ROTFL! You are seriously suggesting that a fossil is pure theory rather than fossil evidence ?!?
Are you laughing at your own mistake. It is you who said that:
The theory of evolution does not say that the mammalian middle ear evolved in mammals, rather than in their pre-mammalian ancestors -
Did you not? You are mistaken. The ToE does not say that. Pre-mammalian ancestors are reptilian transitionals. There are mammals that do not have the DDME. The ToE does say that the DDME evolved partially in reptiles and then continued into mammals until it became what is known as the DMME in modern mammals.
You prove my point. It is the fossil evidence that tells use where the DDME evolved NOT pure theory.
Yes fossils are evidence. But the ToE predicts things that haven't been found. You used Tiktaalik as an example. Probably a fair example of a prediction before the find. That's how it should work. Now my question is what is the prediction of ToE about when the DDME ear evolved? If it can predict Tiktaalik, can't the theory predict the first DDME find? Isn't that the same principle? Would it predict J1,J2,J3,K1 or K2 for instance? That's the question.
Does ToE based on the fossil evidence of the ear and jaw predict that the DMME evolved sometime after 125mya, before 125mya, closer to 70mya, or pick any number. Based on the evidence that we currently have, what would or does the theory predict?