Not a "single evolutionist writer", eh?
Correct. The examples you give are of bones which have absolutely nothing to do with the transformation of the reproductive system which is what is under discussion. Your shark examples show quite well why this is not a valid method. In sharks, with similar body plans we have some which reproduce by eggs, some by a placental like system in late development and some that cannibalize other young for nutrition. This proves quite well that fossils cannot answer the big questions of evolution, certainly not those being discussed here.
[I wrote:] "Not a "single evolutionist writer", eh?"
Correct.
Incorrect, I gave you several relevant books (out of hundreds, not to mention thousands of smaller works and research papers). Try reading them.
The examples you give are of bones which have absolutely nothing to do with the transformation of the reproductive system which is what is under discussion.
Wow, where do I start on your misconceptions?
You stated, specifically, and I quote, that there is not 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".
Specifically, yes, many have. Your statement that none have demonstrates remarkable ignorance (not to mention *arrogant* ignorance, since you didn't even bother to double-check your claim before making it).
And this couldn't have been a request for egg-to-mammalian-placental transformations, since those took place roughly 90 million years *after* mammals became mammals. The reptile-to-mammal transition was another thing (and epoch) entirely.
Are you *sure* you have any idea what you're talking about?
Furthermore, yes, the books in question *do* indeed deal with more than just "bones", they get into the issues of changing methods of birth.
Perhaps if you bothered to *read* something on the topic before you spout off, you wouldn't keep making a fool of yourself.
Your shark examples show quite well why this is not a valid method.
Why *what* is not a "valid method"? Try to remain coherent.
In sharks, with similar body plans we have some which reproduce by eggs, some by a placental like system in late development and some that cannibalize other young for nutrition.
So far so good. But then you go flying off into the sky with:
This proves quite well that fossils cannot answer the big questions of evolution,
Um, *what* "proves quite well" that fossils can't answer *which* "big questions" of evolution?
Sharks which have various types of birth "prove" that fossils don't have certain answers? Your train of thought appears to have become derailed.
Remember, if you must drink, don't post.
certainly not those being discussed here.
On the contrary, lucky fossil finds can demonstrate, for example, which species actually laid eggs which hatch externally (by finding a brooding mother on a fossilized nest of eggs), which nurtured the embryo internally (by finding a fossilized female with an imbedded semi-developed embryo in its abdomen), an almost fully developed embryo pretty much guarantees the presence of a placenta, and so on. Even more run-of-the-mill fossils reveal much, for example the size of the pelvic opening indicates whether they likely gave birth to full-size offspring (implying a placenta), or necessarily could only produce eggs or early-term offspring (because of a small pelvic opening). Etc. etc.
I repeat -- are you sure you know anything about this topic?