Zachriel:
We not only know it's possible, we have the fossil evidence showing that it did, in fact, happen.

The fossil evidence relies on the assumption it did happen.

There still isn't any genetic data which links to the transitions.

IOW you still cannot test the claim.

Zach: No one can make you clarify your views or defend them. It's enough to point out that you won't.

Just because Typostrophe Theory has vague similarities to modern theories doesn't mean it has any scientific basis. Here's a recent test of the basis of Schindewolf's theory:

Korn, Typostrophism in Palaeozoic Ammonoids?, Paläontologische Zeitschrift 2003.

Did you actually read this paper Zach? Or did you just read the abstract and think "that's good enough"?

Behe has in mind a model where all the parts of an irreducible structure are snapped into place. But we can see that it doesn't have to happen this way.

You've been corrected on this before, since you are repeating it here without addressing the corrections I can only conclude that you are being deceptive. Behe allowed for the possibility of "circuitous routes" way back in his 1996 book:

Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however, one can not definitely rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. –DBB

Furthermore, you keep harping on examples on the macroscopic level. You've been corrected before on this point as well. Behe focused on protein machines at the molecular level. Any proposed evolution of molecular machines involves protein changes. Ear-bone evolution involves developmental regulatory changes. Any change in the place or time of development of a structure is regulatory in nature. Changes in proteins are less likely to underlie such changes because most regulatory proteins are constrained due to their pleiotropic roles in the development of different structures.

ID guy: You don't even klnow whether or not the transition is possible- that is from reptilian jaw to mammalian ear.

We not only know it's possible, we have the fossil evidence showing that it did, in fact, happen. The fossils not only confirm a prediction from embryonic observations and Common Descent (Gaupp, 1910), but shows that an "irreducible" structure can evolve through a very straightforward process of cooption, functional migration and optimization.

Behe has in mind a model where all the parts of an irreducible structure are snapped into place. But we can see that it doesn't have to happen this way. Rather, the parts can morph into a configuration such that they are coopted and then increasingly specialized and dependent for the function.

Zachriel:
No one can make you clarify your views or defend them. It's enough to point out that you won't.

Nice projection…

You don't even klnow whether or not the transition is possible- that is from reptilian jaw to mammalian ear.

You don't have any ckue as to what gene, genes, regulatory networks are responsible for the reptilian jaw nor the mammalian ear.

All you have is speculation that is based solely on the assumption that reptiles and mammals shared a common ancestor.

Daniel Smith: This shows a complete lack of understanding of Schindewolf's theory.

No one can make you clarify your views or defend them. It's enough to point out that you won't.

Just because Typostrophe Theory has vague similarities to modern theories doesn't mean it has any scientific basis. Here's a recent test of the basis of Schindewolf's theory:

Korn, Typostrophism in Palaeozoic Ammonoids?, Paläontologische Zeitschrift 2003.

The mechanism is gradual, selectable steps, that is, natural variations and natural selection. More particularly, if you read the article cited above on Therian Mammals, they point to developmental heterochrony and gene patterning. Small changes in the timing of developmental processes can effect significant changes in function.

No, that's the traditional approach. More recently, investigators have considered changes in the relative positioning of a developmental event – see for example Shigeru Kuratani's Science paper dealing with lamprey jaw development. Evolution occurs also ( and perhaps does so mostly) through changes in the capacity to elaborate a developmental event. As for the ear region, it is likely that all three mechanisms (which actually overlap) have been involved in evolutionary changes in this region.

Zach: There are too many well-known evolutionary transitions to make the hopeful monster theory viable.

This shows a complete lack of understanding of Schindewolf's theory.

I suggest you read his "Basic Questions in Paleontology" before engaging in strawman arguments against it.

Zachriel: we have experiments with embryos that two bones that make up part of the lower jaw in reptilian fetuses form two bones of the mammalian middle ear. Indeed, ossicles *are* modified jaw bones!

ID guy: But that is a lie.

The embryonic relationship was discovered in 1837 by Karl Reichert. The evolutionary hypothesis based on this relationship dates to Ernst Gaupp in 1910. The first intermediate fossils didn't turn up until the 1950's, while more and more details of the transition have been revealed by more recent findings.

Mutations in mice show that small genetic changes can affect the separation of the middle ear from the mandible by modifying the developmental timing of Meckel's cartilage, a process called paedomorphosis.