You failed to address most of the substantive arguments
Circular reasoning. Why is stasis in the fossil record? Because species don't like change. Why don't they like change? Because we observe stasis in the fossil record, of course.
Dave, Dave, Dave...
"Since evolution is not necessarily gradual but often sudden, dramatic expressions of change that began on the cellular level because of radical environmental stressors--like extreme heat, cold, or crowding--years earlier."
Bacteria mutate more under stress, so evolution is not always moving at the same rate. We also can observe the fact that huge populations tend to stay the same while small ones are more flexible; that is, they change easier. Look up Dobzansky's fruit fly experiments.
you can't deny I don't have a relatively good grasp of scientific journal materials
Oh yes, I can.
* You thought that vestigial structures weren't vestigial if they still served a minor purpose.
* You thought that living fossils somehow helped your case.
* You had no clue how Punctuated Equilibrium worked (and still don't, I suspect)
* You thought that an Endogenous retrovirus found in different places in primate genomes disproved common descent (it doesn't, it just means the infection happened after the two species split. We know retroviral insertion is random because we have observed it that way).
Do I need to go on?
But scientists have never documented an incident where information was added to the genome of animal and causing it to become another animal via natural selection and mutation.
Define information and I will get back to you.
"'It also suggests that the 'molecular clock' may sometimes, and sporadically, tick blindingly fast.'"
This is rare and not common at all.
Like most creationists, you suffer from a bad case of not-knowing-what-uniformitarianism-is syndrome, or thinking that you know when you really don't. I suggest you watch this video before you comment further. References are in the description.
Finally, let's discuss your accusation of circular reasoning. You have no business trying to accuse me of that, not when you do it yourself. You have to assume the bible is literally true to find the "evidence" that it is. In other words, creationism is self referencing (also known as circular logic). It should be the other way around: The evidence should persuade you to believe the bible.