Egg tooth evolution?

[diamondbp]

I was thinking of evolutionary issues from the last thread that was recently closed and it dawned on me that the egg tooth would seemingly point away from a "random" mutation carried out by evolutionary processes.

1: If turtles(or their supposed ancestors) were ever hatching effectively
WITHOUT an eggtooth then what selective pressure would help in the emergence of an eggtooth?

2: If turtles(or their supposed ancestors) were not capable of hatching succesfully without an eggtooth, wouldn't they have automatically died out preventing further generations?

3: Egg tooths can be formed from different sources (in some lizards it's an actual tooth gene), so shouldn't this raise the question of what are the chances of every turtles species having/needing one?

4: The timing is which an egg tooth is formed and in which it is dropped is so very critical. The "triggering" of the egg tooth to form at just the right time and then to "unneccesarily" fall off seems to go against evolutionary processes.

5: The use of the egg tooth by the turtle at JUST the right time seems to point toward intelligent design over random chance. I have had eggs prematurely open the eggshell with their egg tooth and the hatchling died in the egg.

6: No other scale or part of a turtles body "falls off" or is "resorbed" at any point in time during their development other than the egg tooth. I may be wrong on that but I'm not aware of another structure resorbing or falling off on any chelonia species?

Notes:

Some have suggested that the supposed "appearance" of the eggtooth was more efficient than the previous (unknown) way of hatching therefore excelerating the trait for future generations.
This logic falls short in a number of areas, but if it were indeed true then another host of problematic questions could be posed. Why would the egg tooth fall off? How would the eggtooth falling off benefit the turtle in any way? Would a brand new feature (eggtooth) miraculously have the ability to FORM and FALL off within exact proximity to the hatching stage? How would a turtle embryo automatically have the ability to use the egg tooth at the right time and not prematurely? How is it that a "supposedly" new formation on the head of an animal would be able to appear without harmfully altering any other genes regarding the shape/form/function of the head/skull?etc.etc.

In summary:

It seems quite clear to me that an eggtooth points toward intelligent design over blind random chance. I have read attempts to try to explain the "supposed" evolution of an egg tooth and all explanations fall incredibly short of being logical.

So I am looking for some insight from the scientific minds of the forum to perhaps give a brief explanation of how an egg tooth could have possibly evolved by blind random chance.

ps. I do ask that we stay on the subject of the possible evolution of an egg tooth and not shotgun our comments all over the place on various topics.

 

[Levi the Leopard]

You bring up fantastic points. And yes, lets all please stay on topic and discuss the egg tooth origins.

I don't know much about the egg tooth. As one who believes in intelligent design I'd like to look into the egg tooth's development. I'll try to spend some time this weekend reading up about it.
Great topic to cover. Its totally turtle related

 

[tortadise]

Well you also have to take into account the nails n
On hind and forelimbs. Manouria use their claws to come out of the egg. However Manouria are like all the sea turtles and have soft shelled ova. Like crocodilians do. They both (crocs/Manouria) use the claws to expelled themselves from the egg. But Manouria still possess an egg tooth.

 

[diamondbp]

Well you also have to take into account the nails n
On hind and forelimbs. Manouria use their claws to come out of the egg. However Manouria are like all the sea turtles and have soft shelled ova. Like crocodilians do. They both (crocs/Manouria) use the claws to expelled themselves from the egg. But Manouria still possess an egg tooth.

I can't wait to work with Manouria one day. Their nesting instincts are beyond fascninatng. I wonder if any might have a video are good time sequence photos of manouria hatching.

Was there a specific point you meant by bringing up the manouria in dealing with the possible evolution? Or were you just pointing out how unique they are compared to other tortoises?

 

[tortadise]

They are fascinating indeed. I am on my phone so can't really type too much without it being misspelled etc... but I do think the Manouria would be a genus that could evolve away from the egg tooth. I do see the need and utilization of hatchlings having the egg tooth. But Manouria really Dont need it. seeing that they have been estimated to being an old world species of 160 million years. I would imagine they would of developed against the egg tooth. But perhaps they still develop it for a secondary need. Or perhaps the egg tooth is a shim as well as a tooth. Shim i use in respects of keeping the nasal passages just far enough from the egg so suffocation and or inhalation of egg debris does not happen. I am most certainly not credible enough to place documented data on this sort of thing. But none the less I feel some good speculation on this matter is all I can give.

 

[diamondbp]

They are fascinating indeed. I am on my phone so can't really type too much without it being misspelled etc... but I do think the Manouria would be a genus that could evolve away from the egg tooth. I do see the need and utilization of hatchlings having the egg tooth. But Manouria really Dont need it. seeing that they have been estimated to being an old world species of 160 million years. I would imagine they would of developed against the egg tooth. But perhaps they still develop it for a secondary need. Or perhaps the egg tooth is a shim as well as a tooth. Shim i use in respects of keeping the nasal passages just far enough from the egg so suffocation and or inhalation of egg debris does not happen. I am most certainly not credible enough to place documented data on this sort of thing. But none the less I feel some good speculation on this matter is all I can give.

I appreciate the input. Losing a feature wouldn't support the evolution of the species because it would only display a loss of a feature rather than an "appearance" of something new.

If the egg tooth was in place as a shim(to preven suffocation) then one would have to explain how the babies that "supposedly" existed(160mya) without one would have survived. Dead turtles can't evolve new features.

So although the egg tooth may possibly share a dual purpose for both opening the egg and preventing suffocation (which I haven't read literature supporting), it still doesn't support the emergence of an egg tooth.

Saying that manouri could "evolve away" from an egg doesn't explain the supposed "appearance" of an egg tooth. To evolve "away" from a feature would mean that the turtle would have had to first evolve "toward" having an egg tooth.

And this evolving "toward" having one is what I am hoping to get an explanation on.

 

[OctopusMagic]

The formation of the egg tooth would not have developed in turtles, but in an ancestor. This ancestor would most likely be at least the first common ancestor shared between crocodilians, birds, and turtles (all of which have an egg tooth). Some lizards and snakes, as well as the egg-laying mammalia have the egg tooth character. This could also be interpreted to argue that the most recent common ancestor off all these species had the egg tooth, but I'll just stick to the most recent common ancestor of turtles, crocodilians, and birds. This common ancestor would have already had the egg tooth, thus you'd have to go back further in time. We will say the previous ancestor of this common ancestor did not have an egg tooth. Therefore the egg tooth trait would have emerged to show in those common ancestor. Well, it would be difficult to say why natural selection would state that this ancestor had the need for an egg tooth. I am not sure, but I think it paves the way to a more logical mode of thinking than to state that turtles gained an egg tooth via intelligent design.

Also, the loss of a feature is still evolution. Snakes evolved to lose their limbs, but your mode of thinking would indicate that snakes did not evolve, because they "lost" a feature. Therefore losing or gaining a feature cannot constitute describing something as evolution.

 

[diamondbp]

The formation of the egg tooth would not have developed in turtles, but in an ancestor. This ancestor would most likely be at least the first common ancestor shared between crocodilians, birds, and turtles (all of which have an egg tooth). Some lizards and snakes, as well as the egg-laying mammalia have the egg tooth character. This could also be interpreted to argue that the most recent common ancestor off all these species had the egg tooth, but I'll just stick to the most recent common ancestor of turtles, crocodilians, and birds. This common ancestor would have already had the egg tooth, thus you'd have to go back further in time. We will say the previous ancestor of this common ancestor did not have an egg tooth. Therefore the egg tooth trait would have emerged to show in those common ancestor. Well, it would be difficult to say why natural selection would state that this ancestor had the need for an egg tooth. I am not sure, but I think it paves the way to a more logical mode of thinking than to state that turtles gained an egg tooth via intelligent design.

Also, the loss of a feature is still evolution. Snakes evolved to lose their limbs, but your mode of thinking would indicate that snakes did not evolve, because they "lost" a feature. Therefore losing or gaining a feature cannot constitute describing something as evolution.

Sorry I never responded to this. I simply didn't realize someone else had chimed in because it went over a week without any comments.

It doesn't matter "when" a egg tooth supposedly emerged, the problem remains the same.

You said "Well, it would be difficult to say why natural selection would state that this ancestor had the need for an egg tooth"

It's only difficult if you believe in evolution. It's quite easy to say what the "need" for an egg tooth is. The need is "the ability to hatch" because if not the creature dies lol. So again this is not difficult to understand for a creationist.

The fact that we see an egg tooth in so many different types of animals points to a common designer much more than a common ancestor. Especially if you (and other evolutionist) can't give a remotely feasible scenario for the emergence of such a structure.

Losing structures isn't evolution as much as you might like to think it is. Yes it is a "change" to a certain degree, but it displays a loss of information and not a gain. Losing structures plays no part in supposed "macro" evolution, which is what creationist and evolutionist butt heads about the most.

Thanks for the input but nothing of value was offered to the problem originally presented.

 

[cdmay]

It's only difficult if you believe in evolution. It's quite easy to say what the "need" for an egg tooth is. The need is "the ability to hatch" because if not the creature dies lol. So again this is not difficult to understand for a creationist.

The fact that we see an egg tooth in so many different types of animals points to a common designer much more than a common ancestor. Especially if you (and other evolutionist) can't give a remotely feasible scenario for the emergence of such a structure.

Losing structures isn't evolution as much as you might like to think it is. Yes it is a "change" to a certain degree, but it displays a loss of information and not a gain. Losing structures plays no part in supposed "macro" evolution, which is what creationist and evolutionist butt heads about the most.


These are some excellent points Cajun Turtle. The fact is that, had there been a real need for an egg tooth to begin with, the species in question would have died off before the structure could have developed. In other words how were they able to hatch before there was an egg tooth? The structure must have been there from the start.

Regarding the gaining or losing of structures, Darwin's finches in the Galapagos Islands have recently been observed with changing sizes in their beaks within a surprisingly few number of generations. The cause is changes in the flora and the seeds in which these finches are consuming. Some evolutionists have referred to this as 'micro'- evolution at work. Yet others state that it is simply an inherent genetic response to environmental changes. Yet the everyone agrees that the birds are, and will remain Darwin's finches. They are not evolving.

Here is another example. When my relatives first arrived here generations ago, the average height of the males on both sides of my family was well under six feet tall--around 5' 8". But then my one grandfather was 6' 2". My dad was 6' 3". My older brother is 6' 3" and I, 6' 4". My son is 6' 3" and wears a size 14 shoe. The height and body mass in my family has gone up a great deal in a relatively short period of time. Of course we attribute this to better food, better medicine and so forth. The response to better conditions has resulted in larger people throughout the United States. But no one would say it is micro-evolution.

 

[diamondbp]

It's only difficult if you believe in evolution. It's quite easy to say what the "need" for an egg tooth is. The need is "the ability to hatch" because if not the creature dies lol. So again this is not difficult to understand for a creationist.

The fact that we see an egg tooth in so many different types of animals points to a common designer much more than a common ancestor. Especially if you (and other evolutionist) can't give a remotely feasible scenario for the emergence of such a structure.

Losing structures isn't evolution as much as you might like to think it is. Yes it is a "change" to a certain degree, but it displays a loss of information and not a gain. Losing structures plays no part in supposed "macro" evolution, which is what creationist and evolutionist butt heads about the most.


These are some excellent points Cajun Turtle. The fact is that, had there been a real need for an egg tooth to begin with, the species in question would have died off before the structure could have developed. In other words how were they able to hatch before there was an egg tooth? The structure must have been there from the start.

Regarding the gaining or losing of structures, Darwin's finches in the Galapagos Islands have recently been observed with changing sizes in their beaks within a surprisingly few number of generations. The cause is changes in the flora and the seeds in which these finches are consuming. Some evolutionists have referred to this as 'micro'- evolution at work. Yet others state that it is simply an inherent genetic response to environmental changes. Yet the everyone agrees that the birds are, and will remain Darwin's finches. They are not evolving.

Here is another example. When my relatives first arrived here generations ago, the average height of the males on both sides of my family was well under six feet tall--around 5' 8". But then my one grandfather was 6' 2". My dad was 6' 3". My older brother is 6' 3" and I, 6' 4". My son is 6' 3" and wears a size 14 shoe. The height and body mass in my family has gone up a great deal in a relatively short period of time. Of course we attribute this to better food, better medicine and so forth. The response to better conditions has resulted in larger people throughout the United States. But no one would say it is micro-evolution.

well said Cdmay.......

The cricket are chirping at the evolutionist on this post. I was anticipating more attempts at explaining the evolutionary emergence of the egg tooth, but sadly very few have tried. Perhaps that's because there is no evolutionary explanation?

 

[ascott]

The cricket are chirping at the evolutionist on this post. I was anticipating more attempts at explaining the evolutionary emergence of the egg tooth, but sadly very few have tried. Perhaps that's because there is no evolutionary explanation?

I always find it entertaining to watch this egg on (pun intended) of argument/debate/banter--etc....I don't see how it is that creation and evolution are two individual acts.....you see, how is it so far fetched to see that creation was set in play with a cornucopia of evolutionary steps to play out to trigger the big picture...a start, a middle and an end....all that occurs from start to end is an evolution of a creative plan....what is the argument?

 

[diamondbp]

The cricket are chirping at the evolutionist on this post. I was anticipating more attempts at explaining the evolutionary emergence of the egg tooth, but sadly very few have tried. Perhaps that's because there is no evolutionary explanation?

I always find it entertaining to watch this egg on (pun intended) of argument/debate/banter--etc....I don't see how it is that creation and evolution are two individual acts.....you see, how is it so far fetched to see that creation was set in play with a cornucopia of evolutionary steps to play out to trigger the big picture...a start, a middle and an end....all that occurs from start to end is an evolution of a creative plan....what is the argument?

Angela I'm trying to follow your train of thought but I don't think I quite get what you mean. Could you reword your comment? I think I get what you are saying but I'm not certain.

 

[ascott]

Creation= requires some form of evolution (the word evolution being used as to represent a fluid motion of a starting plan, creation)

Evolution= the way creation moves forward (fluid pathway)

Creating a plan requires a catalyst by which the plan is set in motion, the evolution of an idea...evolution being the act of the catalyst/motion..

 

[diamondbp]

Creation= requires some form of evolution (the word evolution being used as to represent a fluid motion of a starting plan, creation)

Evolution= the way creation moves forward (fluid pathway)

Creating a plan requires a catalyst by which the plan is set in motion, the evolution of an idea...evolution being the act of the catalyst/motion..

I think the way you are using the words "creation" and "evolution" here isn't the same as what our debates are fleshing out. I wouldn't mind better explaining the nature behind the debate but I don't want the thread to get sidetracked from the problem originally presented which is "eggtooth evolution".

 

[cdmay]

Creation= requires some form of evolution (the word evolution being used as to represent a fluid motion of a starting plan, creation)

Not sure why you state that creation 'requires' some form of evolution. The ability for species to diversify and adapt OK, I get that-- but is that really evolution in the strict sense?

Evolution= the way creation moves forward (fluid pathway)

Again...adaptation yes. But when people speak of evolution in this sense they generally are referring to Darwinian Evolution and ultimately, life arising from non life.

Creating a plan requires a catalyst by which the plan is set in motion, the evolution of an idea...evolution being the act of the catalyst/motion..

True if you speaking about human endeavors.

 

[ascott]

isn't the same as what our debates are fleshing out

.

We are actually discussing the same thing. Egg tooth evolution, why does it have to be targeted as one way or the other--this is my view.

Who is to say the tooth is a new useful "tool", perhaps it is the transition from one step to the next? (The plan in motion--creation in process by evolution of one step to the next)..

I wouldn't mind better explaining the nature behind the debate

I completely understand the topic and the way in which these words are "usually" used. My expressed view is simply sharing that there are other views on these two words/views...no need in stopping the thread to catch me up, I just see it differently

---

True if you speaking about human endeavors.

Why limited to simple humans? I mean, creation and evolution perhaps are the catalysts that has us humans thinking we are the top of the chain, so to speak.

 

[diamondbp]

isn't the same as what our debates are fleshing out

.

We are actually discussing the same thing. Egg tooth evolution, why does it have to be targeted as one way or the other--this is my view.

Who is to say the tooth is a new useful "tool", perhaps it is the transition from one step to the next? (The plan in motion--creation in process by evolution of one step to the next)..

I wouldn't mind better explaining the nature behind the debate

I completely understand the topic and the way in which these words are "usually" used. My expressed view is simply sharing that there are other views on these two words/views...no need in stopping the thread to catch me up, I just see it differently

---

True if you speaking about human endeavors.

Why limited to simple humans? I mean, creation and evolution perhaps are the catalysts that has us humans thinking we are the top of the chain, so to speak.

---

Well do you have a theory to explain how an egg tooth came to be? Did it evolve? Was it created as is? You also suggested that it may be a transition structure. Could you give us an idea of what it is transitioning to and what it transitioned from? What direction is the evidence leading you to believe?

 

[cdmay]

The formation of the egg tooth would not have developed in turtles, but in an ancestor. This ancestor would most likely be at least the first common ancestor shared between crocodilians, birds, and turtles (all of which have an egg tooth). Some lizards and snakes, as well as the egg-laying mammalia have the egg tooth character. This could also be interpreted to argue that the most recent common ancestor off all these species had the egg tooth, but I'll just stick to the most recent common ancestor of turtles, crocodilians, and birds. This common ancestor would have already had the egg tooth, thus you'd have to go back further in time. We will say the previous ancestor of this common ancestor did not have an egg tooth. Therefore the egg tooth trait would have emerged to show in those common ancestor. Well, it would be difficult to say why natural selection would state that this ancestor had the need for an egg tooth. I am not sure, but I think it paves the way to a more logical mode of thinking than to state that turtles gained an egg tooth via intelligent design.

Also, the loss of a feature is still evolution. Snakes evolved to lose their limbs, but your mode of thinking would indicate that snakes did not evolve, because they "lost" a feature. Therefore losing or gaining a feature cannot constitute describing something as evolution.

I see your point. But here again you are assuming that these very different forms of life had common ancestor because it fits the evolution model.
Just because a useful feature like an egg tooth is shared by many egg laying animals does not mean they are de facto relatives. If so the same would then be true of animals that possess fur--or any kind of hair. Or if your egg tooth scenario is true then you could say that all animals with scales had a common ancestor. Or even further--that all animals with eyes can be traced back to a common ancestor.

As for snakes losing their limbs that too has not been demonstrated. Not really. True there are species both present and extinct that have what are often called 'vestigial' limbs. But in the modern species that have them they serve a specific purpose and are not useless appendages dragging along waiting to be evolved out of the picture. In pythons and boas these things are used extensively for mating.

There is a very cool article in National Geographic Magazine (circa 2010) that is about extinct whale-like things (archaeocetes) being found in the deserts of Egypt. Some of these species possessed a pair of very small limbs about the size of 'a three year old's legs' as the article described. Since they are entirely too small to support these animals in any way, scientists have always concluded that they surely must have been for some kind of minor propulsion/stabilization or for breeding. Or both.
But then National Geo, that has an admitted pro-evolution agenda, decided that these tiny limbs proved that modern whales descended from these archaeocete things. But there are some huge issues they still cannot get around and they even admit it.
For example, although these creatures did have these tiny rear limbs, the front limbs are completely different. So the idea that they were once land animals is a big stretch. In addition, both the girdle structure for these limbs--and even those for the fins of modern whales--are entirely too small to ever support the weight of these animals. Even if you accept that they have shrunk down over time, the way they are made makes land movement impossible at any time even if they were larger.
This is why whales have always been 'deal breakers' for evolutionists (National Geographic's words, not mine) as evolutionists cannot explain their origin.

 

[ascott]

Well do you have a theory to explain how an egg tooth came to be? Did it evolve? Was it created as is?

Nope. In my simple observation, there could be a variety of uses/reasons for that little point (tooth).. or perhaps it could simply be a left over part of the tort left to develop (excess for beak growth and form) into and not be for escaping the egg at all....?

You see, here is where a difference of opinion, a different view comes into play. There are days that I want to "know" why some things are what they are and so I rack my brain and exhaust myself by pulling on all of my life experiences then turn to research of others and others opinions-- and sometimes my curiosity is filled...but most times I understand that most of the things labelled as fact or certain, are only labelled this way by other simple humans like myself, who have the same type of brain and wonder just as I do--there are some humans that have the need to close the chapter on a subject so they have to label.....I also understand that we are but simple humans who I truly believe know nothing "really".

Sometimes it is best to simply go back to the bleachers, sit down, hush up and watch---sometimes so much is learned when we observe vs hop up and down trying to convince one another we "know".

I mean, do you really ever think that another human being will ever be able to offer you the true answer? Do you really ever think that there is a way that another person can truly assure you that they know the answers and there would be no question in your mind? You see, you, me and others are all generated from a "general" make up, however, our own fluid path has generated the ability to question, to inquire to quest for "why"....what do you think would happen if someone actually gave you the answer? what do you think you would do? Then what? well, you would move onto the next topic in your life quest---this is just who we are....again, my view is all....the quest is the evolutionary motion we humans take, what a creative way to keep up busy huh?

 

[diamondbp]

Well do you have a theory to explain how an egg tooth came to be? Did it evolve? Was it created as is?

Nope. In my simple observation, there could be a variety of uses/reasons for that little point (tooth)..

Could you please explain some of the variety of uses/reason for an egg tooth?? That is what I'm most interested in hearing.