Egg tooth evolution?

[cdmay]

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.

Me too. As they fall off, or quickly disappear as the beak grows around it it would be interesting to know of any other use it might have.

 

[N2TORTS]

Despite its name, the "egg tooth" is not actually a true tooth made from bone. Instead, it is a modified piece of skin - a toughened, horny piece of epidermis which forms during development of the embryo. The "tooth" is actually paired. It's not as sharp as a bony tooth, but it is normally very effective at cutting through egg membrane.

 

[diamondbp]

Despite its name, the "egg tooth" is not actually a true tooth made from bone. Instead, it is a modified piece of skin - a toughened, horny piece of epidermis which forms during development of the embryo. The "tooth" is actually paired. It's not as sharp as a bony tooth, but it is normally very effective at cutting through egg membrane.

^^In turtles and tortoises this is the case. Knowing exactly what forms the eggtooth is good information but it doesn't aid in "how" an egg tooth might have appeared by random evolutionary processes.

 

[N2TORTS]

Despite its name, the "egg tooth" is not actually a true tooth made from bone. Instead, it is a modified piece of skin - a toughened, horny piece of epidermis which forms during development of the embryo. The "tooth" is actually paired. It's not as sharp as a bony tooth, but it is normally very effective at cutting through egg membrane.

^^In turtles and tortoises this is the case. Knowing exactly what forms the eggtooth is good information but it doesn't aid in "how" an egg tooth might have appeared by random evolutionary processes.

"One of the greatest evolutionary innovations of the Carboniferous period (360 - 268 million years ago) was the amniotic egg, which allowed early reptiles to move away from waterside habitats and colonise dry regions. The amniotic egg allowed the ancestors of birds, mammals, and reptiles to reproduce on land by preventing the embryo inside from drying out, so eggs could be laid away from the water. It also meant that in contrast to the amphibians the reptiles could produce fewer eggs at any one time, because there was less risk of predation on the eggs. Reptiles don't go through a larval food-seeking stage, but undergo direct development into a miniature adult form while in the egg, and fertilisation is internal.
The earliest date for development of the amniotic egg is about 320 million years ago. However, reptiles didn't undergo any major adaptive radiation for another 20 million years. Current thinking is that these early amniotes were still spending time in the water and came ashore mainly to lay their eggs, rather than to feed. It wasn't until the evolution of herbivory that new reptile groups appeared, able to take advantage of the abundant plant life of the Carboniferous.

Early reptiles belonged to a group called the cotylosaurs. Hylonomus and Paleothyris were two members of this group. They were small, lizard-sized animals with amphibian-like skulls, shoulders, pelvis and limbs, and intermediate teeth and vertebrae"......


http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/AnimalEvolution.shtml

 

[diamondbp]

Despite its name, the "egg tooth" is not actually a true tooth made from bone. Instead, it is a modified piece of skin - a toughened, horny piece of epidermis which forms during development of the embryo. The "tooth" is actually paired. It's not as sharp as a bony tooth, but it is normally very effective at cutting through egg membrane.

^^In turtles and tortoises this is the case. Knowing exactly what forms the eggtooth is good information but it doesn't aid in "how" an egg tooth might have appeared by random evolutionary processes.

"One of the greatest evolutionary innovations of the Carboniferous period (360 - 268 million years ago) was the amniotic egg, which allowed early reptiles to move away from waterside habitats and colonise dry regions. The amniotic egg allowed the ancestors of birds, mammals, and reptiles to reproduce on land by preventing the embryo inside from drying out, so eggs could be laid away from the water. It also meant that in contrast to the amphibians the reptiles could produce fewer eggs at any one time, because there was less risk of predation on the eggs. Reptiles don't go through a larval food-seeking stage, but undergo direct development into a miniature adult form while in the egg, and fertilisation is internal.
The earliest date for development of the amniotic egg is about 320 million years ago. However, reptiles didn't undergo any major adaptive radiation for another 20 million years. Current thinking is that these early amniotes were still spending time in the water and came ashore mainly to lay their eggs, rather than to feed. It wasn't until the evolution of herbivory that new reptile groups appeared, able to take advantage of the abundant plant life of the Carboniferous.

Early reptiles belonged to a group called the cotylosaurs. Hylonomus and Paleothyris were two members of this group. They were small, lizard-sized animals with amphibian-like skulls, shoulders, pelvis and limbs, and intermediate teeth and vertebrae"......


http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/AnimalEvolution.shtml

I appreciate the input. And not to sound disrespectful, but how does that evolutionary speculation aid in defining the logic behind an egg tooth and it's "supposed" appearance?

That's what I'm searching for from people who believe turtles evolved. I want a feasible scenario of how eggtooth structures "appeared" from animals that previously did not have use for them.

I believe that it is crystal clear that eggtooth were DESIGNED and did not evolve from random processes. I think all creatures that currently have eggtooths were originally CREATED with this structure and that examination of eggtooths affirms this as the most logical explanation.

 

[ascott]

It sounds as though you have a theory set in place that satisfies your curiosity. As I said there could be a variety of reasons or none at all... I believe it is likely not so significant..the tort has four limbs developed with nails..to me this is a large way they aid in exiting the egg..also sheer growth and use of the contents of the sac would aid in the exit as inevitable ..now don't think my observation is a declaration on my part to know this to be true and indeed correct, but rather simply an observation..

 

[jaizei]

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 believe that it is crystal clear that eggtooth were DESIGNED and did not evolve from random processes. I think all creatures that currently have eggtooths were originally CREATED with this structure and that examination of eggtooths affirms this as the most logical explanation.

The fact that you have already decided that the supernatural answer is the most 'logical' is probably why there aren't many replies. Knowing the basics of evolution, I think it is easy to form a theory about how or why an egg tooth might arise.

 

[N2TORTS]

Despite its name, the "egg tooth" is not actually a true tooth made from bone. Instead, it is a modified piece of skin - a toughened, horny piece of epidermis which forms during development of the embryo. The "tooth" is actually paired. It's not as sharp as a bony tooth, but it is normally very effective at cutting through egg membrane.

^^In turtles and tortoises this is the case. Knowing exactly what forms the eggtooth is good information but it doesn't aid in "how" an egg tooth might have appeared by random evolutionary processes.

"One of the greatest evolutionary innovations of the Carboniferous period (360 - 268 million years ago) was the amniotic egg, which allowed early reptiles to move away from waterside habitats and colonise dry regions. The amniotic egg allowed the ancestors of birds, mammals, and reptiles to reproduce on land by preventing the embryo inside from drying out, so eggs could be laid away from the water. It also meant that in contrast to the amphibians the reptiles could produce fewer eggs at any one time, because there was less risk of predation on the eggs. Reptiles don't go through a larval food-seeking stage, but undergo direct development into a miniature adult form while in the egg, and fertilisation is internal.
The earliest date for development of the amniotic egg is about 320 million years ago. However, reptiles didn't undergo any major adaptive radiation for another 20 million years. Current thinking is that these early amniotes were still spending time in the water and came ashore mainly to lay their eggs, rather than to feed. It wasn't until the evolution of herbivory that new reptile groups appeared, able to take advantage of the abundant plant life of the Carboniferous.

Early reptiles belonged to a group called the cotylosaurs. Hylonomus and Paleothyris were two members of this group. They were small, lizard-sized animals with amphibian-like skulls, shoulders, pelvis and limbs, and intermediate teeth and vertebrae"......


http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/AnimalEvolution.shtml

I appreciate the input. And not to sound disrespectful, but how does that evolutionary speculation aid in defining the logic behind an egg tooth and it's "supposed" appearance?

That's what I'm searching for from people who believe turtles evolved. I want a feasible scenario of how eggtooth structures "appeared" from animals that previously did not have use for them.

I believe that it is crystal clear that eggtooth were DESIGNED and did not evolve from random processes. I think all creatures that currently have eggtooths were originally CREATED with this structure and that examination of eggtooths affirms this as the most logical explanation.

Embryology and developmental biology have provided some fascinating insights into evolutionary pathways. Since the cladistic morphological classification of species is generally based on derived characters of adult organisms, embryology and developmental studies provide a nearly independent body of evidence. From embryological studies it is known that two bones of a developing reptile eventually form the quadrate and the articular bones in the hinge of the adult reptilian jaw. Accordingly, there is a very complete series of fossil intermediates in which these structures are clearly modified from the reptilian jaw to the mammalian ear.

Early in development, mammalian embryos temporarily have pharyngeal pouches, which are morphologically indistinguishable from aquatic vertebrate gill pouches. This evolutionary relic reflects the fact that mammalian ancestors were once aquatic gill-breathing vertebrates. The arches between the gills, called branchial arches, were present in jawless fish and some of these branchial arches later evolved into the bones of the jaw, and, eventually, into the bones of the inner ear.

Many species of snakes and legless lizards (such as the "slow worm") initially develop limb buds in their embryonic development, only to reabsorb them before hatching. Similarly, modern adult whales, dolphins, and porpoises have no hind legs. Even so, hind legs, complete with various leg bones, nerves, and blood vessels, temporarily appear in the cetacean fetus and subsequently degenerate before birth.

Mammals evolved from a reptile-like ancestor, and placental mammals (like humans and dogs) have lost the egg-tooth and caruncle (and eggshell). However, monotremes, such as the platypus and echidna, are primitive mammals that have both an egg-tooth and a caruncle, even though the monotreme eggshell is thin and leathery. Most strikingly, during marsupial development, an eggshell forms transiently and then is reabsorbed before live birth. Though they have no need for it, several marsupial newborns (such as baby Brushtail possums, koalas, and bandicoots) retain a vestigial caruncle as a clear indicator of their reptilian, oviparous ancestry.

The fossil record has confirmed that birds once had teeth, as demonstrated by the fossils of many birds with teeth including Archaeopteryx. Furthermore, this predicted possibility has been confirmed experimentally in a modern bird, the chicken. Kollar and Fisher transplanted a small piece of mammalian mesenchymal tissue (which forms teeth) underneath the beak-forming epithelial layer of a developing chick. Intriguingly, they observed that the chicken epithelium secreted dental enamel and directed the adjacent mesenchyme to form teeth. This would have been impossible unless the chicken still retained the genes and developmental pathway for making teeth. Thus, chickens have not yet completely lost the genes coding for tooth development (two of Stephen Jay Gould's popular books are titled Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes and The Panda's Thumb which explain some of this past evolutionary history).
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p15.htm#Opportunistic

 

[cdmay]

Embryology and developmental biology have provided some fascinating insights into evolutionary pathways. Since the cladistic morphological classification of species is generally based on derived characters of adult organisms, embryology and developmental studies provide a nearly independent body of evidence. From embryological studies it is known that two bones of a developing reptile eventually form the quadrate and the articular bones in the hinge of the adult reptilian jaw. Accordingly, there is a very complete series of fossil intermediates in which these structures are clearly modified from the reptilian jaw to the mammalian ear.

Early in development, mammalian embryos temporarily have pharyngeal pouches, which are morphologically indistinguishable from aquatic vertebrate gill pouches. This evolutionary relic reflects the fact that mammalian ancestors were once aquatic gill-breathing vertebrates. The arches between the gills, called branchial arches, were present in jawless fish and some of these branchial arches later evolved into the bones of the jaw, and, eventually, into the bones of the inner ear.

Many species of snakes and legless lizards (such as the "slow worm") initially develop limb buds in their embryonic development, only to reabsorb them before hatching. Similarly, modern adult whales, dolphins, and porpoises have no hind legs. Even so, hind legs, complete with various leg bones, nerves, and blood vessels, temporarily appear in the cetacean fetus and subsequently degenerate before birth.

Mammals evolved from a reptile-like ancestor, and placental mammals (like humans and dogs) have lost the egg-tooth and caruncle (and eggshell). However, monotremes, such as the platypus and echidna, are primitive mammals that have both an egg-tooth and a caruncle, even though the monotreme eggshell is thin and leathery. Most strikingly, during marsupial development, an eggshell forms transiently and then is reabsorbed before live birth. Though they have no need for it, several marsupial newborns (such as baby Brushtail possums, koalas, and bandicoots) retain a vestigial caruncle as a clear indicator of their reptilian, oviparous ancestry.

The fossil record has confirmed that birds once had teeth, as demonstrated by the fossils of many birds with teeth including Archaeopteryx. Furthermore, this predicted possibility has been confirmed experimentally in a modern bird, the chicken. Kollar and Fisher transplanted a small piece of mammalian mesenchymal tissue (which forms teeth) underneath the beak-forming epithelial layer of a developing chick. Intriguingly, they observed that the chicken epithelium secreted dental enamel and directed the adjacent mesenchyme to form teeth. This would have been impossible unless the chicken still retained the genes and developmental pathway for making teeth. Thus, chickens have not yet completely lost the genes coding for tooth development (two of Stephen Jay Gould's popular books are titled Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes and The Panda's Thumb which explain some of this past evolutionary history).
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p15.h...ortunistic



I've read things like this in the past. As soon as you mentioned Stephen Jay Gould I knew where this came from. Gould is a very well known evolutionist but the problem many people (including myself) have with him is that he sees similarities in wildly diverse groups of animals and makes the leap...the very long leap, that they all came from a common ancestor. That embryos of completely separate faunal classes have structures that might resemble those of others does not mean they evolved from one another. Not in any way.
At a certain point in the human embryonic development we look exactly like the embryos of...cows! But this of course does not indicate a relationship. The 'limb buds' that you mentioned (or who you direct quoted, which is OK by me) that appear and then disappear in various stages of embryonic development are interesting--and may not really be 'limb buds'. Additionally, is doesn't prove that at animal that has no legs at one point in time actually had them. It means that there are a lot of things we don't understand about embryonic development. But scientists often don't like to admit this fact so they assign meaning to things without proof.
At a certain time in embryonic development all humans (and all other mammals) are female with the male traits showing up later. So using Gould's logic all mammals at one time walked around as females.
Additionally, that human embryos have tiny structures that some regard as gill-like means absolutely nothing. Nothing at all. Even if they are actually some gill like structure it does not in any way automatically point to a relationship, or common ancestry with fish. It simply means that there is a tiny structure that resembles something that fish have.
I would once again apply this counterpoint...fish have eyes as do humans. Some fish have eyes with internal structures that are very similar to humans. So do octopi. So do countless other mammals.
Does it mean we all evolved from a common ancestor? Of course not.

Look, there are some creationists who are misguided. Trying to assert that the seven creative 'days' mentioned in the Bible are literal 24 hour time periods is a good example.
Likewise, it must be admitted that some evolutionists' ideas are pretty far fetched too. That they publish a book doesn't make them right or immune to criticism. Don't forget, there are evolutionists who claim that spacemen brought life here from other galaxies to kick start the planet.

 

[N2TORTS]

About the book publishing ......well Sorry Carl I can't change your mind nor can any "peoples" of today's world .
But in fact ......
Why don't people believe the fact of evolution?
Because as children some aren't taught the genuine facts based on reality, they are taught religious ideals based on traditionalized culture/heritage. This does not make it real or fact but a faith system. However faith defended with science can only make it more bullet proof. But when that faith is based on ideals from the Bronze Age there are many more holes to fill. Instead of filling them with personal ideals, people listen to other peoples ideals gather the facts and data and make an assessment .
Not one to favor their sides in their own religious beliefs.
It's plain and simple things evolved through natural processes, like mutation and natural selection.

Evolution can be summed up by the phrase "survival of the fittest" and the extinction of the unfit. The death of the majority allows the few with beneficial mutations to continue. If the
"Creator" had spent the time and waved his magic wand ( 7 Days Right ?...<~~~you have to be kidding me ???) ...did he also design those "creatures" to die out ,or which makes more sense change aka "evolve" with time for further reproduction. (oops I mean 6 days he rested on the 7th )

---

We have only discussed animals .......Here is another good read
Plant Systematics and Evolution:
Plant Systematics and Evolution is an international journal dedicated to publication of original papers and reviews on plant systematics in the broadest sense. The journal aims to bridge the specific subject areas in plant systematics and evolution, encompassing evolutionary, phylogenetic and biogeographical studies at the populational, specific and higher taxonomic levels. Taxonomic emphasis is on green plants

ISSN: 0378-2697 (Print) 1615-6110 (Online)

---

We could get even more intense by talking about " the splitting of the atom"? Wanna try?

 

[ascott]

Evolution can be summed up by the phrase "survival of the fittest" and the extinction of the unfit.

I often wonder how it is that the fittest are the only valuable of the equation ...I mean who is to say the unfit are not truly a transition, therefore just as important as the fittest? I mean, every living creature on this earth has a purpose, right.

If the
"Creator" had spent the time and waved his magic wand ...did he also design those "creatures" to die out

Absolutely, makes perfect sense, each serves as a step to the next...not one is less valuable, but just as important as the last and as imperative as the next....

" the splitting of the atom"?

Not that different...just a different path...

---

I apologize, totally went off topic in my last post....so I am going to attempt to head back to your home base here

As I said before, I do not know the answer you seek. I do know that sometimes we perhaps will not know the "exact" answer..but we sure can speculate till the cows come home....this is a skill we have honed in to perfection....

 

[N2TORTS]

Evolution can be summed up by the phrase "survival of the fittest" and the extinction of the unfit.

I often wonder how it is that the fittest are the only valuable of the equation ...I mean who is to say the unfit are not truly a transition, therefore just as important as the fittest? I mean, every living creature on this earth has a purpose, right.

If the
"Creator" had spent the time and waved his magic wand ...did he also design those "creatures" to die out

Absolutely, makes perfect sense, each serves as a step to the next...not one is less valuable, but just as important as the last and as imperative as the next....

" the splitting of the atom"?

Not that different...just a different path...

---

I apologize, totally went off topic in my last post....so I am going to attempt to head back to your home base here

As I said before, I do not know the answer you seek. I do know that sometimes we perhaps will not know the "exact" answer..but we sure can speculate till the cows come home....this is a skill we have honed in to perfection....

---

"One of the most unrewarding things a scientist (or science writer which I'm not) can attempt to do is rebut the arguments of Creationists. This isn't because it's difficult to demolish the Creationist point of view, but because meeting anti-evolutionists on their own terms can make it seem to readers as if there are two logical sides to the argument (which, of course, there aren't).In earlier posts I tried to summarize what the " Egg tooth" actually is , what it's made of, when and why it developed according to fossilized records millions of years old..
Still, the attempts by Creationists to fit dinosaurs into their Biblical world view is a worthy topic of discussion, if only for amusement purposes. Quoted below are some of the main arguments fundamentalists use, and the contrasting views from the science camp."

Creationists believe dinosaurs are thousands, not millions, of years old

Pro: In order to square the existence of dinosaurs with the Book of Genesis--which posits a world that's only several thousand years old--Creationists insist that dinosaurs were created ex nihilo, by god, along with all the other animals. In this view, evolution is just an elaborate "story" used by scientists to buttress their false claims of an ancient earth.

Con: On the side of science are such techniques as radioactive dating and sediment analysis, which conclusively prove that dinosaur fossils are at least 65 million to 230 million years old. These same studies prove that the earth itself coalesced from debris orbiting the sun about four billion years ago.

According to Creationists, all the dinosaurs could have fit on Noah's Ark

Pro: From the Creationist point of view, all the creatures that ever existed lived sometime over the past few thousand years. Therefore, all these animals had to have been led, two by two, onto Noah's Ark--even Brachiosaurus, Pteranodon, and Tyrannosaurus Rex. That must have been one pretty big boat, even if some fundamentalists dance around the issue by insisting that Noah collected baby dinosaurs.

Con: Skeptics point out that, by the Bible's own word, Noah's Ark was only about 450 feet long and 75 feet wide. Even with baby dinosaurs representing the hundreds of species discovered so far (and we won't even get into giraffes, elephants, and Woolly Mammoths), it's clear that Noah's Ark was exactly what it sounds like--a myth.

Creationists believe dinosaurs were wiped out by the Flood

Pro: As you might have guessed from the above argument, Creationists maintain that dinosaurs were washed away by the biblical Flood a few thousand years ago--and not by the K/T asteroid impact at the end of the Cretaceous period. This ties in nicely (if not very logically) with their claim that the distribution of fossils is somehow related to a specific dinosaur's location at the time of the Flood.

Con: Today, pretty much all scientists believe that a comet or meteorite impact 65 million years ago was the main cause of the dinosaurs' demise--perhaps combined with disease and volcanic activity. As for fossil distribution, the simplest explanation is the most scientific one: we find fossils in various locations according to the geological period in which the animals to which they correspond lived.

Creationists believe dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible

Pro: Whenever the word "dragon" is used in the Old Testament, what's really meant is "dinosaur," Creationists say--and they point out that other ancient texts also mention these fearsome, scaly creatures. This is offered as evidence that a) dinosaurs aren't nearly as old as scientists claim, and b) dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time.

Con: The science camp doesn't have much to say about what the author(s) of the Bible meant when they referenced dragons--that's a question for philologists, not evolutionary biologists. However, the fossil evidence is firm that humans appeared on the scene tens of millions of years after the dinosaurs--and besides, we have yet to find any cave paintings of a Stegosaurus!

http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/recolonisation

http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/AnimalEvolution.shtml


Now if this stuff really interests you ...this was just two days ago!
Researchers create embryonic stem cells without embryo
http://phys.org/news/2014-01-embryonic-stem-cells-embryo.html

 

[ascott]

I don't see, first of all, how it is we humans can label creationist vs evolutionist....how on earth did we decide these are two completely different things....I do not see how one can be without the other?? Just not possible. I believe that humans once again have to have a "side" that wins/that is right....why? how? There is no absolute proof on either side....none that is absolute without question, neither.

 

[N2TORTS]

Once again I think point being missed.....not labeling , but looking at pure "proof" of fossil records and sedimentary , geological happenings , which can be dated and actually did occur millions of years ahead of mankind.Even so man himself within the last 100 years has shown evidence of "microevolution"(not really the same ,but somewhat of an analogy to "change")..... not to mention the advancements in technology that can provide accurate /precise dated information(within reason) without a biased opinion. This possible the greatest "sin" as it separates factual information not derived from traditions/faith .

Let me Stress I have NO problems with traditions and or faith ......of any kind.

 

[mctlong]

Hey all, this is a fascinating topic. As an archaeologist, I love a good debate on evolution, so I would hate to see this thread closed (as I am sure all of you would as well). So please keep in mind forum guideline #7 which prohibits discussion of religion/politics not specifically associated with tortoises. This is not a theology forum, its a tortoise forum.

 

[cdmay]

Evolution can be summed up by the phrase "survival of the fittest" and the extinction of the unfit.

I often wonder how it is that the fittest are the only valuable of the equation ...I mean who is to say the unfit are not truly a transition, therefore just as important as the fittest? I mean, every living creature on this earth has a purpose, right.

If the
"Creator" had spent the time and waved his magic wand ...did he also design those "creatures" to die out

Absolutely, makes perfect sense, each serves as a step to the next...not one is less valuable, but just as important as the last and as imperative as the next....

" the splitting of the atom"?

Not that different...just a different path...

---

I apologize, totally went off topic in my last post....so I am going to attempt to head back to your home base here

As I said before, I do not know the answer you seek. I do know that sometimes we perhaps will not know the "exact" answer..but we sure can speculate till the cows come home....this is a skill we have honed in to perfection....

---

"One of the most unrewarding things a scientist (or science writer which I'm not) can attempt to do is rebut the arguments of Creationists. This isn't because it's difficult to demolish the Creationist point of view, but because meeting anti-evolutionists on their own terms can make it seem to readers as if there are two logical sides to the argument (which, of course, there aren't).In earlier posts I tried to summarize what the " Egg tooth" actually is , what it's made of, when and why it developed according to fossilized records millions of years old..
Still, the attempts by Creationists to fit dinosaurs into their Biblical world view is a worthy topic of discussion, if only for amusement purposes. Quoted below are some of the main arguments fundamentalists use, and the contrasting views from the science camp."

Creationists believe dinosaurs are thousands, not millions, of years old

Pro: In order to square the existence of dinosaurs with the Book of Genesis--which posits a world that's only several thousand years old--Creationists insist that dinosaurs were created ex nihilo, by god, along with all the other animals. In this view, evolution is just an elaborate "story" used by scientists to buttress their false claims of an ancient earth.

Con: On the side of science are such techniques as radioactive dating and sediment analysis, which conclusively prove that dinosaur fossils are at least 65 million to 230 million years old. These same studies prove that the earth itself coalesced from debris orbiting the sun about four billion years ago.

According to Creationists, all the dinosaurs could have fit on Noah's Ark

Pro: From the Creationist point of view, all the creatures that ever existed lived sometime over the past few thousand years. Therefore, all these animals had to have been led, two by two, onto Noah's Ark--even Brachiosaurus, Pteranodon, and Tyrannosaurus Rex. That must have been one pretty big boat, even if some fundamentalists dance around the issue by insisting that Noah collected baby dinosaurs.

Con: Skeptics point out that, by the Bible's own word, Noah's Ark was only about 450 feet long and 75 feet wide. Even with baby dinosaurs representing the hundreds of species discovered so far (and we won't even get into giraffes, elephants, and Woolly Mammoths), it's clear that Noah's Ark was exactly what it sounds like--a myth.

Creationists believe dinosaurs were wiped out by the Flood

Pro: As you might have guessed from the above argument, Creationists maintain that dinosaurs were washed away by the biblical Flood a few thousand years ago--and not by the K/T asteroid impact at the end of the Cretaceous period. This ties in nicely (if not very logically) with their claim that the distribution of fossils is somehow related to a specific dinosaur's location at the time of the Flood.

Con: Today, pretty much all scientists believe that a comet or meteorite impact 65 million years ago was the main cause of the dinosaurs' demise--perhaps combined with disease and volcanic activity. As for fossil distribution, the simplest explanation is the most scientific one: we find fossils in various locations according to the geological period in which the animals to which they correspond lived.

Creationists believe dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible

Pro: Whenever the word "dragon" is used in the Old Testament, what's really meant is "dinosaur," Creationists say--and they point out that other ancient texts also mention these fearsome, scaly creatures. This is offered as evidence that a) dinosaurs aren't nearly as old as scientists claim, and b) dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time.

Con: The science camp doesn't have much to say about what the author(s) of the Bible meant when they referenced dragons--that's a question for philologists, not evolutionary biologists. However, the fossil evidence is firm that humans appeared on the scene tens of millions of years after the dinosaurs--and besides, we have yet to find any cave paintings of a Stegosaurus!

http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/recolonisation

http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/AnimalEvolution.shtml


Now if this stuff really interests you ...this was just two days ago!
Researchers create embryonic stem cells without embryo
http://phys.org/news/2014-01-embryonic-stem-cells-embryo.html

---

I will try and respond to these statements without mentioning religion but you will have to excuse me, as this is a bit difficult when you mention the Bible and so forth.
First, please get this fact into your head---you are lumping all creationists into the same camp by making erroneous generalizations.
For example, some creationists do incorrectly state (as you do) that the Bible says the earth was created in 6 LITERAL days. I have explained this before but you are clearly not reading my posts. The Bible account of the days is not to be taken literally but rather, the term 'day' being used there refers to an undetermined period of time. Like saying, "in my grandfather's day" doesn't mean your grandfather lived in one day.
Second, the Bible does not mention dinosaurs directly except to say 'giant see creatures'. But the Bible also does not mention them on Noah's Ark and clearly they died out--or served their purpose--before mankind was ever on the earth. The fossil record agrees with this. So that some creationists try and make the case that they were on the ark is simply thier lack of understanding of the Bible.
Also, the Bible does NOT claim that every single species or subspecies or regional variant of animal was on the ark. Instead it says that 'kinds' of animals were represented. Clearly what we have now are variants and decendants of these 'kinds'. But still, life came from preexisting life and one kind of animal did not evolve from another 'lower' form.
Virtually everything you said about creationists was incorrect from the point that only some make this claim.

It would be like me asserting that since a few evolutionists fervently believe that we came from Martians means that ALL evolutionists think that we came from Martians.
Would it be fair for me to claim that N2TORTS believes humans are Martian decendants?
Further, some evolutionists think that spacemen 'seeded' the earth with life from their planet. Would you say that all evolutionists think this?
Would it be OK for me to state, "As an evolutionist N2TORTS thinks that aliens seeded the earth" ?

Stop lumping man.

 

[N2TORTS]

E=MC[2]

 

[Yvonne G]

Despite its name, the "egg tooth" is not actually a true tooth made from bone. Instead, it is a modified piece of skin - a toughened, horny piece of epidermis which forms during development of the embryo. The "tooth" is actually paired. It's not as sharp as a bony tooth, but it is normally very effective at cutting through egg membrane.

Oh-ho! This might mean that tortoises evolved from Rhinos! A rhino has a very big egg tooth, or two.

 

[diamondbp]

I appreciate everyone's efforts. I really do. But both parties have jumped so far off topic now and we need to bring it back in.

If you don't have any input on the logical reasons of "why" (let alone how) an eggtooth would emerge then I will politely ask you to refrain from debating on other topics concerning creation/evolution.

I know it can be incredibly difficult to focus on just one aspect of this giant subject, but I really feel it is necessary if we are ever going to get anywhere.

** If a supposed "prehistoric" turtle ancestor was able to hatch out just fine without an "eggtooth structure" then what would be the necessity of evolving one? ***

FOCUS PEOPLE FOCUS lol

 

[N2TORTS]

Diamond I agree.....but I was not the first one to even bring up the word "evolution nor creation if you read through the post you started. This thread goes a lot hand in hand with the other evo thread.

---

Despite its name, the "egg tooth" is not actually a true tooth made from bone. Instead, it is a modified piece of skin - a toughened, horny piece of epidermis which forms during development of the embryo. The "tooth" is actually paired. It's not as sharp as a bony tooth, but it is normally very effective at cutting through egg membrane.

Oh-ho! This might mean that tortoises evolved from Rhinos! A rhino has a very big egg tooth, or two.

Now Yvonne you may find this interesting ...or may not

"Perissodactyls include tapirs, rhinos, horses, and their extinct relatives, including some of the largest and most bizarre mammals to have ever lived. While there are only a few types of perissodactyls alive today and most of these species are endangered, fossils demonstrate that perissodactyls were both diverse and highly successful from their appearance in the beginning of the Eocene (about 55 million years ago) to the end of the last Ice age about 10,000 years ago.

After the extinction of the dinosaurs about 65 million years ago, mammals began to evolve large body sizes and fill ecological niches that were previously occupied by dinosaurs. The mammals that lived in the Paleocene, the epoch following the dinosaur extinction, were small and only distantly related to living mammals. Eventually mammals more closely related to living mammals began to appear, including the first perissodactyls about 55.5 million years ago at the beginning of the Eocene."

You can read more about these changes in the Environment section of this website.
AMERICAN MUESUM OF NATURAL HISTORY
http://research.amnh.org/paleontology/perissodactyl/evolution/intro

---

Carl your right ......after reading my reply .
I should say ...."Most".....and not lump everyone's ideals together and make them one secular group....My bad~