This is not a terribly complicated point. If I didn't address it directly the first time you hinted at it, I guess it's because I was looking for greater subtleties. I'm well aware, as are most creationists, that our ancestors don't inherit from us. (I find it incredible that you think it necessary to expound upon that point.) Indeed, as I think I've demonstrated, I have a fair understanding of evolution, at least in its broad outlines. And although a creationist, I'm not insane or incapable of reason. I do not consider evolutionists to be a gang of fraudulent con artists, and I'm very distressed at the tactics of many other creationists in these threads. I regard evolution as a provisional hypothesis. I don't even get upset when it's taught exclusively in the schools. I think you've taken an unnnecessarily hostile approach in my case, but that's okay. You don't know me.
Didn't mean to seem that way. I was sincerely trying to guide you to the point, which is that the common descent hypothesis lets you reason unattested properties of animals for which you know something about ancestors and descendants. I don't feel any hostility to you at all. On the contrary, your attitude on these threads has proven exemplary.
Perhaps, from all the questions, you thought I had you in what I've come to call "tallhappy mode." An unfortunate precedent was set by the way that person used the quiz show as a bludgeon.
Don't take it personally, No-Kin. If you only knew what ol' Vade's had to contend with in these threads, you'd better understand that he approaches each new creationist in an already-frustrated mood. And in virtually every case, it's justified.