Boogieman: "Now that is a bit dishonest, since the theory posits that all changes in morphology are a result of evolution"
Nothing dishonest in Mr Ramsbotham's post since far, far from all mutations have anything to do with morphology.
Of course over time evolution results in morphological changes, but the rate of such changes is in no way fixed or constant.
Boogieman: "After all, evolutionists use changes in morphology in the fossil record to estimate the times of divergence of species absent any other evidence, which shouldn’t be possible unless they are assuming that evolution necessitates some fairly steady rate of morphological change."
Maybe... absent any other evidence, but when is that ever the case?
Every fossil found in situ is surrounded by "other evidence" which properly processed can provide a huge database of reference points.
So we'd have to assume a fossil removed by amateurs and brought to some, say, museum without provenance -- now what can we say about it?
Answer: not so much, but maybe it compares to other fossils well known and so some timeline might be estimated.
My point is: that's not good science and should be avoided whenever possible.
Boogieman: "Of course that contradicts the idea that we see species from millions, or hundreds of millions of years ago in the fossil record that are to this day identical."
So far as I know, there's no such thing -- similar to: sure, identical: not really.
Even where what's called "convergent evolution" served to keep outer morphology remarkably similar, analysis of extant related species DNA would show, in effect, millions of years worth of "genetic drift".
Boogieman: "Never mind that in all that time, no creature could remain so perfectly adapted, since the environment itself would be subject to change."
"Living fossils" come to mind, the Coelacanth living at great depths in the ocean perhaps less subject to environmental changes or radiation induced DNA mutations, might qualify as much more slowly evolving than "normal".
Good points all. It’s always been my understanding, too, that evolution doesn’t have to proceed in any particular direction, or to any particular end. That’s where selective pressures come in ... selective pressures aren’t really a part of evolution, but they guide it to the point where we can perceive changes between a “species” at one point in time and another point in time.