[DannyTN]

"We are on a thread WHICH IS ABOUT a fossil monotreme having ear bones not only less than modern, but less modern than those on a different mammal fossil 80 million years older." - VadeRetro post 299

"The fossil monotremes tend to be described as more generalized as you go back in time." -VadeRetro post 302

"Someone may have called the platypus "degenerate," but all it means is that is has acquired too many cute specializations." -VadeRetro post 302

If you want to call loss of teeth a "cute specialization" instead of a DE-generation, ok. To me, it's just another case of loss of functionality, that evolutionists insist are examples of added functionality.

And it looks to me that it's your talking points that are in disarray. That and the false talking points you keep wanting to ascribe to Creationists, like significant differences aren't suppose to occur. Degenerative differences and speciation within original genetic potential are part of creationist theory.

I notice you don't have any comments on the fact that evolutionists were wrong about marsupials developing in isolation in austrailia. All that ridicule that Creationist's have endured from evolutionists on how did the marsupials get to Austrailia and only Austrailia, as if that proved anything, just flew back in your faces.

[VadeRetro]

You have also not explained how the ear bone change in monotremes (the subject of this thread) is degenerative, considering that most of us mammals think we have better ears than the reptiles. The modern platypus has the expected three ear bones. Old Teinolophos trusleri has one ear bone and some funny grooves and bulges in the jaw.

What's degenerative and how do you know it?

(Answer: First, try to deny. If you can't deny it, it's either degenerative and/or microevolution. What a science!)