This question suggests a fundamental misunderstanding about how science works.
Crucially, when anomalies come up, you don’t reject a theory outright, because there was a reason the theory was there in the first place. As my mentor (in a scientific discipline) used to say, “You can’t beat something with nothing.”
Rather, when anomalies come up, you document them as best you can, and then at some point someone comes along with a new paradigm that explains them. Crucially, that new paradigm has to explain all the old patterns in the data AND the anomalies.
So, to give a popular example, Copernican heliocentrism could explain all the planetary motion that Ptolemaic astronomy had so carefully mapped out, but it also accounted for the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter (and, particularly with the addition of Kepler’s elliptical orbits, it did away with epicycles, too).
So if YEC wants to have a viable alternative to evolutionary theory, they have to explain the millions and millions of data points that suggest evolution is true IN ADDITION TO their few counterexamples. It is not sufficient to come up with a dozen putative counterexamples and say, “Can’t explain these? Aha! Then you lose!!” No, science doesn’t work that way.
Does that make sense?