Peter Pike made an interesting argument in the comment box of my previous post (link to post). The argument runs along these lines:
1) Evolutionism claims that common descent can be demonstrated via clading, where clading is broadly defined as grouping individuals in a family tree based on genetic similarity.
2) Clading is great for things like paternity testing.
3) Clading, however, is not great for predicting morphology. The Orangutan is morpholigically the most similar living animal to man, but is not genetically the most similar to man.
4) Virtually all that palentology can provide with respect to most specimens is bone morphology.
The conclusion: palentology does not support (whether or not it rebuts) the contemporary argument of evolutionism. Obviously, a good bit of the weight of the argument hangs on (3). I'm sure the typical response would be to argue that morphology is used because that's all we have. The conclusion, however, still stands. The fact that it is the best you have doesn't really mean it's enough.