I'm not sure what point this comment is following from... But here's the thing. I think in Evo-Land it's safe to assume that if an aquatic creature is going to evolve onto land, then it will need to go through some kind of amphibian transition. But there are no rules in Evo-Land that say this transition had to occur at some point in the Devonian rock layers.
It would help to conceptualize this if you imagine that we have no knowledge of the fossil record. Pretend no fossils have been found. Now, what does evolution theory tell you about where we should find different types of fossils? It really doesn't tell you much of anything. What if we go digging in our hypothetical fossil record and find reptiles and mammals mixed up in the Devonian rock layers? If I put my Evo-Goggles on, I can simply conclude that there was a rapid land adaptation at this point. I will then construct Evo-Theory around what I have found in the fossil record. Do you see how Evo-Theory can accommodate many different fossil patterns? (Sure, each pattern would have its own strong and weak points, but evolutionists are adept at playing up the strong points, and relegating the weaker points as mere enigmas to be solved at a later date.)
This is what evolutionists have done with the actual fossil record.
I understand now what you are saying.
But there is a common example of "bunnies in the Cambrian" that evolutionists use to demonstrate that evolution is falsifiable.
This claims that if vertebrates are found to exist inbedded in the Cambrian layer that that would blow everything out of the water.
You could apply your argument here as well and say that evo would then simple expand the range of vertebrates.
But science is constantly rethinking it's ideas. In fact, creationists love to pounce on them when they do (teach the controversy)
But lets look at the creationists creed:
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
This is from answers in Genesis and something like this appears on most every other creationists website.
So while science, I will argue, rationally examines evidence and is forced to make changes in their ideas everytime contradicting data is introduced, creationism boasts that anything contradictory must be interpreted somehow to fit their ideas.
I guess this point can be argued which side does this and which side doesn't, but consider that while science is supposed to change it's conclusions based on new data, creationism cannot and will not by creed, change any ideas based on new data