He has asked evolution scientists to do it with regards to the evolution of cellular biochemistry. All you have done is point to two similar systems and expect everyone to jump to the conclusion that one evolved from the other.
I can't imagine any circumstance which would cause scientists to reject the central theory of life science. Its strength as a framework that ties all the facts together into a coherent whole, and its utility for formulating workable and testable hypotheses are simply too great.
LOL. Every example provided requires some form of a leap of faith. Humans do pattern matching very well, but it can lead you astray. That is all you are doing. Has it not occurred to you that all your "evidence" only seems to matter to people who want to believe it in the first place? I suppose that is why you want to embed this in the minds of grade schoolers early on, before they learn to think critically.
That's a digression, anyway--the take home message is that it doesn't matter how many organisms don't survive, the only criterion is being able to survive to reproduce.
Aren't you aware as a biologist that there are already tremendous pressures on wildlife populations holding them in check (in fact, an exploding population can be disastrous for an organism because it can produce too large a die back)? Once you reduce the population far enough it won't recover.
I looked at the link long enough to ascertain that its author(s) used a common tactic of anti-scientists: build up a straw man as if it accurately reflects scientific knowledge, and then maybe find one reference in the literature that contains one sentence or paragraph that can be cherry-picked to support the ensuing tearing apart of the straw man.
Both articles made the same point about the difficulty of RNA self-replication. The "non-scientific" link I posted simply distilled it down to just that message and stressed that unless that issue was addressed, it simply is not a workable theory. The wikipedia link noted it as a problem but ultimately just glossed over it.
The only way evolution can continue to exist as a scientific theory is because you close your eyes to every problem and reject anyone who questions it. In your world people fit neatly into precisely two categories: pro-evolution and anti-science. You have a more closed mind on this subject than any stereotypical little old lady thumping her bible in church on Sunday morning. I don't much blame you, it is a pitiful theory that can't survive any real criticism (that is why any scientist who questions it must be a charlatan).
Scientists have no obligation to go out wasting time, money, and resources just because Behe snipes at them. If Behe has a legitimate criticism of any facet of evolutionary theory, he is free to do the research and present his results to the scientific community.
When Stephen Jay Gould did just that, his criticism of the ToE ended up being incorporated as an important refinement of the theory.