Great job with the (long) reply. Interestingly, all of the creationist claims that you adroitly dismantle are so old that they are themselves fossils! They've been debunked (most of them, anyway) so many times that any creationist that keeps repeating them is so sorely out of touch with the current state of the conversation that it probably would do little good to respond. It's the same way with the supposed evidence or rationale that the WT offers to support creationism.
One of the pieces missing from the conversation is the genetic evidence in support of natural selection and common descent. The ability to reconstruct whole genomes, including the reconstruction of ancient dna has been a gamechanger and for anyone with even a small amount of critical thinking skills is the final nail in creationism's coffin. The argument about a lack of transitional fossils is, as you point out, completely baseless but is rendered even more specious by the genetic transitions within species' genomes. Thus, it is possible to reconstruct the entire evolutionary history of, for example, cetaceans, when the abundant fossil record is matched with dna evidence that points, very clearly, to whales' nearest living relative as the hippo, or, to take another example, indicates pretty clearly that neanderthals were a separate species from ourselves. Moreover, the existence of pseudo genes that point to physical features once used by a species but now rendered obsolete is another form of transitional evidence not reliant upon an imperfect fossil record. Using the whale example, this can be seen by the fact that whales have the olofactory genes of a land animal, something completely unnecessary and perplexing if you believe in special creation, but completely understandable if you look at its origins as a land mammal.
