The above shows the problems with evolution "science" quite well. The shape of the ear and the mammary glands have nothing to do with each other. Evolutionists say in one sentence that species evolve gradually and acquire new featires, abilities, etc. in steps. Yet here, they are saying that two totally unrelated features evolved simultaneously. Do you not see the illogic of your position?
Further, your statement is a tautology. It leaves no room for new findings at all. It gives no room for learning anything about the development of mammals. It just "freezes" and extrapolates backwards from the point we already know. This is not science. This is fantasy. Science relies on facts, not assumptions. Proof consists of facts, not tautological extrapolations which add nothing to our knowledge.
gore3000: The above shows the problems with evolution "science" quite well. The shape of the ear and the mammary glands have nothing to do with each other. Evolutionists say in one sentence that species evolve gradually and acquire new featires, abilities, etc. in steps. Yet here, they are saying that two totally unrelated features evolved simultaneously. Do you not see the illogic of your position?
Many totally unrelated features can be evolving at the same time. The fossil record is quite good for the therapsid-to-mammal transition and we can see the gradual change in the reptilian multi-bone lower jaw to the configuration found in later therapsids and early mammals: a single-boned mandible plus three ear bones. That figure you seek to discredit (but have not laid a glove on) shows it very well. The fossil record does not show where the mammary glands and other reproductive changes come in, but we have a hint of that in the monotremes (literally "one-holers"), which are mammals but still have the reptilian cloaca and lay eggs.
In short, you don't understand evolution. Everything you think you know about it is from creationist screeds and it's wrong.
Further, your statement is a tautology.
No, it isn't. Hammer/anvil/stirrup ear bones are diagnostic of mammals, not defining.
It leaves no room for new findings at all.
We're still free to find anything we want. The diagnostics get revisited from time to time. For instance, the presence of feathers on a fossil no longer automatically means "bird." Now we know that it might mean "dinosaur."
Here's another point about how evolution has real information content, whereas creationism is simply a bullet-proof delusional system. We think we know when and in what lineage those hammer-anvil-stirrup bones evolved. Finding a modern lizard or an ancient salamander with those ear bones would be a SUPER anomaly, a sign that something is very wrong with what we think we know. Creationism shrugs. HE made that one that way. He can do anything.
It gives no room for learning anything about the development of mammals. It just "freezes" and extrapolates backwards from the point we already know. This is not science. This is fantasy. Science relies on facts, not assumptions. Proof consists of facts, not tautological extrapolations which add nothing to our knowledge.
An interesting mumble, but I like f.Christian's blank verse better.