One of the arguments frequently used by evolutionist apologists is that an argument against evolution cannot be construed as an argument for creation.
That is not true. There are only two ideologies on the board here: evolution and creation. If evidence can be shown that one sort of animal did not or could not evolve into another sort of animal, then that is de facto evidence FOR creation. There is no third alternative. Either things developed via natural processes to be what they are or they did not. If they did not, then they were created.
Creationists do NOT argue variation. No one disputes variation. We see it everyday. What is argued about is whether any sort of 'variation' can lead to bacteria or proto-bacteria becoming bears or ferns or bees in however many years.
Since evolution vs. creation is an A/non-A proposition, evidence against evolution will be considered evidence for creation. This does not mean young earth creation. It simply means some kind of creation by God in the past. Young and old earth/universe creation can argue all sorts of separate matters, but they are agreed that evolution did not happen.