Technically nothing, they're mammals. Why do you feel egg-laying would change that?
And this is the part of that you cut out.
They include synapsids (mammals along with their extinct kin) and sauropsids (reptiles and birds), as well as their fossil ancestors. Amniote embryos, whether laid as eggs or carried by the female, are protected and aided by several extensive membranes. In eutherian mammals (such as humans), these membranes include the amniotic sac that surrounds the fetus. These embryonic membranes, and the lack of a larval stage, distinguish amniotes from tetrapod amphibians.[1]
Yes, it does.
So mammals are therefore any animal on this earth or in the sea. Such as whales, and dinosaurs which were reptiles but are mamals and birds that were reptiles but not mammals and are now not reptiles.
But a reptile is not a bird or a mamal.
A reptile is any amniote (tetrapod that can lay eggs on land) that is neither a mammal nor a bird.
So birds are not mammals, nor are they reptiles. As a human is not a mammal as it neither lays eggs on land, nor does it lay eggs in the sea, doesn't lay eggs at all. But birds lay eggs on land, are warm blooded, respirate through lungs, but are not mammals because they fly or have feathers?
Or would that just be a holdover from the days when you thought dino were cold-blooded and not mammals, so didn't classify the bird as a mammal since you thought they came from dino?
So if birds came from dino, and birds are not mammal or reptilian, then dinosaur were neither reptilian nor mammals.
So what you are telling me is mammals is so undefined that it can include any class really, except for some reason you excluded birds, when they are descended from tetropods that lay eggs on land.
So if you really believe in evolution, why are you classifying anything at all? Nothing will be the same in the future according to you. A feline will no longer be a feline, an ape an ape, but a man. Your classifications would then be rendered useless. Or one would mistakenly believe two dogs are of seperate species, while believeing that they all came from the same common ancestor. Showing once again kind after kind, not species after species.
You cant even define mammal without breaking your own rules. It is any amniote (a land egg laying creature), but its also any warm blooded, unless they are birds. Feathers shouldn't matter as whales don't have feathers, nor lay eggs on land. But we will add another exception and include live bearing amniotes, just not birds. We will now include birds because we figured out dino are not cold-blooded and are not reptiles, but leave the reptile deffinition to be any land egg laying tetrepod not a mammal, or a bird.
If a bird is a mammal, why the distinction, mammal or bird? Should be just mammal should it not?
But birds are not mammals, nor are they reptiles. So they could not have evolved from dinosaur which you classify as mammal or reptile, you have done both, not aves.
The simple fact is you had mammal dino, reptile dino, aves dino. That life went extinct. A new life sprang up in its place, one that never existed before, at any time in the fossil record. The bones of modern animals can be found no earlier than the bones of man. Some survived that cataclysm, shark, crocodile for example. Those that did survive have the same basic appearance except for size and slight variations as they did hundreds of millions of years ago. Yet everything else on this Earth spotaneously evolved into forms never seen before?
