No. That was just an example of the type of junk science I am talking about that has been asscoiated with evolution over the years.
Jaw bones of lizards becoming "ear bones" (what the heck is an ear bone) is just another example.
OK, you've "clarified." Now defend.
We can spot a mammal just from the "'ear bones' (what the heck is an ear bone)." Nothing else has the three that all us milk-fans have. We can trace the formation of same in the fossil record.
Where is the "junk science" here?
Of junk science? How do you figure? BTW there are three little bones in your ear: Hammer, anvil and stirrup. You should have learned that in elementary school, HS at the latest.
Reptiles have multipart lower jaw bones. We have a seamless lower mandible, but we also have the extra bones in our ears, unique to mammals. We see this change happening in the fossil record. What exactly are we not allowed to infer?
You decided to stake your defense on the transition being "junk science," versus admitting what you have already admitted elsewhere. That is, you don't read the whole thread or bother to learn what is being discussed.
So be it. What is "junk science?"
Were you so ignorant of anatomy you didn't know about the ear bones? How wide are you?
Such imprecisions of language. Are lizards extinct?
None of the skulls in that picture belongs to a lizard.
You do not know what you are talking about.