence.

I think you mean: "We have always been at war with East Asia"

The Exodus of Moses and the Jews from Egypt?

We know that the Egyptians were really good at keepin records. Like "small family of farmers came in to Egypt to get some grain" kind of good records. And yet, there is no mention of 1000's of Hebrew slaves existing in Egypt, let along escaping, let alone the plagues that were supposedly brought upon the pharaoh, let alone the parting of the sea and murder of 100's (or maybe 1000's) of soldiers when the sea collapsed.

And then there's the lack of archaeological evidence of a large group of people "wandering" the deserts for 40 years.

The way they do it at Paper IQ is by having an IR ink printed pattern on the paper, which the pen (mouse in your case) can pick up.

There is a lecture series that was filmed in the 80s/90s (one of the questions asked was "do you know how to use a computer?") which featured Richard Dawkins explaining the process of evolution. If it helps you to pretend that it's someone else, do that, because it is definately worth watching on youtube, he even addresses the Bombardier beetle "problem".

The Evolution of Sexual Reproduction is another complex subject, but you can read about it at the link above. I beleive that the advantage of sexual reproduction was that when you swap genes, you can adapt faster (more possiblity for a bad transfer, more combinations of genes etc). The first sexual reproducers were probably hermaphrodites like flowers, fertilising each other with the wind (before insects). And that eventually developed into male and female genders. The other things that you mention are all explainable in a plausible way (see argument from personal incredulity).

This is not entirely true, E. Coli is known to be able to metabolise glucose. The bacteria were "grown" in a solution that included glucose as it's main component. There were also many populations of the bacteria that were being evolved seperately (they NEVER mixed). Suddenly, in one population, a bacteria emerged that could metabolise citrate. This gave that bacteria a massive advantage, because it could now consume two types of food and it had no competition for the citrate (unlike glucose, which all the other bacteria could consume as well).
This also allowed the total population in that group to explode (there's now more food in total, glucose + citrate).

Another cool thing is that this smashes the "Irreducible Complexity" argument. The ability to metabolise citrate is developed by two separate mutations, which, on their own achieve nothing. Some of the populations developed the first mutation and some developed the second one, but none of them had previously developed both. This shows that the "preliminary" mutations were not harmful to the bacteria, so they just "hung around" until one of them was lucky enough to get the second mutation too.

Anyway, look up Lenski's work, I'm sure his papers (and those of his students/colleagues) are better at explaining it all than me...