OK, but I notice that you avoided analyzing ballistic data without any
theory in mind.
Given the fact observational fact that animals which look extremely similar
are more likely to be able to successfully mate. When one examines the DNA
of such creatures, one finds that the dna sequences are equally similar.
This observation relates both to nuclear families( however they are defined
in a species). The more closely related animals are, the more closely
related is their DNA AND their morphology. There are occasional exceptions
to this, but the overwhelming probability is that the more similar two
animals are more likely it is that they are closely related. When we go to
the fossil record, the assumption is that the fossil animals are the
remains of formerly living creatures, that is, they are not petrifactions
or failed creations ala Beringer. Thus, since we do have an observational
rule that animals that look more closely are more closely related, it is
reasonable to expect that the same rule extended into the past. One point
of support for this idea is that we often find numerous examples of a given
fossil form. If the former animals didn't reproduce animals similar to
themselves, we would not expect to find certain fossil forms to be static.
Thus as we look at the paleontological record, we can extrapolate the
present observation that animals that look alike are more closely related
than animals which don't look alike. And when we do apply this, it leads
directly to the concept that animal life has changed and that it is highly
probable animals which are more similar are more closely related than
animals which don't. CAll it what you want, but this is evolution.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution