here you go. if we will find a 70my human fossil we can just claim that it just didnt leaved any fossil in the last 60-70 my, like in the coelacanths case. simple and easy.
The coelacanth situation is still not the same as what you are describing for humans. The evidence for coelacanths is like a sandwhich that's just bread with air in between; we have evidence for them existing 60-70 million years ago, and we have evidence for them existing now in the form of living species, but the fossil record in between those time frames is missing. At no point is there a coelacanth fossil that predates all other vertebrates. The human fossil record is like a sandwich with most of the desirable contents between the slices of bread, perhaps it could use a little more mustard or something, but otherwise is essentially complete. A human fossil dating 70 million years would be like the bottom slice of that sandwich suddenly teleporting 100 meters above the rest of the sandwhich, causing all of the contents to spill out.
But hey, let's bring genetics into the party, since a 70 million year old Homo sapiens fossil doesn't fit with genetics either. Remember, mutation frequency is a calculable number, and for our species, that number is 40-60 mutations for each individual on average. Humans existing for that long would demand that chimpanzees be much more genetically dissimilar to us than to other apes by virtue of mutation rate.
first: if its possible with 3 species its also possible with many more.
It has happened with others, but your claim demands
ALL but two. If your claims matched reality, in that mammals could independently evolve multiple times, that situation would have to be extremely common. Yet, you are incapable of showing it has occurred even once. Where is my strawberry with mammalian hair genes?
second: i also gave you an example of a gene that is share with a group of far species but not in many species between them.
Again, your claim demands ALL, not many. ALL. How many times do I have to say it in order for you to understand that?
and in this case, as we can see- they solve it by convergent loss. as i said: no problem for evolution.
Again, show me convergent loss that results in all but two distant lineages HAVING the gene, and you will have made your point. Until you do, you haven't.