Two points. First, where is the evidence legs were created. Simple answer - there isn't any.
Second point. The presence of vesigal legs in snakes is not a degradation of information. A true degradation would be the lack of any leg like structures or associated anatomy. Snakes still have these components, but they are simply not developed into full legs. There was no real loss of information as demonstrated by the mere presence of vesigal structures. Genetically, the structures simply are regulated to stop growing at an earlier point. It is an illusion information is degraded or lost.
When you say that 'you have to look at the whole genetic heirarchial history', then you are imposing your *beliefs* on a set of evidence.
And about genetic sciences. That's rock solid stuff. There is no speculation. Only wishful thinking on the part of creationist types that cannot refute the clearly demonstrated genetic relationships between living things. Yopu are sticking your head in the sand and essentially saying that evidence, that is quantifiable facts, require belief. At this point, you are basically saying that you don't care what reality says, you chose NOT to beileve it. At that point, your credibility has diminished faster than a defense witness in the Dover ID case.Multiple species form a 'kind'. Dogs, coyotes and wolves are separate species but the same 'kind'. They can all interbreed. This is not counter to prevailing creationist.
So speciation is not enough to demonstrate evolution? Sounds like a moving bar to me. Once it has been shown that speciation has occurred in the lab, that does not become good enough. So evolution at the genus level is the next creationist bar? Cats and dogs are both mammals so a new genus between the two would still be a 'kind.'
The whole idea of 'kind' is so loosely based as to be laughable. You can't specifically define it but you use the term as it suits you. Even in biology, the terms species and genus are human labels based on human definitions. Nature doesn't care what we call things.
The evidence that legs were created is the lack of evidence that legs evolved. We simply see creatures w/ legs appearing suddenly in the fossil record. The evidence for leg evolution is missing.
If you cannot see degradation in the loss of leg function, then it is no surprise that you merely require a complete absence before you accept degradation. Stopping early is a loss of the information necessary to complete the formation.
However, a complete absence (as you require) would lead you to the conclusion that they never existed. In short, you merely require a definition that you would never accept were it true.
Actually, wishful thinking is what created the evolutionary 'genetic relationships' between living things. This relationship is also explained by a common designer.
It is the evolutionists who are sticking their heads in the sand and clinging desparately to a failed theory that was crafted long before the true complexity of biology was ever imagined. Everything is interpreted from the basic assumption that evolution is true, and the evolutionary reality proceeds from there. This does not make it an actual reality except in the minds of true evo believers.
I explained why speciation was not evidence in support of evolution. Why don't you address those arguments instead of whining about a 'moving bar'. Perhaps you never understood where the bar was in the first place?
Efforts to re-define the Linnaean structure according to the Biblical kind framework is proceeding in the context of baraminology.
I think it is you who does not understand evolution and that ridicule is your only defense. Congrats.