Because if we save that botle of milk long enough, it won't be worth drinking.

What makes you think the car was a "bad example"?

Compare the computer code in an iPhone 1 with an iPhone 2 with an iPhone 3 with an iPhone 4. What if you compared the code in in iPhone with the code in an iPad? You would most certainly see a high commonality of code. Would you argue that the progression of that code is the result of natural selection acting on random mutation? Or would you recognize that the designers of the iPhone/iPad chose to take existing code and use it in another design.

Homology of body plans and DNA are explained equally by common ancestor and common designer, the homology itself cannot tell you which one is correct. You need a mechanism that can be tested. We can observe scientists in a lab designing new species of organisms, mainly plants and single-celled organisms right now, but attempts to replicate natural selection acting on random mutation have failed to demonstrate anything more than variation within a species, the Lenski E. coli long-term evolution experiment being the most famous example.

I did not see it mentioned in the video, correct me if I am wrong, but mice and humans share a 60-85% DNA commonality. (Depends on your definition and who you cite.) http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/OF-MICE-AND-MEN-Striking-similarities-at-the-2748350.php

Explain the Cambrian Explosion via Darwinian mechanisms. Darwin himself recognized it was a legitimate and serious objection to his theory since his mechanism could only progress gradually and the Cambrian Explosion happened far too quickly. Virtually all the major body plans show up at once with no transitional forms. His explanation was that the fossil record was incomplete, 150 years later and the problem has only gotten worse. To get an idea of what happened in the Cambrian explosion, imagine yourself on one goal line of a Football field. That line represents the first fossil, a microscopic, single-celled organism. Now start marching down the field. You pass the twenty-yard line, the forty-yard line, midfield, and continue steadily toward the other goal line. You come to the sixteen-yard line on the far end of the field, and now you see the appearance of some sponges and maybe some jellyfish and worms. Then -boom!- in the space of a single stride, 8 inches actually, at least twenty and as many as thirty-five of the world's forty phyla suddenly appear fully formed, without any of the ancestors required by Darwinism.

My Atheist friend simply admits that he doesn't have an definite explanation, but clings to the punctuated equilibrium theory, even though that theory is fraught with problems.

-

We do, but so many atheists are too busy hand waving to pay attention. The typical evolution story of the eye STARTS with a light sensitive spot. The problem with that is we now know that light sensitivity in a living organism is incredibly complex and without a signaling function that light sensing cell is of no benefit. Michiel Behe goes over these problems in his two major books, "Darwin's Black Box" and "The Edge of Evolution". Have you read them along with the responses and counter responses? Granted I am a bit of a boring person to do all that reading, but surely you've at least read Darwins Black Box, assuming you have an open mind, so you at least properly understand the arguments and objections being raised. How do you deal with the objections? Other systems that currently have no plausible Darwinian explanation, there are of course many others: Blood Clotting Cilium Bacterial Flagalum Current theory is that birds evolved from reptilian dinosaurs. How did the reptilian lung evolve into an avian lung when the transitional forms would have either been non-functional or inferior to the reptilian lung?

The most common "answer" I see is to simply misstate the question by claiming that some parts could have other uses That's not what is being debated, what is being asked is how THIS PARTICULAR system came to exist given that it is non-functional unless ALL parts are present. What Darwinists also never address is where the assembly instructions came from to assemble that biological machine, as the production process is itself unique and irreducibly complex.

Agree with the 4.5 billion, but actually, no it is not enough time. Had you actually done the math you would have realized that. This fact is well known among mathematicians. Consider one of the simplest living organisms now known, the single-DNA strand E.Coli bacteria, has about 5,000 genes. Alter the position, leave out or change the chemical combinations up of just a few lines of code and the organism ceases to exist, while only one or two nucleotide changes can severely cripple it. There are 4.80 x 10^50 possible DNA combinations in those 5,000 genes. That means the odds of that DNA strand forming are: 1 in 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

How big is this number? There's about 1.37 x 10^25 drops of water in all the oceans on Earth. That's 10 to the 25th power, not 50TH power. You'd need to count every drop of water on 7 trillion trillion Earths to get the same number! From one side to the other, the UNIVERSE has a diameter of 3 x 10^29 millimeters. The odds of accidentally forming that first single DNA strand is a billion trillion times larger. Using accepted mathematical and statistical theory, it's statistically impossible that this happened in the simplest single cell organism as there is neither enough time or enough matter to go through all the possibilities.

Actually, breeding of dogs and other animals demonstrates exactly that. (Though to use the word "prove" is a little strong, it is strong evidence against Darwanisim.) Intelligent breeders continually hit hard genetic limits. Breeders can only breed dogs so large and so small along with other hard limits. I've never seen or heard about a 1000lb dog the size of a horse. (Morbid obesity doesn't count.) Despite thousands of years of intelligent breeding, dogs are still dogs and cows are still cows. If intelligent breeders cannot exceed these limits over hundreds/thousands of years, please explain why unintelligent processes could?

Well I've given you a few of them. Refuting some of those could win you a Nobel Prize so I enthusiastically await your response. Just because some people raise stupid objections doesn't mean there aren't serious ones.