Creationists trying to discredit a fossil for showing the very transitional character demanded by creationists in the first place is just another old-hat game. Gish attacking Pakicetus for having fully terrestrial legs--"What kind of whale is that?"--comes to mind.
In other words, if the "ancestor" species offered as evidence of evolution is notably different from the descendant, scoff and demand transitionals. Do this no matter how many proposed ancestors form the chain and how logical the sequence may appear.
Of course, if the difference is imperceptible between ancestor and descendant, scoff and say so. Either way, you get to scoff.
You scoffed away the reptile-to-mammals skull series, claiming that the author of the article had simply done a lot of creative drawing. (Did he make up all the references to the paleontological literature too?) Funny, there's this overwhelming pile of evidence, but gore simply waves hands, calls a few people liars and fakers, and it's all gone--at least from gore's mind. But there's a separate line of evidence that Cuffey didn't tie in and of which I for one was unaware at the time.
You know how we can see the reptilian jaw reforming to become the mammalian earbones, in nice easy stages, in the fossil record? You can see the same thing happening in mammalian embryos, pigs and humans that I know for sure.
I pinged you on another thread about this after I linked some articles, but you didn't answer.
Amazing the predictions of evolutionists! They always seem to be made after the facts are unearthed and given as substantiation for the just unearthed facts! The loss of teeth seems to me as devolution not evolution and that the young need teeth is pretty obvious, they need it to break the eggs they are born in. The adults do not need such teeth because of their diet. So no, the lack of teeth in the platypus is proof that it is perfectly fit for its way of life. An animal with teeth would need to have followed a different lifestyle (if it was also fit for it) and consequently would have required different features. Of course, we cannot tell from a pair of teeth and a lower jaw what the features of such an animal might have been like. So we really cannot tell if this Obduron had any of the features of the platypus at all (and due to the different lifestyle, we suspect it did not).
Now the mystery of the platypus, in spite of your verbiage, remains. There are numerous living and dead species that we know about. No single species has even close to a half of the distinct characteristics of the platypus which I stated in the post you responded to. Therefore, it is way more than a lack of fossils that is at work here, there is a complete lack of even the remotest proof of any descent of the platypus from any single species. Therefore, as I have been saying for a long time, the platypus disproves evolution.