Perhaps an analogy is in order.

Lets say you were working on a big complex jigsaw puzzle. You had completed most of the border and some large portions of the puzzle internally. You had also tentatively placed some pieces that weren't directly connected to any other pieces. However, due to your experience with the rest of the puzzle, how pieces commonly fit together, and looking at the picture as a whole, you felt very confident that those free floating pieces were well placed and that you would eventually fill in the gaps around them. Of course, if they didn't ultimately fit, you realize you might need to move them or, perhaps, even reevaluate whether they belong to this puzzle at all.

Now, lets imagine that I come along and see you building the puzzle. I see the free floating pieces and say: "What kind of game are you trying to play? Those pieces don't have mates! This whole puzzle is bullsh*t!" Then I take the puzzle and I throw it into the trash. Would this be a reasonable response on my part? Would it make sense for me to trash the whole puzzle and reject all your other work just because you had tentatively placed some pieces based on your educated experience?

I hope you can see the parallel with your argument here.

These look like good articles and books on the topic...
http://www.jstor.org/view/00397989/d...3&config=jstor

http://books.google.com/books?id=3ph...A_LWqMezwCtmb0

And the good ole reliable Wikipedia discusses common bone and teeth characteristics of mammals....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal

There are many others...just need to do a search....enjoy....

When one appraoches this problem of creation..from either angle....design or random....one must consider the time frame that we live in now...as it is the only reference that can be calibrated by a standard of known quality....as we can acutally have the subject(s) to study...in real time and not the conjecture of theory.

When one studies nature in all it various forms of quality and quanity....there is one "Fact" of conclusion.....if one plants a corn seed..he will get corn....and apple tree.....he gets apples......a moma cow gives birth to a baby cow...so on so forth.....without exception.....so to ask any to believe different...with that which we are witness to today....without any changes being observed to conclusion of evolving...I for one would be hardpressed to accept....a theory that any reptilian form of life could morph into a mammalian lifeform...without some basic alteration on the molecular level, would simply be impossible....with the exception of human(intelligent design).....much like we alter plant life at the micro level to enhance growth or strength.....and one could reach this platform of theory without even considering the moral or religious process of thought. BD

We do see evolution happening in real time, on a molecular level. Viruses and bacteria are evolving right before ours eyes. Every season new strains of influenza evolve that on a molecular scale look as different from the old strains as dog do from cats. Same goes for bacteria like MRSA (antibiotic resistant Staphylococcus). If your DNA or cell structure mutated so dramatically, you might look like The Fly.

As for larger more complex organisms which apparently take longer to evolve, there is the fossil record and, now, the DNA record.

Much as we see a worm morph into winged insect(buterfly)....but do we see any basic changes at basic a moecular level....into a completely different animal..or is what what we are witness to a simple adjustment in relation to the domain of environment.....much as the people of different climates have different skin pigments.....adaptation to environment is not evolving....it is just a matter of trying to preserve the most basic of instinct.....the contiunuation of the bloodline....survival. BD

Everything on a molecuar level exist on an entirely different time table as that of more developed life forms...we merely witness the adaptation of these cells to survival..nothing more.....if one would compare this to human time we might witness our forfathers adapting to their environment...as each generation becomes darker or lighter....to accept this new environment which they might have migrated to.....for basic life needs....food..shelter....any number of reasons.....much like these mircos' are adapting to the interference of man on their environment. BD

What living organisms are classified as mammals solely on the basis of their bones and teeth?

What you are describing is change, but it is not speciation, much less macroevolution that leads to higher taxa

I don't know. I'm not a biologist. But I bet there have been. I bet somewhere along the line a scientist identified a previously undiscovered animal as mammalian from its skeleton alone, only to have it confirmed later when the live animal was finally found. Yeah, that would be interesting to find out.

Now answer my question please. Is it reasonable for me to discount the validity of the rest of your puzzle assembly just because you had made educated guesses about the placement of some pieces?

Oh, here's an obvious example: The Mammoth. It's not living, but for a very long time only bones were found. And they were definitely classified as mammals. Then in recent years actually frozen carcasses were discovered in Siberia. Now we know for 100% certain that they were mammals.

I'll continue to look for even better examples.