"Scientists" put them in the same genus. And your point is?
Sheesh, creationists use the same system of classification as scientists and they're criticized for it. There's nothing a creationist can do that's ever right for an evo.
Anapsida to Synapsida
The reptile-to-mammal story begins with what are termed “primitive” amniotes, reptiles belonging to the “stem” subclass Anapsida. (Carroll, 199-200.) The distinguishing feature of this group is the absence of openings behind the eye socket in the cheek region. Though the origin of these first reptiles is technically not a part of the reptile-to-mammal transition,it is noteworthy that their alleged descent from amphibians is not documented in the fossil record.
Pelycosauria to Therapsida
Regarding the origin of Therapsida, an order in the subclass Synapsida, conventional wisdom among evolutionists is that they arose from the earlier synapsid order, Pelycosauria. More specifically, it is believed they arose from within the pelycosaurid family, Sphenacodontidae.
The lack of fossil evidence for this alleged transition cannot be excused by trivializing the differences between pelycosaurs and therapsids. According to Carroll, “The therapsids are clearly advanced over the pelycosaurs when they appear in the Upper Permian, particularly in the specializations of the postcranial skeleton” [Emphasis added]. (Carroll, 369.) The two orders have some similarities in cranial structure, but there are also many differences (all the more if one limits the comparison to Haptodus; see, Carroll, 366, 370). And as Romer and Price acknowledge, much of the resemblance in cranial structure might be discounted as due the result of convergent evolution rather than common descent (though they doubt this can account for all of it). (Romer and Price, 193-194.)
Origin of Cynodontia
The fact of the matter is that all six suborders of Therapsida appear virtually simultaneously in the fossil record (in the Upper Permian), already bearing the distinctive features of at least ten infraorders, 42 families, and scores of genera. (Carroll, 362, 397, 623-24.) Thus, there is no known earlier therapsid stock from which cynodonts could have arisen. They are among the earliest therapsids and, according to T. S. Kemp, when they appear they are already “unmistakably at the cynodont level of evolution.”
Cynodontia to Mammalia
Evolutionists acknowledge that they “cannot yet recognize the specific [cynodont] lineage that led to mammals.” (Carroll, 398.) That is why Roger Lewin, summarizing a scientific conference on the matter for the journal Science (1981), wrote: “The transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one or, at most, two lineages, is still an enigma.” (Lewin, 1492.)
The fossil record does not document the origin of any living orders of mammals: monotremes (Subclass Prototheria; Order Monotremata), marsupials (Subclass Theria; Infraclass Metatheria; Order Marsupialia), or orders of the placentals (Subclass Theria; Infraclass Eutheria; 20 or so orders). Regarding monotremes, Carroll says, “The skull of the platypus and echidnas are highly specialized in a manner divergent from those of all other groups of mammals, fossil or living.” (Carroll, 420.) The phylogeny at Carroll, 415 shows the Order Monotremata ending in question marks in the Lower Cretaceous. (The Lower Cretaceous find is a lower jaw that is described only as a possible monotreme. [Carroll, 421.] The next fossil evidence, some molar teeth and a partial lower jaw, is dated to about 100 million years later! [Carroll, 414, 421, 627.]) It is no wonder Carroll says, “The fossil record of monotremes provides little help in establishing their specific affinities.” (Carroll, 421.)
On and on it goes- The claim that 'the fossil record shows a very clear, 'predicted' line of macroevolutionary events' is just plain false [LINK]
You asked for “a clearly different and unique species that is not identifiable as the original parent organism”. Wolves to chihuahuas seemed to fit the bill. I’m not sure how that point could be lost to you?
If it doesn’t fit the bill, I’d be curious why - considering that they are far more divergent morphologically than apes and humans.
“Sheesh, creationists use the same system of classification as scientists and they’re criticized for it. There’s nothing a creationist can do that’s ever right for an evo.”
I’m rather confused here. I didn’t criticize for using the same classification system - I didn’t bring up traditional taxonomy at all - “kind” is not a taxonomic term.
Creationists usually use “kind” to mean a group with a common ancestor. It’s a word from Genesis.
I was simply pointing out that despite the great degree of difference between wolves and chihuahuas, Creationists typically believe they are related (i.e, are in the same “kind”). You seemed to equate genus with kind, but they don’t really equate at all (at least not from what I’ve seen).
I classify chihuahuas as barking rats, barking rats on amphetamines and with crazy eyes, and that start barking soon as the sun comes up and if I had a wolf I’d send it next door for s small snack, which is what chihuahuas were originally used for.
That would be a morphological change wouldn’t it?