Google “gene duplication”. This is an important process in evolution. You might also google “autopolyploidy” and “allopolyploidy”, although these appear to be important only in plant evolution. As is usual with creationists, you are simply exposing your abysmal ignorance of science in general, and evolutionary theory in particular.

But quite clearly, you have.

Right. He’ll just torture them for ever if they don’t. Sick.

That is utterly disgusting. You choose to worship a being who (you believe) will torture people for ever. That being, if it existed, would be evil far beyond anything human beings are capable of.

No, they don't. One can accept a theory or assumption provisionally, because it is currently the best supported by evidence and argument, but be ready to abandon it if new evidence comes to light. That is the scientific attitude (and one that theistic scientists, if they are any good, follow in their scientific work); but it is emphatically not the attitude most theists take toward their religious beliefs. Rather, many of them boast about how certain they are, and how they will never change these beliefs whatever happens. That's faith.

See my earlier comment, on Archaeopteryx, and on recent discoveries of flightless feathered dinosaurs.

Neither of these has anything to do with the theory of evolution in the usual sense, which is about how life diversifies and changes once in existence. There is, however, fascinating work on abiogenesis going on – google "Shostak" for example. My hunch is that living cells will indeed be created in the laboratory within the next few decades. However, I know very well that creationists will then shift the goalposts – indeed, I predict that they will try to argue that this is evidence for creationism (because the lab procedure required intelligence), despite having insisted up to that point that the fact scientists have not created living cells is evidence for creationism.