Your post is very long, and actually I believe it could have been summed up in about three sentences. For the sake of conciseness, I will make just a couple of counterpoints.
First, you fail to support even a single sentence in your entire post with a reference to the primary literature. For that reason alone, debating you is basically a waste of time. How can I argue with "Nuh-uh, I'm right and you're wrong!"?
What I wrote in my last post was not MY opinion, it was the opinion of the greater scientific community. I directly quoted many peer-reviewed scientific journals. If you don't believe what I wrote, read the article, then e-mail the corresponding authors of the articles. They'll tell you what they meant, then they'll provide the data to back up what they wrote. Go ahead, send them an e-mail right now. Then send the journal editors an e-mail and ask them for the names of the reviewers. Contact them and ask them why they accepted the paper for publication. Finally, get in touch with specialists in that scientific field and ask why they have not written an article refuting what was originally concluded. These are all things you could do tonight. I've listed my references.
Second, you have changed your tune with respect to how mutations occur. Fantastic. Yes I agree, there are many ways that mutations occur. We're moving forward.
The rest of your post really is not worth responding to. You perseverate on this idea of "creative incorporation of new DNA code". Find me a reference that shows how the theory of evolution requires the CREATIVE incorporation of new DNA code.