Who cares? It still does not tell you if the organism from which it came from had the features of the platypus or not. Therefore does not tell you if it was a platypus or not. Therefore it does not tell you if it was the ancestor of the platypus.
In addition, as I said many posts back, even if these fossils were to be said to be ancestors of the platypus, you still cannot show where the peculiar combination of features of the platypus came from. Even those fossils had to have had ancestors according to evolution and those ancestors had to show that those features were present in them also or were in the process of being developed.
In addition to all the above there is the point I made which you continue to ignore. There are many species alive now and many others of which we have fossils. None of them, I repeat none of them, show even a close affinity to the peculiar combination of features found in the platypus. Therefore I repeat the claim which you have not been able to disprove: the platypus is strong proof that evolution is true.
BTW - Let me remind all here that the charlatan Darwin, even though the platypus had been known since the 1820's and had made a tremendous sensation when it was found, did not mention the platypus in either of his works. He knew that it was a big disproof of his theory and he knew no amount of sophistry could get around it.
gore3000: Who cares?
Not you.
gore3000: It still does not tell you if the organism from which it came from had the features of the platypus or not.
It tells you that it had the skull of something more like a platypus than even the platypus's nearest relative, the echidna.
Therefore does not tell you if it was a platypus or not.
It tells you that, if you're looking for extinct relatives of the platypus, this is one.
Therefore it does not tell you if it was the ancestor of the platypus.
It tells you that, if you're looking for extinct relatives of the platypus, this is one.