I find arguments for a certain evolutionary trait kind of funny. From what I've read, the survival of a genetic or physical trait doesn't necessarily mean that it provides some kind of benefit (look at "stupid" people, after all, as many people I know would argue), but rather, arguing about evolutionary traits really should be about how a certain trait didn't lead to a species or a sub-species to get killed, which could be a neutral trait. . .then after that, I would say, look at if it's a neutral or beneficial development.
After all, from what I'm familiar with as evolution, it's generally pretty random and the examples of life that have bad traits pretty much means they die. On the other, the presence of a certain trait doesn't necessarily mean that that trait has led to their survival or necessarily has something beneficial to it.
I guess it's one step away from the God argument, in that, in our present day, we have no physical way to prove or disprove the existence of God.
I guess maybe in all that ramble, there's a reason why "intelligent creation" and "evolution" proponents argue so much.
That's just my opinion.
I mean, look at men's nipples. Largely useless, except for adding pieces of metal to :-)
Your dinosaurs are very cute, BTW.
I love the dinosaurs!