The best Carroll can say is that “[i]t is reasonable to believe that the ancestors of mammals can be found among cynodonts such as the chiniquodontids or galesaurids that reduced their body size, probably in relationship to an insectivorous diet” [Emphasis added]. (Carroll, 410.) However, as Carroll points out, the chiniquodontids and galesaurids of the Lower to Middle Triassic reveal only “the initial stages in the origin of most of the features that characterize the mammalian skeleton.” (Carroll, 392.)
This inability to trace the transition from cynodont to mammal is usually blamed on the paucity of fossils. Carroll writes, “Unfortunately, the record of the immediate ancestors of mammals becomes less complete in the Upper Triassic.” (Carroll, 392.) There are, however, fossils of at least two superfamilies, three families, and seven genera of “advanced” cynodonts from the Upper Triassic. (Carroll, 624.) It just so happens that none of them are suitable as transitions to mammals.
On the evidence, that seems sort of doubtful.
All science theories are subject to inevitable recall, as the history of science makes painfully obvious. Science is not about unquestionable truth, it is about provisionally accepted working hypotheses.
No, you very obviously *DON'T* get it, since you're able to completely misunderstand what people have written to you, as:
Black is White and White is Black. Right is wrong and wrong is right...
Not even *CLOSE*.
Work on your reading comprehension and try again.