Nonsense. There is practically no DNA more than 50,000 years old. Therefore micro-biology cannot prove descent either without making totally unwarranted assumptions about genetic change which have absolutely no scientific evidence to back them up.
Paleontologists do the work of establishing morphologies.
Paleontologists cannot do that legitimately as already explained because they do not have access to 99% of the evidence of what makes a species unique. Further, while the paleontologists always like to give pretty pictures of their supposed creatures they find, these creatures are just a product of someone's imagination. Most of the features shown have absolutely no evidence for them in the fossils found. Indeed most of these creatures are totally imagined from just a couple of bones. A full skeleton is an extremely rare find.
And here I thought you were awake the last time we discussed this. MORPHOLOGICAL continuity to establish the tree is coorelated with major branch divisions of existing species, so that the HOMOLOGICAL relationships between their various fundamental, shared genomic enterprises, principally of the lesser ribosome, so far, can, in fact, be stacked against each other's HOMOLOGIES by mutational distance against the MORPHOLOGICAL story the bones tell. Your claim, if it held water, would be similar to claiming that you can't believe what an oscilloscope tells you because you aren't reading it in real time. You have been clinging to this primitivistic rejection of inductive reasoning for too long for me to take your obtuseness about this, at this point, as anything more than a propagandist ploy. Can't you come up with a genuine defense of your position?--I'm sort of tired of you making assertions like this, unshared by modern science, and then later claiming you've "proved" or "demonstrated" them, and that your doubts are the common coin of modern scientists. Hard as it may be for you to believe "assert" and "prove" are not the same thing, any more than finding the occasional science crank to agree with you is a mandate from science. Science, mr. Science reporter, acknowledged this business of examining mutational distance w/respect to family tree of presently existing species back in 2000, when we made fundamental alterations in the official Tree of Life, amid much ballyhoo. If there was any more of a problem of induction with this mechanism than there is with reading oscilloscopes, I'd have heard about it long before now.