Evolution, religion, and ignorance.

[Esquilax]

No, as I haven't studied it enough to make such a claim, or to evaluate your claim that they're otherwise identical. But, the articles do not support your claim. you act as if all skink populations had been studied and found to be egg layers, and then a known population began live births. That's not the case.

Perhaps. But there's still enough evidence to point to this being an evolutionary change that's still in progress, rather than something these skinks just do.

It matters when you present one position as a given. It's not a given.

No, it doesn't. Like I've said before, you'll find scientists that disagree with pretty much any scientific concept, the idea that any field has unanimity vastly misunderstands how human beings work. But as I've said before, if these scientists believe that macroevolution works on a different set of mechanisms to microevolution, or if they think that there's some line preventing micro changes from accumulating, then they are making positive claims that require evidence.

Evidence that I would be happy to consider, if it's there. But so far, there's been a marked lack of it here, which is enough justification to shelve the idea until evidence comes to light.

And it's simple logic (math actually) that 1+1-1=1, putting you right back where you started. You've been talking out of both sides of your mouth regarding the straight line.

Well, actually, even if you had 1+1-1, you would still have gone somewhere and then come back, so it's not like there would be no indication that anything had happened. That quibble aside, you just keep showing that you aren't getting this; I'm not "talking out of both sides of my mouth," I'm being intellectually honest. Yes, there are some cases in which a trait evolves, and then regresses, so that no change overall occurs. Are you now saying that this happens in every case? What mechanism can you propose that makes this happen?

See above - you never got to 99.

Only if you're proposing that the mechanism prevents things from progressing past 2, which is still something you'd bear a burden of proof for. Pushing that burden back further doesn't absolve you of it.

The fact that I just want scientific evidence for macroevolution - a term coined by and still used by evolutionists - but get everything but such evidence is rather telling.

Quit shifting the burden of proof.