This is how I see the evolutionists "tree of life"...it's just an imaginary pattern seen in a vast array of God's created species. After all, if you have millions of species, you would expect to be able to find some patterns in them if you look hard enough.
In this analogy, you could create a 2D map of the "constellation of life" with one axis being time and another being differences between the species. Here you take the vast number of species. Then take into account that early earth was becoming progressively more "calm" and friendly to more and more complex life, thus, creating a progression in time of how many species there can be at once. In this model, you would expect to be able to see a constellation that's tree-like, even though there is no real connection between the species.
Bear in mind, earth's environments do evolve. For example, a swamp environment may gradually shift into a plains environment, which then gradually shifts into a desert.
So God may create an elephant-like creature (we'll call creature A) that is built to survive in a swampy environment. But, as the environment changes, the creature goes extinct, and God replaces the creature with a similar creature (creature B) that is better built for survival in a mixed swamp and plains environment.
Later, it shifts to just plains, and creature B goes extinct, and God replaces it with creature C which is built to survive in just a plains environment. When the environment shifts from plains to mixed plains and desert, God replaces creature C with creature D. And finally replaces creature D with creature E when the environment shifts to a pure desert.
What I have just given you is a plausible scenario where you have five distinct (but similar) species, all uniquely created by God. If an evolutionist looked back upon them, they would say "Ah! This is clear example of biological macroevolution, take that creationists!". But all along, it was just a bunch of species God created. In an old-earth creation model, you expect these scenarios to regularly occur in earth's history. So, both evolutionists and old-earth creationists expect to find these types of progressions in the fossil record.
Therefore, when you see something like this in the fossil record, you can't really say it's evidence for macroevolution can you? Because both models predict the find, why would macroevolution get preferential treatment? Could it be that primarily secular biologists have a strong bias against supernatural models of history?
Here's where the models differ, if old-earth creationism (not macroevolution) is true...not every find will be like this. Sometimes the climate shifts quite rapidly, meaning God would simply replace a species with a quite different species in a geological instant and on-mass. This would leave a "gap" in the evolutionary constellation/tree.
Macroevolution is a not-sentient process, with limited power to create change in life, even by the most generous standards. So, it can only progress at the rate natural selection and random mutation can operate. You wouldn't expect to find as many "gaps" and "explosions" of life that you do in an old-earth creationism model.
Much like a constellation, the fossil record shows us an imperfect pattern (tree) of life, that has many holes and inconsistencies if you assume the pattern is real. These are no problem for old-earth creationism but they are a big problem for evolution.
Examples would include:
1. The Cambrian Explosion, and the many other numerous explosions of life that happen out of nowhere in the fossil record.
2. Huge gaps between forms of life that supposedly share a common ancestor. Pterosaurs would be a major example of this. We lack any fossils showing a transition from a non-flying form to the highly specialized flying form we have seen in fossils.
3. Temporal Paradoxes...where a "progression" in forms from one to another is out of order when dated. Birds are an example of this. The most bird-like dinosaurs (that aren't actually true birds) appear after the oldest birds appear in the fossil record.
4. Convergence...when two species that, according to evolutionary models, cannot possibly be closely related share characteristics. In other words, if these species evolved, they must have independently evolved the specific characteristic. From an evolutionary perspective, this would seem absurd, as the probability of random mutations creating the same exact trait multiple times is ridiculously low.
All four of these characteristics are abundant in the fossil record, and are highly anomalous from an evolutionary worldview. However, these exact characteristics are expected in an old-earth creationist worldview. So, maybe open your mind to the idea that the evolutionary tree might better be called the "evolutionary constellation".
Thanks for reading!