Do you admit that your original presumption that it "had" to occur "in one mutation, in one generation" was faulty? Yes or no.Note the "note"... Strike one. Care to try for two? Or would you like to actually directly address the questions this time?Do you admit that you erred when you presumed that mammals would have had to "develop" structures and processes which, oops, were already present in the egg-laying method of reproduction? Yes or no.
Do you withdraw your original claim that gradualistic development of placental birth would be "impossible"? Yes or no.
Note: This is a test of your intelligence and honesty. Respond accordingly.
Why should I? I have extensively proved my point in Post# 257 , Post# 425 , and Post# 542 . In addition, you continue to fail to address the central point of the question which I asked in the very post you are replying to:
This adaptation has entailed a dramatic restructuring of the maternal anatomy (such as expansion of the oviduct to form the uterus) as well as the development of a fetal organ capable of absorbing maternal nutrients.
The above alone proves my statement that it could not have happened in one generation. Your repeating what has already been answered in full shows quite well that you cannot disprove my statement but are trying to dishonestly claim you have. You cannot even give a detailed description as to how all these SYSTEMS which are clearly necessary in live birth could have arisen in a gradual manner - and no evolutionist authors have been able to do so either otherwise you would have cut and pasted it or typed it in. Your snow job does not cut it.