Well for one thing I don’t see the argument comparing the phenotypic development of a frog to the phenotypic diversity of cats as a bad argument. But it only makes sense from a creationist perspective. Because if the genome controls for phenotype then that means it can contain the diversity in both cases if it is originally created.
I also think what he is trying to do to advance his ideas is very difficult, in terms of writing. As I see it, he has three audiences to appeal to with new ideas, well, now 4: One of his audiences is mainstream biologists and he’s just needs more lab data to back him up; any argument about new theory just isn’t going to be accepted without it. Yes, it is frustrating that AIG doesn’t make lab work a priority. Another audience is mostly lay creationists, the vast majority who have no idea what the state of mainstream science is and need complicated concepts explained in a digestible way- not easy. A third audience is creation scientists. A fourth audience he now has he may not have considered is historians.
Do I think some of his arguments or writing could use improvement? Sure. Are ad hominems helpful? No.