I see. You're kinda busy right now. Let's let the lurkers have another look at the questions you're unwilling or unable to answer.
Is it true that many if not most species of sharks have remained virtually unchanged for millions of years? Well, yes it is. If that is so, where is the vaunted Darwinian change?
And did egg-layers transition into live-birthers? Or the reverse? How do you know? What is the evidence? They clearly are all currently viable, so which of the 3 is the product of survival advantage?
Whichever way the transformation occurred, which is wholly speculative at this point, what was the mechanism?. Chance? You allude to chance as the "reason" when you point to lengthy periods of time between supposed events. Sorry, Wrong Answer. Science explains. "Chance" explains nothing. It is anti-science. Well then, how about mutation? Sorry Again. Mutation has never been shown, in the laboratory, in the wild or in the fossil record to be anything but destructive. When selectively bred into monsters in the laboratory then left to their own devices, fruit flies rapidly gravitate back toward the norm in succeeding generations. There has not been shown to be a credible mechanism, only rhetoric. I do not maintain that it does not exist, only that it has not been shown. But it is science's duty, biology's duty, to tell us what it is. Or it ain't science.
Let's talk a little more about homology, structural similarities. Seems widely varying species have been known for centuries to exhibit surprisingly similar organic structures, which would seem to be impossible if Darwinian Evolution looks anything like a tree. I refer you to Icons of Evolution by Johathan Wells. To quote you back to yourself: OOPS!
You have not shown us, Dan. When someone says to the physicists "Show me", they go out and produce an atomic bomb and the laser. Tough to argue with that. Ask the same question of the Evolutionists and you get the Atheist First Dawkins and the Rhetorician Gould who drones on about magisteria.
And sometimes you even get the underwhelming Dan Day.
And sometimes you get the fatuous Phaedrus who displays her petulance and ego instead of an actual argument.