Why don't you just lay 'em out for me?
Nope, I’m not going to spoon-feed you. If you feel it is not worth your time and expense to look deep enough to see if Ayala and Valentine do in fact delineate other ways of determining fossil arrangement than morphology, then so be it. It will stand as an admission that your statements about how fossils are arranged are sustained though intentional ignorance on your part.
Of course not. I understood evolution just fine.
Your lack of knowledge about how fossils are arranged is first-hand evidence that you do not understand evolution at more than a typically superficial creationist level.
I didn't say they were only based on morphological similarity. I said you didn't have much else to go by when it comes to petrified bones.
That is what you said, but is it true? Requoting from Ayala and Valentine:
For most lineages we have to employ more indirect methods of phylogenetic reconstruction.
That is in direct contradiction to your claim.
[Sure, you can assign something a relative age and a relationship to something else, but I guarantee you morphological similarity plays a huge part in that assignment. It's all based on where it's supposed to fit in the "chain," so to speak.
Sure it plays a huge role. The expectation is that if enough fossils can be found in a lineage, that they will show a gradual changing morphology. That is exactly what is expected. If the age of the fossil is right, but the morphology is crucially wrong for it to fit in a sequence, then it will end up in another line of descent.
