As I already pointed out, one of the characteristics of mammals was thought to be live birth (and as I also pointed out some think it still is). The only reason it has been taken out of the definition is that we found a LIVING BREATHING EXAMPLE of a mammal which did not give live birth. So just because there are certain not necessary bone formations which all present mammals share it does not mean that all mammals have had those traits all the time. This is particularly important if one was to try to trace the gradual evolution of mammals. These organic traits are the most important, that is why call them mammals and such traits cannot be found in the fossil record. The problems go both ways also, there are sharks that give live birth for example and we would not know that if we did not have LIVING EXAMPLES of such sharks. What this shows very well is the inability of the fossil record to: show us anything we do not already know about species, show us anything which may be unique about them, and to verify that evolution has occurred. Further, and even evolutionists admit this, similar bone structures do not mean similar functioning. The bat is a great example of this. What all this means is that you cannot prove evolution through fossils.
Anyone who considers that live birth is characteristic of mammals is not worth consulting on the issue.
The only reason it has been taken out of the definition is that we found a LIVING BREATHING EXAMPLE of a mammal which did not give live birth.
Yes, some positive evidence turned up of egg-laying in a hitherto unknown subclass of living mammals. Which is not inconsistent with evolution. If evolution is true, then egg-laying had to be present up to some point in the lineage. If monotremes had not survived until the present day, and we couldn’t tell if they were egg-layers from their fossils, then we wouldn’t know if that particular group of mammals were egg-layers or live-breeders, that’s all. They would still be classed as a separate subclass based on their skeletons. Live birth would still be included in the definition of the two surviving groups of mammals, while it would be a necessity of evolutionary biology that up to some point in the past, mammals or their reptilian ancestors laid eggs.
So just because there are certain not necessary bone formations which all present mammals share it does not mean that all mammals have had those traits all the time.
No it doesn’t, but that’s not what the evidence tell us, is it? Unless you have some evidence that there have been mammals (or otherwise probable mammalian candidates) that didn’t possess these features?
This is particularly important if one was to try to trace the gradual evolution of mammals. These organic traits are the most important, that is why call them mammals and such traits cannot be found in the fossil record.
Again, mammary glands are no more characteristic of mammals than the jaw or the inner ear. The name “mammal” is subjective, otherwise “mammary glands” would be the only words contained in a definition of mammals.
The problems go both ways also, there are sharks that give live birth for example and we would not know that if we did not have LIVING EXAMPLES of such sharks. What this shows very well is the inability of the fossil record to: show us anything we do not already know about species, show us anything which may be unique about them, and to verify that evolution has occurred. Further, and even evolutionists admit this, similar bone structures do not mean similar functioning. The bat is a great example of this.
What do you mean by “even evolutionists admit this”, as if it was a grudging admission that would preferably remain hidden? Homology has been part of evolutionary theory since Darwin. That aside, I don’t know of any evidence that inner ear bones and lower jaws have had (or could have had) any other functions than those they have now. And do you really not think that T.rex, sauropods and the various sabre-toothed mammals had any unique features (discernible from the fossil record) not found today?
What all this means is that you cannot prove evolution through fossils.
Again, I’m not talking about evolution. I’m talking about whether a particular fossil can be classed as a mammal (or a shark or whatever). You have two choices in those cases. Either the evidence supports the inclusion of a fossil in those groups, or it doesn’t.