Man, you deserve a trophy for that one! Good response!
How about responding to my words? As an example, the transition from fish to amphibians spanned tens of millions of years, so why would the speaker suggest that changes happened "at the same time"?
The transition literally spans some 50 million years from one body type to another.
The origin of tetrapods
I suggest that you ask him. He is willing to respond to genuine enquiries. Trolls, he ignores.
I suggest that you contact Dr Walt Brown also. He literally wrote the book. James Tour is frequently invited to speak, but he does not write books.
Here we go:
“What random process could possibly explain the simultaneous evolution of the eye’s optical system, the nervous conductors of the optical signals from the eye to the brain, and the optical nerve centre in the brain itself where the incoming light impulses are converted to an image the conscious mind can Comprehend?” Wernher von Braun, foreword to From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo by Harold Hill
“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships
(the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.” Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species . Of course, the writer could not even contemplate the idea that God created all things
“The eyes of early trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity by later
arthropods. … I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.” [Stephen Jay Gould, “The Ediacaran Experiment”
It's only puzzling if you believe in evolution.
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 175. It is indeed an absurd proposition.
“Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation.” Austin H. Clark, “Animal Evolution,” Quarterly Review of Biology
“Every series of breeding experiments that has ever taken place has established a finite limit to breeding possibilities.” Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong
“All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.”
William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution
I tried and failed to distil these arguments rather than quote them verbatim. Since you have such a fixed mindset, I have no doubt that you will reject the statements from noted evolutionists, including Darwin himself.
It's been said that an infinite number of monkeys with keyboards will eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare. The problem is that in 50-70 years, the chimpanzees will be dead. And looking at the internet, the more people on keyboards, the more incoherent the internet becomes.
