'Loss of function' means decline. A system that was previously functional has been lost. Defining evolution as 'change' merely made it consistent with a created biology that is in decline. It doesn't make 'goo to you' evolution true. I am constantly amazed at the lack of thinking ability of evos.
Losing existing function is not 'God making them that way'. Just the opposite. It is a 'loss of information' from a previously created state. Notice that snakes aren't said to be *growing* legs; no, they are *losing* them. Same w/ blind cave fish and other such 'examples' of evolution.
'Loss of function' examples simply do not support evolution except in the eyes of its most ardent supporters who turn evidence of decline into 'proof' of evolution.
Why do you think you have to do that? Because any real evidence to support evolution is missing? Hmmm?
According to creationist information, there is no variation between 'kinds', but there can be within 'kinds'. So you are not saying that a change from a species with legs to one without is not a change of kind? Even your own logic is counter to prevailing creationist rationale. And it does not include the evolution of the legs first, then the subsequent loss. You have to look at the whole genetic heirarchial history and not just one form to the next.