The most interesting feature of most creationist posts is the way in which they mis-represent evolution.
One cannot mis-represent something that has not been proven.
In this case 'what it was trying to change into' suggests the Lamarkian idea that a species or a lineage changes because it wants to change or because it is trying to become better in some way.
If, as you claim, you really have studied evolution, then you must know that this is contrary to Darwin's theory and to our current understanding.
Can you explain why you misrepresent evolution in this way - or is it that it is only by setting up a straw man caricature of evolution that you can convince your disciples that evolution is obviously false?
You answer this the way you do because you really don't know, do you?
Because all I see here is a type of political spin, where you dodge the question with reason instead of actually answering what was actually asked. Your cover for evolution is good. But truth does not need such covers.