Evolutionist argument:
The rabbit has a whole palette of keen tools for survival, but every
function did not have to simultaneously pop into existence. The rabbit
didn't have to develop their ears, keen sense of smell, and hopping legs at
the same instant. Although it is possible that multiple functions were
being improved or mutated at the same time. this evolutionary efficient
multitasking could also lend to a false perception that a system was
complex beyond explanation.

My response:
Think about one problem with this theory. Predators are a part of nature.
Even Darwin claimed that evolution was the survival of the fittest. If an
animal (such as a primitive rabbit) mutated into being without any defenses
(keen smell, long ears, fast legs, blended coloring), could the species
survive long enough to mutate these defenses? The same holds true for every
species. Each species has unique traits that are specialized for defense,
food gathering and survival. It may be arguable that a few species could
have been isolated enough to survive, but when you consider the whole
picture, it doesn't fit.

Then you have the issue of mating. Different species cannot cross mate. In
order for a species to survive, it would have to have a male and female.
The argument of slow ascent might be plausible if there were compatibilities
between species. Look at the evolutionary charts themselves. They don't
point to a common ancestry. In the cases of closely related species, even
they cannot cross mate. You can artificially inseminate a donkey and a
horse, but the off spring is sterile and incapable of reproduction. They
will not mate willingly and the end result is a dead-ended species.