As everyone who has seen the photographs knows the dentition of the thylacine and the wolf is very different.
Thus Milton's "observations" can be rejected as false - the skulls are not nearly identical - they can easily be distinguished by a layman.
This was all hashed out in the thread you referred to.
Score one against Milton's reliability.
OK how about Milton's comments on the T.O. Transitional Fossils FAQ. He CLAIMS that the FAQ promises fine-grained transitional sequences - but he omits the text which makes the actual promise:
"Part 2 lists numerous species-to-species transitions from the mammals"
Why then does Milton not talk about the transitions given in part 2 for mammalian species ?
Then he takes ordinary scientific language and calls it "undefined Darwinist code words" which he claims is "used to suggest or imply
that there is strong or direct scientific evidence of a relationship". In fact in every case they DO deal with evidence of a relationship or an evidenced relationship.
So Milton's direct comments on the FAQ are based on misrepresentation.
So what "strata" does Milton demand ? It isn't clear. Why for example does he reject the horse sequence ? And why does he claim that the transitional fossil are just isolated specimens when fine grained transitiosn are known to exist ?
And lets repeat a question you asked :
"Richard Milton says ape to human transitional bones do not exist WHY does he say this ?"
The answer is that he DOES have a very big axe to grind against evolution.