[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?
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".
Semantics again. The subject under discussion was the transformation of the reproductive system from egg laying to live bearing. Has been all along. So I did not dot the I and cross the t, shoot me. Point is that not a single evolutionist writer (or for that matter any writer) is willing to give a detailed explanation according to the scientific facts about how the reproductive system of reptiles transformed itself gradually into a live bearing system. If any had I am sure you would have quoted from it.
Perhaps if you bothered to *read* something on the topic before you spout off, you wouldn't keep making a fool of yourself.
If they exist and you have read them, why did you not use them in this discussion???????????
Um, *what* "proves quite well" that fossils can't answer *which* "big questions" of evolution?
The question we are dealing with - the transformation from egg laying to live bearing is certainly a big question. Evolution is about descent is it not? Reproduction is central to descent is it not? Bones cannot answer the question as the shark example shows. They are all fish in every way yet their reproductive systems are completely different. So bones cannot answer the big questions of evolution.