Diarthrognathus

Posted by Pat on September 14, 1998 at 13:27:40:

Diarthrognathus is a transitional form between reptiles and mammals. It's interesting because it has *both* mammalian and reptilian jaw joints, a rather mammalian middle and inner ear, and a host of other features that puts it between the two classes. Karl declined to classify it, or to discuss the reptilian/mammalian characters.

Since karl is unable to even say whether this creature is a reptile or a mammal, it certainly, by his own admission, qualifies as a transitional.


Response

Posted by Joe Martin on September 15, 1998 at 07:17:40:

Or a creature all on its own without coming from one and becoming another. Sometimes the facts are the way they are because they are.
Speculative inferences might help but they are not science. Before you reply Pat don't claim that everything except your transitional inference is the cartoon version.


Response to Joe Martin

Posted by Pat on September 15, 1998 at 17:31:09:

…All on its own without coming from one and becoming another.

Pat:

That would bring up the problem of why it's apparently a reptile with mammalian characters, positioned precisely at the point where a transitional creature is called for. That's just too much to explain away. And what then is it? It had a very short existance as a species, so it evolved from something, after all. Why not just accept that it is what it is?

Joe M:

Sometimes the facts are the way they are because they are.

Pat:

Sure. This transitional is the way it is, because it's carried the jaw and skull modifications as far as it can without being a full mammal.

Joe M:

Speculative inferences might help but they are not science. Before you reply Pat don't claim that everything except your transitional inference is the cartoon version.

Pat:

When a creature is such a markedly transitional creature that one cannot even say with confidence whether it is a reptile or a mammal, it takes a great deal of determination and resistance to reality to continue to insist that it is not.

Response to Pat

Posted by Joe Martin on September 15, 1998 at 20:41:08:

…All on its own without coming from one and becoming another.

Pat:

That would bring up the problem of why it's apparently a reptile with mammalian characters, positioned precisely at the point where a transitional creature is called for. That's just too much to explain away. And what then is it? It had a very short existence as a species, so it evolved from something, after all. Why not just accept that it is what it is?

Joe

Well, if you insist that it's a problem I'll have to bow to your expertise. Personally I think it was a reptile that wanted more handsome looks. Who was it that positioned it so precisely? Couldn't be that ghost of Punctuated Equilibrium now could it.

Where does all that genetic information get stored while your reptile is in a long period of stasis awaiting an explosive rebirth as a mammal? Your assumption that it IS a transitional because it has characteristics of both is just that, an assumption, isn't it?

Evolutionary theory will never be complete while it relies soley on materialistic methods. Don't you get it? I know you think that it represents God's method in the physical realm. But what makes you feel that he would reveal every little secret of it when your own individual life is so short? Do you truly feel that your individual life is so meaningless to him that he is only concerned with the species as a whole? He has left part of it where it can't be seen or experimented on. Trying to fill those dots with transitionals is wishful thinking at best. Biological theory without cosmological significance is Passe', and cosmological theory is very quickly entering non-materialistic realms. The significance will eventually filter down to biology.

Joe M:

Sometimes the facts are the way they are because they are.

Pat:

Sure. This transitional is the way it is, because it's carried the jaw and skull modifications as far as it can without being a full mammal.

Joe

I thought it was PE that carried the modifications to the next step or is this where you see PE getting into the act? Do you suppose that the reptile knew it had to become a mammal?

Joe M:

Speculative inferences might help but they are not science. Before you reply Pat don't claim that everything except your transitional inference is the cartoon version.

Pat:

When a creature is such a markedly transitional creature that one cannot even say with confidence whether it is a reptile or a mammal, it takes a great deal of determination and resistance to reality to continue to insist that it is not.

Joe

Where did you get this reality from? I insist nothing. I merely take issue with purely materialistic evolution as the defining characteristics of 3-dimensional evolution. Human classifications are not the be all and end all. Science doesn't work that way.
The answer is in your spirit. Why do you wish it to be the case so strongly?


Response to Joe Martin

Posted by Pat on September 15, 1998 at 21:21:43:

Joe

Well, if you insist that it's a problem I'll have to bow to your expertise. Personally I think it was a reptile that wanted more handsome looks. Who was it that positioned it so precisely?

Pat:

In the sense that all things happen according to His will... But then that's not science. :^]

Joe M:

Couldn't be that ghost of Punctuated Equilibrium now could it.

Pat:

Nope. There are more and more of these coming to light, and they come in all graduations. This is sympatric speciation, and it tends to be gradual. At least most of it.

Joe M:

Where does all that genetic information get stored while your reptile is in a long period of stasis awaiting an explosive rebirth as a mammal?

Pat:

Didn't. In this case, it was a lenghty, gradual transition. We have lots and lots of these creatures in various states of "mammalness".

Joe M:

Your assumption that it IS a transitional because it has characteristics of both is just that, an assumption, isn't it?

Pat:

Nope. You find a series of these things, each a little more like a mammal, and spread out in the record in the sort of order that shows transition... Well it takes a pretty stubborn type to insist it's all happenstance.

Joe M:

Evolutionary theory will never be complete while it relies soley on materialistic methods.

Pat:

That's all any science uses. It's limited, of course, but you have to admit that it's done pretty well in spite of those limitations. On the other hand, it can't solve all our problems.

Joe M:

Don't you get it? I know you think that it represents God's method in the physical realm. But what makes you feel that he would reveal every little secret of it when your own individual life is so short?

Pat:

Actually, He hasn't. But He did give us a mind and curiosity to go find out for ourselves. And He made it hard enough that we'll never solve it all. For which I am grateful to Him. Science needs mystery to live.

Joe M:

Do you truly feel that your individual life is so meaningless to him that he is only concerned with the species as a whole?

Pat:

You're confusing the physical species with our souls. If we never got past Homo erectus, God would still love us, and we would still be with Him if we chose to do so.

Joe M:

He has left part of it where it can't be seen or experimented on.

Pat:

Maybe. But we haven't reached that part, yet, if it exists.

Joe M:

Trying to fill those dots with transitionals is wishful thinking at best.

Pat:

Nope. As you've learned, these transitions are very well documented and intermediate between reptiles and mammals.

Joe M:

Biological theory without cosmological significance is Passe',

Pat:

Going new age on me again? Let's stay focused on facts, OK?

Joe M:

and cosmological theory is very quickly entering non-materialistic realms.

Pat:

Ah yes, "The Tao of Physics", "The Dancing Wu Li Masters", and all that pop stuff. Read it. It's so much prune product.

Joe M:

The significance will eventually filter down to biology.

Pat:

Yep, when Shirley McClain wins the Nobel Prize for Biology.

Joe M:

Sometimes the facts are the way they are because they are.

Pat:

Sure. This transitional is the way it is, because it's carried the jaw and skull modifications as far as it can without being a full mammal.

Joe

thought it was PE that carried the modifications to the next step or is this where you see PE getting into the act? Do you suppose that the reptile knew it had to become a mammal?

Pat:

No. Far as I can see, sympatric evolution is slow enough that lots of stages show up in the fossil record.

Joe M:

Speculative inferences might help but they are not science. Before you reply Pat don't claim that everything except your transitional inference is the cartoon version.

Pat:

When a creature is such a markedly transitional creature that one cannot even say with confidence whether it is a reptile or a mammal, it takes a great deal of determination and resistance to reality to continue to insist that it is not.

Joe

Where did you get this reality from? I insist nothing. I merely take issue with purely materialistic evolution as the defining characteristics of 3-dimensional evolution.

Pat: (theme from "Twilight Zone" begins)

As opposed to the 2-dimensional or 4-dimensional kind?

Joe M:

Human classifications are not the be all and end all.

Pat:

Why do I get the feeling that I'm watching you argue with yourself?

Joe M:

Science doesn't work that way. The answer is in your spirit. Why do you wish it to be the case so strongly?

Pat:

Common misconception among creationsists. This isn't how I'd like the world to be. It's the way the evidence leads.

 

 

 

 
 
CARM ison