What about crocodiles? If you look at pictures of what people claim are pre-historic, why do they show crocodiles?
How about pelicans? If you look at pictures of Pterodactyls, I would say they are pelicans.
What about ferns? Why no seeds? Where seeds? Why don’t they start producing seeds? What’s wrong with them?
We see pictures of changes in life. We don’t see the changes happen.
Do you remember the adage, “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”? Much of it stems from human embryonic development. At some points in development in the womb, you can see a salamander with a tail, a fish with gills, maybe a bacterial blob. And just because you can picture each of these stages, the hypothesis was that each stage represents a different creature in its evolution. That theory has been wholly debunked.
But we still have these pictures and say that one creature came from the other. In the sciences I’ve studied, we depend on replication of experiments. Sample size, error rates, all the statistics that matter come into play. Yet how does scientific reasoning apply to these pictures? Somehow we get lost in comparison and contrast; cause and effect; correlation versus real relationships.