Which is more reliable science or the Bible?

That is not correct. Evolution is speculation based on science. The same goes for cosmology.</font>[/QUOTE]Evolution IS based on observation. We observe much evidence from genetics such as shared retroviral inserts, shared pseudogenes and shared transposable elements. We observe biogeography. We observe atavisms and vestiges and homologies. We observe the twin nested heirarchy. We observe developmental evidence. And of course we have all those transitional fossils that we can drag out. </font>[/QUOTE]Excuse me. Instead of speculation should I have said extrapolation?

Your "observations" are not unbiased. They are predicated on the existing evolutionary theory. You are doing the same thing that Ptolemy did. You are fitting observations to a preconceived idea.

You call that science. But your science isn't testable. If we approached the hard sciences the same way evolutionists do we would have a very wrong view of reality. Simple observation is often misleading.

A.F.

 

"Your "observations" are not unbiased. They are predicated on the existing evolutionary theory."

There was an exercise on another thread a couple of days ago where another poster made essentially the same claim. I'll just link the posts here rather than copying all the material over.

The poster's original chanrge.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3141/15.html#000217

A series of questions I posed.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3141/15.html#000219

His response.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3141/15.html#000224

My response.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3141/16.html#000229

This is just the beginning. There is much longer discussion that can go along. The basic point is that common descent is the ONLY explaantion for the data we see. Other possibilities introduce unreasonable assertions that are generally arbitrary and capricious.

"You call that science. But your science isn't testable."

If you look at living whales, let's discuss some of the observations you can make. First of all they are mammals. Mammals are generally land dwelling. Whales go through a developmental stage in which they have legs and feet which are reabsorbed before birth. This might indicate their ancestors once had legs. Sometimes whales are born with fully formed atavistic legs. Since this means that they have dormant genes for making legs which can accidentally be turned on, this is even stronger support for their being whales with legs in the past. Whales also have a set of dozens of genes for making a sense of smell. The thing is, most of these genes are identical to those that land animals use for their sense of smell. Furthermore, these genes have been deactivated.

All these things together allows one to predict that there is likely to have been land dwelling animals in the past that evolved into whales. This is a prediction and it is testable.

By exploring the fossil record we have been able to test the prediction and theory that whales have land dwelling ancestors. Some of the whale transitionals that have been found include Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Dalanistes, Rodhocetus, Tackrecetus, Indocetus, Gaviocetus, Durodon, and Basilosaurus. Thus the prediction that we should find such ancestors has been tested and found to be true.

Now if you trace the whale fossils all the way back to their land dwelling ancestor you find a curious thing. There is a group of animals called even-toed ungulates (Ungulates are those animals with hooves and even-toed just means that this group has an even number of hooves per foot.) THis group is more properly called artiodactyls. They include animals like pigs, hippos, camels, llamas, giraffes, deer, goats, sheep, cattle, and antelopes. This group of animals also can trace their ancestry back to the same basic type of ancestor as the whales. Whales ARE artiodactyls!

Now, from this fossil finding, you can make the prediction that genetic testing should show that whales are more closely related to the artiodactyls than they are to any other animals. Again, testing confirms this prediction. (This also becomes one of my favorites. YEers often dismiss genetic similarities by saying that similar animals would be expected to have similar DNA in their paradigm also. No one is going to confuse Flipper with Bullwinkle but their DNA is very similar.)

These are but one small example of the types of predictions that biologists can make and test. Furthermore, there is no logical explanation for these things outside of common descent!

 

I have already read those threads. Your arguments are not compelling. We can discuss various "proofs" without an end. But we won't come to a conclusion by discussing the specifics because the problem isn't really with the evidence but with the method.

I will make an observation about your common descent argument.

You said: "...common descent is the ONLY explaantion for the data we see".

No, you are incorrect. Logically a common creator is quite as good an explanation.

Your definition of a test is poor. Here you have only made a series of observations and then found a hypothesis to reconcile them. It is merely suggestive. That would not be satisfactory as a test in the hard sciences.

Here you have shown that there was a spectrum of animals in the past. That fact does not compel your conclusions.

 

[Snip a quote where I list of some of the transitional fossils in the whales series]

"Here you have shown that there was a spectrum of animals in the past. That fact does not compel your conclusions."

It is telling that you snipped the rest of the line of reasoning.

By itself, that might be true. But the observation of these whale ancestor fossils are not made in a vacuum. There are many other things that go along with it.

It would be very interesting for you to provide us with a common designer scenario that better explains all of the observations that we have about the whales. It would need to be specific. It would need to avoid giving arbitrary answers. You would need to tell us what specific facts point towards your answer instead of my answer. You would need to tell us ways in which your hypothesis could be tested against the observations and found to be true or not.

You have already dismissed the fossil out of hand. But let's start there anyhow. We DO have a series of fossils that connect between the modern whales and a land dwelling even toed ungulate. You say it is simply a spectrum. OK.

The next bit is to then tell us just why it is that genetic testing shows that whales are very closely related to modern even toed ungulates such as pigs and camels and deer. [
"Molecular evidence from retroposons that whales form a clade within even-toed ungulates," Shimamura M, Yasue H, Ohshima K, Abe H, Kato H, Kishiro T, Goto M, Munechika I, Okada N, Nature. 1997 Aug 14;388(6643):666-70.] You may want to first go look up the paper I reference to see just what genetic factors they tested for.

Now this is the first place you need to be careful. I find it easy to predict that you will (If you make a serious attempt at an answer which I find unlikely, few have ever tried. The only one that ever did concluded that the original whale "kind" must have lived on land.) throw out the common designer explanation. This by itself is very, very arbitrary. If you wish to use it, you must tell us why specifically a whale would be most closely related to animals like camels instead of something more logical like a shark or a manatee or a seal or an otter. If you look up the paper I have referenced for you, you will also see that the specfic genetic material used for testing was a type of junk DNA called retroposons. You must further tell us why a common designer would specifically spread the same junk in a giraffe and a whale to the exclusion of other species.

But that is only the first of our genetics. There are two classes of olfactory genes. One class is optimized for detecting odors in water and one is optimized for detecting odors in air. For the most part, fish have the detectors for water only. Land dwelling animals only have the detectors for odors in air. Some animals, such as amphibians, have some of both.

Let's think about what one should predict for whales. If you support recently created kinds, then you should expect one of two things. Either an intelligent designer would give these marine animals olfactory genes for detecting odors in water or, less likely, they would be given no olfactory genes at all.

If you accept the common descent of whales from land dwelling animals, then you would expect that whales would have initially started with the genes for detecting odors in air. Since these are of no use in water, they should have not been subject to selective forces for keeping them intact and would be expected to have turned into junk.

Which is it? Well, as it turns out whales have deactivated genes for detecting odors in the air.

"Olfactory receptors in aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates," J. Freitag, G. Ludwig, I. Andreini, P. Rössler, H. Breer, Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology, Volume 183, Number 5, November 1998, Pages: 635 - 650.

Let's not stray from genetics. During development, whale embryos have rear legs which are absorbed before birth. Why would this be if they were intelligently designed as sea creatures from the start. Your better explanation needs to cover this one.

Along the same lines, occasionally a developmental mistake will lead to whales giving birth to offspring that have rear legs will all the right bones and shapes and sizes and everything. You need to tell us why an intelligently designed sea creature would need to carry around latent genes for making legs.

For that matter, you need to explain to us just why whales carry around vestiges of a pelvis. I know the tired old answer. They are used for connecting a few minor muscles. But if you were starting from scratch, you would provide a simple structure to which to attach these muscles. Only evolution would use an old, very complex structure like a pelvis for such a simple job.

I look forward to your testable hypothesis on how the whales got all of the features that we observe of them without going through common descent. I sure hope you can do it with simply resulting to arbitrary and capricious answers. I expect no answer at all or at best a specious answer.

 

"Your definition of a test is poor. Here you have only made a series of observations and then found a hypothesis to reconcile them. It is merely suggestive. That would not be satisfactory as a test in the hard sciences. "

How exactly would you propose that we test a scientific theory then? It seems to me that making additional observations to see if they conform to the expectations of your theories to explain previous observations is the only way to go. Do you have another?

"I have already read those threads. Your arguments are not compelling."

The posts to which I linked were no supposed to be compelling by themselves. They were designed to illustrate a simple point. If you have a group of animals that already seem similar, like the various cats in the example, and you have a shared mutation between them, as we do in the example, then the simplest and most reasonable explanation is that they share the mutation because they share an ancestor with the mutation. I did not even try and draw a distinction between a common ancestor because of common descent and one because they are the same created "kind."

It was a very simple illustration. The compelling part comes, if I get around to it, by doing the same thing with lots and lots of genetic sequences instead of one pseudogene.

But, you are free to go over to the thread and provide your own answers to the questions if you think you have an alternative or better answer.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3141/15.html#000219

"No, you are incorrect. Logically a common creator is quite as good an explanation."

Well, let's look at a few types of data to see if that is true.

The question to be asked is what interpretation best explains the evidence that we observe. As new information comes in, it will either support your interpretation or contradict it. Support tells you that you are on the right track. Contradiction tells you that you need to rethink your theory.

The first observation that gets discussed is morphology. Now if we look at the animals that are alive today and the animals that the fossil record tells us were alive in the past, we see that the form a nested heirarchy. All by itself this could mean that all of these animals were produced by common descent or by common designer. (As a note, I am not trying to set up a false dilemma here. I recognize that there may be other explanations that could be put forward but I am purposely restricting the discussion to the two possibilities under discussion.) So you have to go to the next observation.

The next most obvious observation is genetic. If you examine all the different types of genetic material that has been tested and use it to construct phylogenic trees, you find that you get much the same pattern as you do when you arrange the fossils by morphology. Let's see how these observations stack up.

One easy test is to look at just the functional genes. These can again be used to support common descent or a common designer. Both will claim that creatures that are the most similar should have the most similar DNA.

But you can start to untangle the two by looking into further types of genetic material that is not related to the functional part of DNA. One example would be to look at retroviral inserts. These happen when a virus inserts part of its genome into its host. If this happens in a reproductive cell, then the genome of the virus can be passed on to the offspring. Since this has nothing to do with the functional part of the genome, it can shed light on the situation for us. For example, if common descent were true, then you would expect the retroviral DNA to show the same pattern as the other lines of observation. If a common designer were the true explanation, then you would expect a random distribution of the retroviral inserts when compared between the species. In fact, you see that the pattern follows that which would be expected of common descent. The common designer option cannot explain this pattern.

If you take the retroviral discussion and repeat it with things like paralogs, pseudogenes, retrotransposons and such you will find the same result. One pattern would be predicted by common descent and another by a common designer but the patterns only fit that of common descent. For example, whales have a complete set of psuedogenes identical to what land based animals possess for their sence of smell. If whales evolved from land based ancestors, this is easily explained. But if they were recently created as is, there is no reason for them to possess such useless genes. A common designer advocate is forced into giving an arbitrary, ad-hoc explanation for this observation.

From here let's move on to other topics. Let's first loook at atavisms. Atavistic legs on whales. Two extra toes on horses. Unfused leg bones in horses. Atavistic tails on humans. The observation is that these atavisms ONLY manifest themselves in a pattern consistent with the phylogenic trees generated from the other lines of evidence. The atavisms only make parts that were possessed by their ancestors in the common descent interpretation. You never see atavisms that fail to follow this pattern. Common descent offers a simple explanation. The common designer option gives no reason why we should expect whales to have genes for making legs of humans to have genes for making tails. They are again forced into capricious explanations.

Development tells a similar story.This has the potential to get rather complicated, so I'll stick with an example already in play. We observe that whales go through a developmental stage in which they possess rear legs. Again, this shared developmental trait follows the same pattern as the other lines of evidence. Common descent offers a simple reason for this to be the case. A common designer has no logical reason to send whales through a stage with legs which must later be reabsorbed.

This can keep going for a long time. If you look at other areas of evidence, you keep coming back to the observation that all the bits always fit the tree that you get from morphology and genetics. This is true for parahomlogy. This is true for vestiges. This is true for the chronology of the fossils. Every observation that you make brings you back to these same trees.

So the question is which interpretation of the data fits the observations. The answer is that common descent offers a simple and compelling answer for each one. A common designer can be hypothesized for some of the observations but for many of the observations, the evidence is the opposite of what would be expected. The only recourse for YEers is to ignore these contradictions. They must ignore so much.

 

Until someone tells us that it really should be HOH.

 

UTEOTW sez:

Point well made UTE, "YOUR EXPECTATIONS", not "where it will lead", but "YOUR EXPECTATIONS"!!!
I thank you for being so honest.

Simple! "The expectations of creationists"!

Same evidence, just different bias and thus different "expectations"!

The only difference is that creationists admit their bias as believing, by faith, the word of God as written, and evolutionists refuse to admit that they are believing by faith also, but it's faith in science instead of God.

 

Point well made UTE, "YOUR EXPECTATIONS", not "where it will lead", but "YOUR EXPECTATIONS"!!!
I thank you for being so honest.

Simple! "The expectations of creationists"!

Same evidence, just different bias and thus different "expectations"!

The only difference is that creationists admit their bias as believing, by faith, the word of God as written, and evolutionists refuse to admit that they are believing by faith also, but it's faith in science instead of God. </font>[/QUOTE]In typical YE quoting fashion, you have taken the statement out of context.

With any theory, the theory has been arrived at through observation and hypothesis. This can be a scientific theory or your opinion of folks who vote differently than you. It does not matter. You make observations and you try and explain them.

As you go along, you make additional observations. If they go along with your previous explanation, your accept your theory more strongly. If they contradict, you have more doubt and may even need to come up with a different explanation. So new observations may show that you were on the right track but that you need to make some minor changes.

In any case, it is not a matter of you choosing to look for things that support your preconceived notions. It is a matter of whether the new observations fit. Since we are humans, bias is possible is most circumstances, however.

The kicker is that you claim that you are just going about it with a different set of expectations. But YE is unable to apply this different set of expectations to the actual data. They have nothing that explains WHY we see what we do. The best they can come up with are ad-hoc and arbitrary speculation. They can cite no real evidence. They can predict no real direction of future discovery. They can put up no observations that they would agree that would falsify their ideas.

You will occasionally see YEers hide behind something like an appearance of age. This breaks down in the face of actual data. Look at my last couple of posts. Tell me how an appearance of age tells us why whales are genetically most closely related to even toed ungulates just as the fossil record shows. Tell us how it tells us why they have pseudogenes for making a land based sense of smell. Tell us how it explains why they have latent genes for making legs. And so on. Broaden the view. Give us any reason why you should expect to see these things in a YE view. I laid out my case for why you would EXPECT to see them if common descent is true.

 

LOL! that's funny, whoever that was can't even tell the difference between science and religion!

 

UTEOTW

You have a problem. According to the Bible, the whale was created first (at least it is the very first animal mentioned, and specifically by name), before all land creatures.

Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

The Bible mentions the whale before any other animal. And the whale was created in the seas from the beginning, just as we find it today. We know from the time of Adam that the whale has continued to live in the seas.

So, if the Bible is correct, then the whale is not descended from any other animal, it was the first. So much for life starting with the one celled organisms that evolution claims.

Your evolutionary beliefs cannot be reconciled with the creation account in Genesis. It is clear that the Genesis account is a chronology as each day and the life forms created on that day are described. It is clear and simple. You do not have to have a PhD from a university to understand this straightforward account.

As for the useless gene for smelling air, how do you know the whale does not smell the air? They breathe the air, why shouldn't they be able to smell it? How do we know whether it is useful or not? The ability to smell air may be very important and beneficial to the whale for all we know.

Just because an animal that lives in the sea can smell air does not mean it once lived on land. That is an assumption on your part.

 

"You have a problem. According to the Bible..."

There you go with the assumption that only your interpretation can be correct.

And since your interpretation is at odds with the reality of God's general revelation to us in the Creation, yours is unlikely to be correct.

"As for the useless gene for smelling air, how do you know the whale does not smell the air?"

Pay attention. They are pseudogenes. They are deativated. There are not expressed. They are useless.

"Just because a animal that lives in the sea can smell air does not mean it once lived on land. That is an assumption on your part."

We all deal with assumptions.

Mine just happen to fit the facts. You still have no logical and factual reason to explain the fossil record, the genetics, the genetic vestiges, the physical vestiges, the atavisms and the development of the whales.

BTW, have you noticed that I took one of your specific quote mines and showed where your source was dishonest with you? Why do you think that YE leaders need to continuously misrepresent the facts if they are on their side?

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3136/13.html#000181

 

UTEOTW

I had to go back and read that, I missed it.

Now I am not a scientist or person trained in these fields at all. But I read a lot, and try to use common sense and logic.

Now what I got from Gould's statement is this:

1)There are periods of slow, gradual, evolutionary change, and there are periods of rapid evolutionary change.

2)It is easy to find fossils from the slow periods because they lasted a long time. It is difficult to find fossils from the periods of rapid change because these periods were brief.

Now that is what I got from that, correct me if I am wrong.

Come on, give me a break. Is that convenient or what? Let's be honest here.

How does anybody know that these slow and rapid periods of evolution take place? What would cause evolution to slow down and speed up?

Honestly, doesn't make any sense to me at all. Sounds to me like a contrived explanation to ATTEMPT to explain why transitional fossils cannot be found.

Pretty coincidental that ALL fossils that could be seen as transitional occured during periods of rapid change, don't you think??

I'm sorry, but that is a HUGE pill to swallow.

This sounds like the kettle calling the pot black. Sounds to me like YOUR evolutionary sources are trying to pull a fast one on you.

Why don't they just admit they can't find transitional forms without this implausible explanation? I was born at night, but not last night.

 

UTEOTW

So, just to clarify what I believe Gould was saying,

A lizard goes for millions of years being just that, a lizard. Many fossils are found.

Then suddenly, for some unknown reason, this lizard rapidly transforms into another creature like a bird. It does this so quickly that there is no fossil record left.

Then it goes on as this new creature for millions of years leaving plenty of fossils again.

If that is what Gould is saying, that is a laugh.
Even you should not be fooled by such a silly explanation.

 

"I had to go back and read that, I missed it."

Sorry if I was harsh.

"How does anybody know that these slow and rapid periods of evolution take place? What would cause evolution to slow down and speed up? "

As I mentioned, we do have some finely graded transitions and that is what they show.

The other key factor is that you rarely find change at the lowest levels, say a new species or cahnge within a species, documented by the fossil record. What you do see well documented are changes that lead to new groups of higher taxa. The mammals evolving from reptiles. Amphibians from lobe finned fish. Whales from even toed ungulates. Reptiles from amphibians. Horses from a generalized grazer. Etc.

"Pretty coincidental that ALL fossils that could be seen as transitional occured during periods of rapid change, don't you think??"

There are plenty of trassitional fossils. But the ones from times of faster change have a bit more change happening betwen each find. No matter, other sources of data can be used to confirm the fossil record very well.

"Why don't they just admit they can't find transitional forms without this implausible explanation?"

Plenty of transitionals out there. Here are a small handfull from different series of documented change. Acanthostega, Adelobasileus, Ambulocetus, Australopithecus, Basilosaurus, Cantius, Caudipteryx,Confuciusornis, Cynodesmus, Dimetrodon, Eusthenopteron, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Hovasaurus, Hylonomus, Ichthyostega, Kenyapithecus, Microraptor, Oreochima, Osteolepis, Pachycynodon,Pakicetus, Panderichthys, Parapithecus, Parasemionotus, Peramus, Proailurus, Probainognathus, Proconsul, Procynosuchus, Proganochelys, Proterogyrinus, Protoclepsydrops, Rodhocetus, Sinoconodon, sinornithosaurus, Spathobatis, Thrinaxodon, Triadobatrachus, Tristychius, Ursavus, Ursus, Utatsusaurus.

 

Not exactly.

Let's take your example. A group of reptiles changed into mammals.

Now this occurred over tens of millions of years. Now we have quite a few fossils from this period, but even then, we may only get one every couple of million years. And at that, it is most likely to be a side branch that merely closely resembles the actual ancestor at that stage. (Think of Archaeopteryx. It is unlikely to be the actual ancestor of modern birds but it preserves many of the features of the actual ancestor.)

Getting a fossil every few million years is not going to preserve fine detail of the changes. You will not get every species. You will not even get every genus. But you will get a lot of examples. Enough to see profound change.

So here is a partial list of the known fossils in the transition to mammals.

Paleothyris - A reptile
Protoclepsydrops haplous
Clepsydrops
Archaeothyris - Showed a slight change in teeth
Varanops - Lower jaw shows first changes in jaw musculature...lower-limb musculature starts to change Too late to be a true ancestor, and must be a "cousin".
Haptodus - Teeth become size-differentiated, with biggest teeth in canine region and fewer teeth overall...Vertebrae parts & joints more mammalian.
Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon or a similar sphenacodont - More advanced pelycosaurs, clearly closely related to the first therapsids (next). Dimetrodon is almost definitely a "cousin" and not a direct ancestor... Teeth further differentiated, with small incisors, two huge deep- rooted upper canines on each side, followed by smaller cheek teeth, all replaced continuously. Fully reptilian jaw hinge. Lower jaw bone made of multiple bones & with first signs of a bony prong later involved in the eardrum..
Biarmosuchia - Upper jaw bone (maxillary) expanded to separate lacrymal from nasal bones, intermediate between early reptiles and later mammals. Canine teeth larger, dominating the dentition. Variable tooth replacement: some therocephalians (e.g Scylacosaurus) had just one canine, like mammals, and stopped replacing the canine after reaching adult size. Jaw hinge more mammalian in position and shape, jaw musculature stronger (especially the mammalian jaw muscle)...more mammalian femur & pelvis. The toes were approaching equal length, as in mammals, with #toe bones varying from reptilian to mammalian.
Procynosuchus - The first known cynodont -- a famous group of very mammal-like therapsid reptiles, sometimes considered to be the first mammals. Lower incisor teeth was reduced to four (per side), instead of the previous six (early mammals had three). Jaw hinge still reptilian. Scapula beginning to change shape. A diaphragm may have been present.
Dvinia - First signs of teeth that are more than simple stabbing points -- cheek teeth develop a tiny cusp. The dentary bone was now the major bone of the lower jaw. The other jaw bones that had been present in early reptiles were reduced to a complex of smaller bones near the jaw hinge.
Thrinaxodon - Functional division of teeth: incisors (four uppers and three lowers), canines, and then 7-9 cheek teeth with cusps for chewing. The cheek teeth were all alike, though (no premolars & molars), did not occlude together, were all single- rooted, and were replaced throughout life in alternate waves. First sign of the mammalian jaw hinge. Scapula shows development of a new mammalian shoulder muscle. All four legs fully upright, not sprawling. Number of toe bones is intermediate between reptile number and mammalian . The specialization of the lumbar area (e.g. reduction of ribs) is indicative of the presence of a diaphragm, needed for higher O2 intake and homeothermy. The eardrum had developed in the only place available for it -- the lower jaw, right near the jaw hinge, supported by a wide prong (reflected lamina) of the angular bone. Cynodonts developed quite loose quadrates and articulars that could vibrate freely for sound transmittal while still functioning as a jaw joint, strengthened by the mammalian jaw joint right next to it.
Cynognathus - Teeth differentiating further; rate of replacement reduced, with mammalian-style tooth roots (though single roots). TWO JAW JOINTS in place, mammalian and reptilian. Limbs were held under body. There is possible evidence for fur in fossil pawprints.
Diademodon - Mammalian toe bone numbers, with closely related species still showing variable numbers.
Probelesodon - Teeth double-rooted, as in mammals. Second jaw joint stronger. Hip & femur more mammalian.
Probainognathus - Additional cusps on cheek teeth. Still two jaw joints. Mammalian number of toe bones.
Exaeretodon - Mammalian jaw prong forms, related to eardrum support. Three incisors only (mammalian). More mammalian hip related to having limbs under the body. This is probably a "cousin" fossil not directly ancestral, as it has several new but non-mammalian teeth traits.
Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium - Alternate tooth replacement with double-rooted cheek teeth, but without mammalian-style tooth occlusion. Skeleton strikingly like egg- laying mammals (monotremes). Double jaw joint. Scapula is now substantially mammalian, and the forelimb is carried directly under the body. Various changes in the pelvis bones...this animal's limb musculature and locomotion were virtually fully mammalian. There is disagreement about whether the tritylodontids were ancestral to mammals or whether they are a specialized offshoot group not directly ancestral to mammals.
Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus - Alternate replacement of mostly single- rooted teeth. This group also began to develop double tooth roots -- in Pachygenelus the single root of the cheek teeth begins to split in two at the base. Pachygenelus also has mammalian tooth enamel. Double jaw joint, with the second joint ...fully mammalian. Reptilian jaw joint still present but functioning almost entirely in hearing. Highly mobile, mammalian-style shoulder. These are probably "cousin" fossils, not directly ancestral.
Adelobasileus cromptoni - Currently the oldest known "mammal."
Sinoconodon - The next known very ancient proto-mammal. Mammalian jaw joint stronger. This final refinement of the joint automatically makes this animal a true "mammal". Reptilian jaw joint still present, though tiny.
Kuehneotherium - A slightly later proto-mammal, sometimes considered the first known pantothere (primitive placental-type mammal). Teeth and skull like a placental mammal. The three major cusps on the upper & lower molars were rotated to form interlocking shearing triangles as in the more advanced placental mammals & marsupials. Still has a double jaw joint, though.
Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon - Truly mammalian teeth: the cheek teeth were finally differentiated into simple premolars and more complex molars, and teeth were replaced only once. Tiny remnant of the reptilian jaw joint. Thought to be ancestral to all three groups of modern mammals -- monotremes, marsupials, and placentals.
Peramus - A "eupantothere" (more advanced placental-type mammal). The closest known relative of the placentals & marsupials.
Endotherium
Kielantherium and Aegialodon
Steropodon galmani - The first known definite monotreme.
Vincelestes neuquenianus - A probably-placental mammal with some marsupial traits.
Pariadens kirklandi - The first definite marsupial.
Kennalestes and Asioryctes - Canine now double rooted.
Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops - Primitive North American placentals with same basic tooth pattern.

 

UTEOTW

Wow, that was a lot to read.

But this is just bones and teeth generally speaking.

Now, I realize that hair or fur, internal organs and such do not survive.

But how can a cold-blooded animal, that lays eggs, and has no milk glands turn into a mammal?

And no matter if you find a million fossils of reptiles with bone, skeletal, and teeth similarities to mammals, this does not explain the dramatic differences between reptiles and mammals.

I think evolutionists read too much into the shapes of bones, teeth, etc....

All animals have SOME similar features. Especially the bones and teeth. Probably most reptiles, birds, and mammals have a rib cage for instance. Seeing visual similarites does not prove a link. A porpoise skeleton is very similar to many fish skeletons, but we know one is a mammal and the other a fish.

 

"But this is just bones and teeth generally speaking."

Right.

But that is why other techniques are important. In the whale discussion above, I hit at some of the other areas. For instance, genetic testing can be used to test hypothesis from the fossil record. Here is where Benton did some of that testing for these groups.

MJ Benton, Phylogeny of the major tetrapod groups: morphological data and divergence dates, J. Mol. Evol, 1990.

But let's give a new answer. If you look at the above list of fossils, you will see that the mammal ear bones evolved from the reptile jaw bones. Now, if you look at the development of reptile and mammal embryos, you will see that they both have an early stage with pharyngeal arches. A part of one of these arches turns into the reptile jaw. The very same part turns into the inner ear of mammals. So you have congruence of data from development and from the fossils.

"But how can a cold-blooded animal, that lays eggs, and has no milk glands turn into a mammal?"

Here is a discussion of the cold blooded to warm.

Ruben J., The evolution of endothermy in mammals and birds: from physiology to fossils, Annu Rev Physiol. 1995;57:69-95.

If you look, you will see that some mammals still lay leathery eggs very much like a reptile egg. Then you have the marsupials, which are a little more modern and give birth to immature offspring. Placental mammals only came later.

Milk glands are nothing more than modified sweat glands. In monotremes, like the platypus, the milk just runs out a gland and the infant licks it off the skin.

 

Let's take your example. A group of reptiles changed into mammals.

Now this occurred over tens of millions of years.

About how many generations would that be, UTE?
One generation a year? Two? Three?

We can do a little math if you are willing. And the upshot will be, guaranteed, that evolution has not had enough time to do what you are claiming it did.