It's a DNA argument....not a kind argument.
You've gotta show some changed DNA & you've got to measure the amount of time it took to accomplish that change.
Where is that in the literature?
If it were that simple, don't you think Behe or one of the paid minions at the Discovery Institute would have published it?
Actually, the ERV DNA sequences in the human genome are a good measure of how fast DNA mutates, when not "repaired" by evolution (since these strings don't participate in the genome, random changes accumulate).
For an anecdotal demonstration of genome change, consider the fact that there is a bacteria out there in nature that digests nylon. This is only possible because it contains an enzyme that specifically allows the digestion of the nylon. The significance of that is that nylon didn't exist until a few decades ago, and the enzyme did not exist until after then. Enzymes are very complex, yet this one evolved in only those few years.
Multiply that ability to evolve complex genes by billions of times, and evolution becomes very easy (for most people) to grasp.