This is my first post and hopefully it is not redundant; I didn't see other threads explicitly dealing with this issue but I may well have missed such a thread. Anyway, my point is this: Creationists are inconsistent in their use of morphology to assess and infer relatedness.
Evolutionary biologists look at the morphology of organisms to infer relatedness. This is a robust method that is pre-ToE and that produces results that are almost always consistent with more recent molecular evidence of relatedness. Creationists are inconsistent in their application of this method because, while they accept it as a valid way of inferring relatedness among "kinds", they arbitrarily decide that it is invalid for assessing relatedness more broadly. If morphology can be used to reliably infer relatedness in the Cat "kind" for example, why can the same method not be used to infer that cats are more closely related to canids than artiodactyls?
I have posed this question to creationists in several other venues and have received no substantive answer. The bar seems to be set a little higher here so I'm hoping to get a satisfactory response.
™ Version 4.2
