Even if there was a Designer, does it matter?

For instance, hair follicles and pelvises....even in species that don't have hair or legs, like whales. Um, how does that show "common design", again?

No, you misunderstand. It's actually a matter of fact that fetal whales develop hair and pelvises. The hair they lose, the pelvises they keep, even though those bones have no purpose in a whale since it has no legs.It's a mystery why a "common designer" would insist on that level of useless commonality; the existence of fetal whale hair and pelvises is an utter mystery to the creationist. But the evolutionary notion that whales, being mammals, inherited a plan of fetal development that includes hair and pelvises explains quite simply and robustly these common features among cetaceans and land mammals.The whale's pelvis is just one more proof of evolution. You, on the other hand, are apparently trying as hard as you can to pretend that it doesn't even exist.

No, they're not. Otherwise fish would have pelvises too. The whale's pelvis (unlike yours) isn't attached to its spine, rather it "floats", so it can't serve as a leverage or attachment point for any significant musculature. Any muscle that tried to adduct against the whale's pelvis would simply yank it out of position. Yes, that will certainly make it easier for you to tell lies and then completely retreat from the point.