Whether I do or I do not is irrelevant to this discussion. :)
The point is that there is nothing intrinisically necessary between the 3 earbones and mammary glands - the true definition of a mammal. There is an almost necessary connection between live birth and mammary glands because individuals not born from an egg are not able to feed themselves. We see though in the platypus that even this almost necessary connection is not true. So to say that the connection between mammary glands and 3 earbones is not necessary in animal fossils is a very valid statement. And this is the problem with paleontology - it will assume that any animal with 3 earbones is a mammal and any animal without 3 earbones is not a mammal. This can only be true if one also assumes the coevolution of different sytems at the same time. Such an assumption is of course utterly ridiculous and it is clearly laid to rest by our friend the platypus.
So to say that the connection between mammary glands and 3 earbones is not necessary in animal fossils is a very valid statement. And this is the problem with paleontology - it will assume that any animal with 3 earbones is a mammal and any animal without 3 earbones is not a mammal. This can only be true if one also assumes the coevolution of different sytems at the same time. Such an assumption is of course utterly ridiculous and it is clearly laid to rest by our friend the platypus.Paleontology has help from comparative anatomy. Can you cite a lizard or bird or fish or amphibian with the "mammalian" earbones?
Do you give up on the line of reasoning that says there were no mamms on T. rex? There's no excuse for you not to have produced it by now. If you're pretending you can't see it, think of the implications of admitting you've never at any time understood at even the most basic level what you were arguing against.