[VadeRetro]

Yup, real non sequitur, I directly addressed the issue and showed exactly why you cannot find a single evolutionist writer that will deal with the question of the scientific facts about how a reptile could ever have transformed into a mammal. Facts beat rhetoric every time and your side does not have any facts.

Actually, the placental invention of live birth comes well after reptiles became mammals. See also, egg-laying mammals and marsupials. Dan Day's earlier post to you explains the point nicely, and yet you still don't get it. (You, of all people! Who'd have thought?) It's almost a change of subject to suddenly, after all the dumb-dumbing about placentalism being impossible to evolve, announce that reptile-mammal transition is the topic.

The reptile-mammal transition is particularly visible in the fossil record. The diagnostic feature for mammals isn't placentalism (too late), live birth (still too late), warm-bloodedness (too early), or even the eponymous mammary glands (soft tissue, seldom or never fossilized) but a one-part lower jaw and the signature mammalian earbone configuration. Evolutionist writers and the fossil record itself have plenty to say on the subject, as has been linked for you many times over the past two years. You simply see nothing and remember nothing.

[gore3000]

Actually, the placental invention of live birth comes well after reptiles became mammals.

While it is true that I often like to talk about mammary glands to add a little humor to these threads, this discussion has nothing to do with them. It is about the transformation CLAIMED by evolutionists of the egg laying reproductive system of the reptiles into the live birth reproductive system of mammals.

The reptile-mammal transition is particularly visible in the fossil record.

No it is not. It's not about earbones, it's about internal organs and there is not a single bit of evidence about the development of those internal organs so you have no evidence on the question which I have been asking for a few months and which Dan Day tried to refute in Post# 378 and I convincingly dismissed in Post# 425 which is that a species cannot transform its mode of reproduction in a single generation which is what would perforce be necessary in the case of the purported reptile/mammal transformation.

What you have to refute is the scientific details in my post# 425 and show from your marvelous evolutionist writers how this TRANSFORMATION OF THE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM occurred in a single generation, not talk to me about earbones.