In post 898, G3K has simply pointed out:
(1) the extreme complexity involved in transforming from egg laying to live bearing
(2) the unlikelihood that this could occur a step at a time and produce live offspring and
(3) the unlikelihood that random mutations could cause this change in one generation.
The complexity of the changes required, the critical to life nature of each change and the volume of changes necessary seem to support G3K's contention.
The burden of proof is on you. You can't just say, "I have this theory that egg laying animals evolved over time into live bearing animals and if you don't believe it prove me wrong." You are the one that has to prove the theory right.
Tell me...what was the progression of events? What was the first mutation in the egg laying reproductive system that started the journey towards live bearing? What was the structural change involved? What were the chemical changes involved? How did these structural and chemical changes affect the other reproductive subsystems? What reciprocal changes were necessary in the embryo? How is it that this change did not kill the embryo? What was the next mutation? and the next? and the next?
(1) the extreme complexity involved in transforming from egg laying to live bearing
(2) the unlikelihood that this could occur a step at a time and produce live offspring and
(3) the unlikelihood that random mutations could cause this change in one generation.
No, he pointed out:
(1) the IMPOSSIBILITY in transforming from egg laying to live bearing
(2) the IMPOSSIBILITY that this could occur a step at a time and produce live offspring and
(3) the IMPOSSIBILITY that random mutations could cause this change in one generation.
And he continues this despite correction. That is why he is a buffoon.