Of course you would! Your interpretation of the data is based on Darwinian assumptions.
Reptile to Mammal Transition: The Reptile-Mammal transition is also claimed to be a complete fossil transition--so complete and convincing that Stephen J. Gould even termed it the "Crown Jewel" of the fossil record. The thinking goes that a major group of reptiles called the Synapsids had a subgroup called the Therapsids which turned into what are called the "mammal-like" reptiles, the Cynodonts, which eventually became true mammals. It is claimed that changing skull bones and locomotio-related morphology show the transition from a reptilian to a mammalian form. Let's take a look at this transition to see just how convincing it really is. Fortunately, some experts have had a few things to say about this transition. The proposed reptile --> mammal transition: Anapsidia (most primitive reptiles) --> Synapsida (Pelycosaurs (Sphenacodonts)) --> Synapsids (Therapsids) --> Synapsids (Therapsids (Cynodontia)) --> early Mammalia --> modern major Mammal groups:
Anapsidia (the most primitive reptiles) --> Synapsidia:
“The ancestors of mammals [synapsids as a group] are identified from the same horizon and locality as the earliest conventional reptile, Hylonomus”.34
Synapsida (Pelycosaurs (Sphenacodonts)) --> Synapsids (Therapsids):
“The transition between pelycosaurs and therapsids has not been documented.”34
Synapsids (Therapsids) --> Synapsids (Therapsids (Cynodontia)):
"Two much more advanced groups of carnivorous therapsids, the therocephalians and cynodonts, appear in the Upper Permian of Russia and southern Africa. We have not established the specific origin and interrelationships of these groups. They may have evolved separately from primitive carnivorous therapsids." 34
Synapsids (Therapsids (Cynodontia)) --> Mammalia
“The transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one or, at most, two lineages, is still an enigma.”35
“[we] cannot yet recognize the specific [cynodont] lineage that led to mammals.”34
(34)Carroll, Robert L. 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. W. H. Freeman. New York, Pg. 361, 397, 377, 398, 395.
"(1) key expected fossil transitions be found, but also (2) the amount of biological change must be mathematically possible given the size, reproduction rate, and mutation rate of the evolving population, the supposed time allowed for the change in the fossil record, and the rules of population genetics, (many of these characteristics may be dependent upon one another, but the point is that in the end, the numbers must add up), and also (3) all stages of intermediate macro- and micro- morphology of the transitional organisms must be conceivably functional and advantageous to survival. "
The above is what they base their "science" on. Pretty funny. Thanks for the laugh.
Do you have anyone in creationism that can separate between science and assertion, evidence and philosophical Bravo Sierra?