I'd like to make a few more observations regarding Dennis Venema's arguments for human evolution. I don't claim to be an expert, but since he's writing for laymen, I will give a layman's reaction. Let's begin with a general point:
1. Depending on what you read, it might seem like the creationist (i.e. young-earth creationist, old-earth creationist, and/or ID-theorist) has no positive evidence for his position. He's simply poking holes in evolutionary theory. His arguments are essentially reactionary. And he posits ad hoc explanations to reconcile his position with the evidence.
But to my knowledge, there is no direct evidence for the theory of evolution (i.e. macroevolution/universal common descent). An evolutionary biologist or paleontologist attempts to retroengineer the natural history of life on earth based on living organisms.
The ostensible evidence for evolution is based on fossils, comparative anatomy, and (more recently) comparative genetics.
i) Problem with fossil evidence is that:
a) The appeal is circular: it presumes these are in fact transitional forms.
b) The fossils are widely separated in time and/or space. Often millions of years apart (on conventional dating). So any lineage must be postulated.
c) Variations are consistent with creationism.
ii) I find the appeal to comparative anatomy fallacious. An obvious reason why two different species have similar organs or body parts is because they perform the same function. For instance, dogs and cheetahs have similar paws because both hunt by running, and not because cheetahs are more closely related to dogs than cats.
Likewise, bats and whales both use echolocation to navigate, not because they are related to each other, but because they operate in darkness.
iii) Consider this in reverse: why is the body plan of an anteater so different than most other animals? Not because it's more distantly related, but because it needs that body plan to capitalize on a particular food niche.
Both similarities and dissimilarities have the same underlying explanation. If we don't explain why an anteater is dissimilar based on more distant common ancestry, we shouldn't explain why apes and humans are more similar based on more recent common ancestry. In both cases, design is indexed to function: common design=common function. Monkeys and raccoons have the kinds of paws they do to climb, manipulate food, in that type of environment.
2. Regarding Venema's specific evidence:
i) From a creationist standpoint, a gene might become vestigial through disuse. That would be analogous to say, blind cave fish. And that's consistent with creationism.
However, you might have a dormant gene that isn't in use, but is available for future use, should the occasion arise.
For instance, unlike black Africans, my body can't produce a permanent suntan. That's because my ancestors hail from N. Europe (Scotland, Switzerland, England).
However, my body is able to produce a temporary suntan. And that can come in handy. If I couldn't develop a suntan, my skin would burn, and becoming increasingly burned, the more time I spend in direct sunshine without covering (e.g. during the summer months).
Now, even if my N. European ancestors rarely had occasion to take advantage of that potential, it can be very useful to have. Suppose I move from Switzerland to the sunbelt, and spend lots of time out of doors. The ability to form a suntan protects my skin from chronic burning. (Sure, there's still the risk of skin cancer from prolonged exposure.) Albinos are at high risk of sunburn.
ii) Air-based olfaction would be useful for orcas. They prowl the coastline for places where penguins and seals congregate. Being able to sense their presence on land by scent would help to locate prey. Even if they don't presently have a sense of smell, it might be useful for them to have the wherewithal to produce it.
I believe there's a debate about whether whales have a sense of smell:
iii) I've read that Mojave rattlesnake venom is more hemotoxic or neurotoxic depending on the geography. That shows the value of having an undeveloped genetic potential. What may be useless at one time or place may become useful at another.