Well quite simply if gradualistic evolution is true, what about the cambrian explosion which defies explanation in gradualistic terms.
The simple answer to this is that the term "explosion" is misleading. The diversification of organisms in this period is estimated to have occurred over a range of about 30 million years. What's more, in order to be available to us as fossils, certain conditions must be met in the biochemical makeup of the organism, and the conditions in which it died; the sparseness of the pre-Cambrian fossil record is believed to reflect some difficulties in meeting those conditions. You can read about it here.
However, if you look at RAZD's definition of evolutionary theory, he talked about it being a synthesis of different theories. Lack of gradualism is often only apparent rather than factual, and this topic has already been addressed in theories by well-known evolutionary scientists, Gould and Eldredge for example.
Your list at the end of this post is OT here as we are discussing the definition of evolution, the theory of evolution, and evolutionary biology. However, I have seen each one of these things addressed in other topics on the forum if you'd care to have a look.
Ah, the noble practice of quote mining. I have yet to meet a creationist who checks out the correct context of a quote from an evolutionary scientist before pasting it.
BTW the very act of quoting in this way, whether the quote is accurate or not, is a logical fallacy called the argument from authority. In other words, "this is so because (x) says so." It's understandable why creationists use this fallacy though, as it is the way fundamentalists seem to define their relationship with God and reality.
For more information on quote mining and the ways that scientists' words are used and abused, you can read here.