Egg tooth evolution?

[ascott]

LOL....I shared what I thought and now I am on my way back to the bleachers to watch the rest....good luck.

 

[cdmay]

LOL....I shared what I thought and now I am on my way back to the bleachers to watch the rest....good luck.

Me too! By the way, did someone mention egg tooth somewhere?

 

[diamondbp]

LOL....I shared what I thought and now I am on my way back to the bleachers to watch the rest....good luck.

Me too! By the way, did someone mention egg tooth somewhere?

Well you know we MUST cover every single possible aspect of creation/evolution before we can tackle the eggtooth problem. It' just protocol lol

 

[N2TORTS]

"Egg teeth of Squamate reptiles and their phylogenetic significance
Original and published data on the structure of egg teeth in Squamate reptiles and the phylogenetic significance of corresponding characters are reviewed, elaborating A.M. Sergeev’s ideas on the subject. Problems are discussed concerning the use of this character in modern phylogenetic constructions and the necessity of new embryological investigations to resolve the issue concerning the formation of an unpaired egg tooth rudiment in all Squamata except the Dibamidae and Gekkota."
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1062359013070029

Now here is what blows my mind …..

The Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) with for other species of Echidna (Monotremes) are the only mammals that lay eggs. Also in fact one of the few venomous mammals , with the male platy having a spur on the hind foot that delivers venom. This very unique animal makes for an important subject in the studies of evolution biology.

 

[N2TORTS]

"Egg teeth of Squamate reptiles and their phylogenetic significance
Original and published data on the structure of egg teeth in Squamate reptiles and the phylogenetic significance of corresponding characters are reviewed, elaborating A.M. Sergeev’s ideas on the subject. Problems are discussed concerning the use of this character in modern phylogenetic constructions and the necessity of new embryological investigations to resolve the issue concerning the formation of an unpaired egg tooth rudiment in all Squamata except the Dibamidae and Gekkota."
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1062359013070029

Now here is what blows my mind …..

The Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) with for other species of Echidna (Monotremes) are the only mammals that lay eggs. Also in fact one of the few venomous mammals , with the male platy having a spur on the hind foot that delivers venom. This very unique animal makes for an important subject in the studies of evolution biology.

Opps....I mean "four" .....I was never proficient at writing well , nor proof checking my work. Another one of my faults. .....sorry.

 

[diamondbp]

"Egg teeth of Squamate reptiles and their phylogenetic significance
Original and published data on the structure of egg teeth in Squamate reptiles and the phylogenetic significance of corresponding characters are reviewed, elaborating A.M. Sergeev’s ideas on the subject. Problems are discussed concerning the use of this character in modern phylogenetic constructions and the necessity of new embryological investigations to resolve the issue concerning the formation of an unpaired egg tooth rudiment in all Squamata except the Dibamidae and Gekkota."
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1062359013070029

Now here is what blows my mind …..

The Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) with for other species of Echidna (Monotremes) are the only mammals that lay eggs. Also in fact one of the few venomous mammals , with the male platy having a spur on the hind foot that delivers venom. This very unique animal makes for an important subject in the studies of evolution biology.

Opps....I mean "four" .....I was never proficient at writing well , nor proof checking my work. Another one of my faults. .....sorry.

I'm checking out the link now. Just so you know, there is a "quick edit" button on the right of the comment box if you need to go back and correct any mispelled words. lol. It happens to the best of us

 

[N2TORTS]

it only gives you 30 mins to make changes ..... I had to run to the store for soda!

 

[OctopusMagic]

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.

I don't think you have an understanding of the nature of the scientific argument behind evolution. I could do what you just did and fabricate plausible explanations for the evolution of an egg tooth and I could still say evolution is more plausible than creationism. Scientific explanation arises from observed or inferred evidence, not the act of simply forming explanations with no basis such as your own. The ability to hatch was never questioned by me. I was simply venturing deeper into question than answering the first "why". For every answer, there is another question; you don't just stop at "a need to hatch."

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.

This is totally incorrect. Seeing an egg tooth in many kinds of animals would point to the idea that all of these animals stemmed from a common ancestor a very long time ago, and that ancestor had the egg tooth which was a retained trait in all of these lineages. You're explanation for an egg tooth is just as baseless as anything I could come up with, because I'm not doing research specifically on the origins of the egg tooth. That does not at all mean creationism is the correct answer.

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.

This leads me to believe you don't quite know what you're talking about. I don't think you quite understand evolution, nor do you understand the concept of phylogenies. A loss of a trait is indeed evolution and does not imply a loss of information. A loss of a trait could lead to the gain of many others, so your point is ill-informed and moot for more reasons that I've mentioned.


Overall, I would have to guess that you need to pick up a book on understanding phylogenies before you can come back to me and argue your creationism. I'm open to the idea of creationism, and I'm not a crazed evolutionist like you may think. I currently think evolution is the more compelling argument and I personally subscribe to it. "Tree Thinking: An Introduction to Phylogenetic Biology" by Baum and Smith is a good introductory textbook that could teach you the basics of tree thinking.

Every perspective has it's weaknesses, and you tend to be focused purely on the problem that scientific explanation currently doesn't answer one question you have about something very specific. The problem with science is that evidence (physical or observed) and inferences from that evidence are used to back explanations, not the simple thought that the explanation "makes sense" like creationists tend to go by. Creationism has no tangible evidence whereas evolutionism does.

---

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.

I don't think you have an understanding of the nature of the scientific argument behind evolution. I could do what you just did and fabricate plausible explanations for the evolution of an egg tooth and I could still say evolution is more plausible than creationism. Scientific explanation arises from observed or inferred evidence, not the act of simply forming explanations with no basis such as your own. The ability to hatch was never questioned by me. I was simply venturing deeper into question than answering the first "why". For every answer, there is another question; you don't just stop at "a need to hatch."

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.

This is totally incorrect. Seeing an egg tooth in many kinds of animals would point to the idea that all of these animals stemmed from a common ancestor a very long time ago, and that ancestor had the egg tooth which was a retained trait in all of these lineages. You're explanation for an egg tooth is just as baseless as anything I could come up with, because I'm not doing research specifically on the origins of the egg tooth. That does not at all mean creationism is the correct answer.

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.

This leads me to believe you don't quite know what you're talking about. I don't think you quite understand evolution, nor do you understand the concept of phylogenies. A loss of a trait is indeed evolution and does not imply a loss of information. A loss of a trait could lead to the gain of many others, so your point is ill-informed and moot for more reasons that I've mentioned.


Overall, I would have to guess that you need to pick up a book on understanding phylogenies before you can come back to me and argue your creationism. I'm open to the idea of creationism, and I'm not a crazed evolutionist like you may think. I currently think evolution is the more compelling argument and I personally subscribe to it. "Tree Thinking: An Introduction to Phylogenetic Biology" by Baum and Smith is a good introductory textbook that could teach you the basics of tree thinking.

Every perspective has it's weaknesses, and you tend to be focused purely on the problem that scientific explanation currently doesn't answer one question you have about something very specific. The problem with science is that evidence (physical or observed) and inferences from that evidence are used to back explanations, not the simple thought that the explanation "makes sense" like creationists tend to go by. Creationism has no tangible evidence whereas evolutionism does.

---

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.

The lack of an egg tooth does not necessarily mean a hatch rate of 0%. Perhaps the egg tooth improved hatch rates and was thus taken on through natural selection. You are implying that a lack of egg tooth means that a species could not hatch which is not true. Perhaps a lack of egg tooth still had effective hatch rates, high enough to allow for the survival of a species, but once the egg tooth developed, hatch rates gradually improved and allowed the species to flourish.

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.

changing of beak size does not imply evolution of a new species. beak change could be for the reasons above and adaptation. A new species would arguably be one that cannot create viable offspring with the current Darwin's finches. evolution on the grand scale takes, hundreds, thousands of years. Not a few generations within the scope of vertebrates. The birds are indeed evolving as everything is, just not at an observable rate. Evolution is not exclusive to phenotypic change, nor does evolution imply observable change. A species that remains the same for a long time is still evolving...

I honestly skipped over your anecdote because it looked awfully boring. If you had something compelling feel free to summarize for me, or I can revisit and read it.

---

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?

You provide a perfectly reasonable explanation, and I appreciate your ability to understand the nature of things like this. Just believe what you want, and don't ask other for their opinion unless you want to use their opinion to build upon and change your own through perspective. This post in particular just seems to be "creationists" that don't understand nor do they want to understand what the theory of evolution actually is.

---

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.

Having a common ancestor doesn't necessarily imply the last ancestor was common. A common ancestor could be a hundred ancestors away. Maybe 10, maybe 5. A ton of different species didn't just erupt from a single ancestor. You don't understand in the slightest what you're arguing against.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

 

[cdmay]

Having a common ancestor doesn't necessarily imply the last ancestor was common. A common ancestor could be a hundred ancestors away. Maybe 10, maybe 5. A ton of different species didn't just erupt from a single ancestor. You don't understand in the slightest what you're arguing against.




I don't have the slightest idea what I'm arguing against?
Thanks, nothing like a great laugh to start the day!

 

[N2TORTS]

Now Carl .....Do you mean 24 hours ago you laughed ....or some time in another dimension?


Here is what's really funny..............

Carl Wrote:

"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..""Stop lumping man.”…..your exact words!........


Well Gosh Dang ...........
"Ham believes that Genesis is literally true--that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days--and that the universe is about 6,000 years old. But overwhelming scientific evidence indicates that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old."


Again your smart-mouthed remarks..."Would it be OK for me to state, As an evolutionist N2TORTS thinks that aliens seeded the earth" ?
Well sounding like a moron in BFE behind a computer … yes I would expect that ….bring this one up next Sunday ….“Creation Museum founder Ken Ham” <----Humm and he is the founder? I wonder how many followers he has? Or people believing his ideals? (I think they call them Pastors in church and sheeple in public right? )

Hummmm……….Maybe you should have been in the debate? I know how you stress time as a factor and know everything ...

Plus a Big thank you for making me laugh in the last 24 hours....

 

[N2TORTS]

Thanks, nothing like a great laugh to start the day!

Carl is the term 'day' being used here refer to an undetermined period of time?...or are you a Happy Camper All the time ?

 

[OctopusMagic]

I don't have the slightest idea what I'm arguing against?
Thanks, nothing like a great laugh to start the day!

You truly do not. You may understand your own perspective, but you understand very little about the evolutionist perspective. It's very apparent from your responses and input to this "discussion." I've recommended a book for you all to take a gander at. It's very clear to me that you don't understand the very basics of evolution and phylogenics. You also bring up irrelevant points, such as claiming that all evolutionists agree with strictly Darwinian theory. So, this being your only response, it's obvious that your ego is just too big to admit your willful ignorance. I've no interest in talking to those who don't wish to grow and understand other perspectives. Have a nice day.

 

[cdmay]

I don't have the slightest idea what I'm arguing against?
Thanks, nothing like a great laugh to start the day!

You truly do not. You may understand your own perspective, but you understand very little about the evolutionist perspective. It's very apparent from your responses and input to this "discussion." I've recommended a book for you all to take a gander at. It's very clear to me that you don't understand the very basics of evolution and phylogenics. You also bring up irrelevant points, such as claiming that all evolutionists agree with strictly Darwinian theory. So, this being your only response, it's obvious that your ego is just too big to admit your willful ignorance. I've no interest in talking to those who don't wish to grow and understand other perspectives. Have a nice day.

Thanks.
I actually do understand evolution theory although I'm sorry if I implied that all evolutionists subscribe to Darwinian theory. It has been my impression that most do.
But then you also must likewise admit that not all evolutionists agree with Baum and his version of tree thinking. Fair enough?
So while you call me ignorant for not agreeing with Baum's tree thinking, I could say that you are claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with your exact definition of evolution is also ignorant.
I understand phylogenics and can figure out most clades. This may be a surprise to you but I actually agree with some tree thinking--to a point.
For example, Iverson, Bourque and others present reasonable and understandable clades regarding Kinosternid turtle relatedness. But unlike Baum, they do not take to claiming that humans and rodents stem from a common (although distant) ancestor. Or am I wrong here too?

As for the original topic, you gave a very clear and understandable explanation of how modern reptiles (and birds?) might have come from an ancestor that somehow mutated an 'egg tooth' that allowed for a higher hatch rate. Here is what you said:

The lack of an egg tooth does not necessarily mean a hatch rate of 0%. Perhaps the egg tooth improved hatch rates and was thus taken on through natural selection. You are implying that a lack of egg tooth means that a species could not hatch which is not true. Perhaps a lack of egg tooth still had effective hatch rates, high enough to allow for the survival of a species, but once the egg tooth developed, hatch rates gradually improved and allowed the species to flourish.

Unless I am mistaken (go ahead, say I'm ignorant) this is the typical model of how evolutionists claim species advance by mutation.

Your idea sounds plausible-- but only on the surface. Once a mathematician gets involved your idea becomes highly improbable.
Here is why. You are supposing that at some point in the distant past, an embryonic animal inside of an egg randomly possessed some kind of unusual (new) structure--at just the right place on its face (or beak or whatever) that aided it in escaping from its egg. Then you assume that this animal--or maybe even some of its siblings, survived to the point that they could reproduce. You then assume that this new mutation was a heritable trait that was passed on to enough surviving offspring of future clutches to eventually become common. You then assume that this random mutation (that just so happened to occur at just the right place on the body) continued to benefit the species by improving hatch rates and thus, that species survival. Then, according to your tree theory, this species eventually became so successful (at least in part because of this mutation) that it then became a progenitor of modern reptiles that possess egg teeth.
Am I at least close to what you are claiming? If so do you realize the impossible probability of this occurring?
Or am I being boring again?

While eloquent, your theory is based on 100% pure speculation and includes an unacceptable amount of assumptions. There is exactly zero in the fossil record to back your idea up in any way. There is nothing to support your claim. Yet make it you must, because anything is better than simply admitting that egg teeth were created by an intelligent designer. Right?

In addition, while I may be hopelessly ignorant of evolution, you are likewise ignorant of egg teeth. Although they serve the same purpose they are not at all the same thing.
Just one example: the egg tooth of slider turtles is a completely different structure than that of tortoises. In the former it is a sharp, scale like object that quickly sheds off once the neonate has emerged from the egg.
In many (most?) tortoises there is really no separate tooth. Instead the front edge of the maxilla is modified into a point prior to, and then for a short time after, hatching. This point does not fall off but instead the maxilla simply smooths out as the neonate grows. Although both possess an egg tooth of sorts, they are completely different structures altogether that would have required another myriad of mutations to arrive at the point they are now at.
So then, according to your theory not only does the original mutation occur, it also has the ability over time to turn itself into highly varied structures complete with their own complicated genetics. And I didn't even go into the egg teeth of birds.

Phylogenies and cladistics are useful tools for trying to figure out relationships between extinct and modern species. But even you (OctopusMagic) will acknowledge that they are nothing more than hypothetical models that are an attempt to explain various theories.
I think even David Baum (who I'm guessing is never boring) would admit this.

And lastly, I did have a nice day. I had a couple of really nice looking tortoises emerge from their eggs using their cute little egg teeth that they inherited from a flying dinosaur.

 

[N2TORTS]

"Comparative Anatomy Structures that share an embryological origin (through common descent) - even if they function in different ways - are known as homologies. Evolutionary theory predicts that species that evolved from other species should have homologous structures. This is because the original structures are modified and serve a different purpose.
The mammalian ear and jaw provide an excellent example, complete with transitional stages from the fossil record. The lower jaws of mammals contain only one bone, whereas those of reptiles have several. The bones now found in the mammalian ear are homologous with the additional bones in the reptile jaw. Paleontologists have discovered intermediate forms of mammal-like reptiles with a double jaw joint - one composed of the bones that persist in mammalian jaws, the other consisting of bones that eventually became the hammer and anvil of the mammalian ear.
The limbs of vertebrates provide another example of homologous structures. All of these limbs have similar structures that perform different functions, suggesting they have common ancestors that had these structures. This conclusion is supported by independent evidence from the fossil record including a general chronology of intermediate forms between dinosaurs and modern birds, in which theropod structures were modified into modern bird structures.
Additionally..... all organisms carry useless remnants of formerly functional structures that make no sense except as holdovers from different ancestral states. Whales and dolphins - which evolved from terrestrial mammals - possess vestiges of leg bones hidden inside their bodies. The same is true of many snake species, which evolved from reptilian ancestors with legs. ......
Biogeography - geographic patterns of species distribution Evolutionary theory predicts that groups of organisms that are evolutionarily related will also be geographically connected, if not in the present then at least at the time they diverged. For a new species to evolve from existing species, the new species must originate in relative proximity to the existing species. That is, the past and present geographic distributions of species must reflect the history of their evolution as known from fossil evidence and/or genetic analysis.

For example, marsupials ("pouched" mammals such as kangaroos, koalas and opossums) are found only in Australia and South America, although the earliest ancestors of modern marsupials are actually found on North America. (Opossums have moved back into North America, but only after the rise of the Isthmus of Panama connected North and South America). Placental mammals (other than those introduced by humans) occur everywhere but Australia.

A look at the movements of continents (and their timing) explains these patterns. South America, Australia, Africa, and Antarctica once made up the continent of Gondwanaland. They split apart 180 million years ago, which is also when marsupial and placental mammals diverged. Similarly, lungfishes, ratite (ostrich-like) birds, and leptodactylid frogs are found nowhere but Australia and southern South America and Africa.

In addition, if Australian marsupials are evolutionary related to South American marsupials, fossils of common ancestors should be found dating from before these two landmasses separated during the late Cretaceous. And in fact, fossil marsupials are found on Antarctica dating to this period."

Molecular techniques have also been used to construct phylogenetic trees. Because of mutations, the sequence of nucleotides in a gene gradually changes over time. Evolutionary theory predicts that the more closely related two organisms are, the less different their DNA will be. More importantly, phylogenetic trees derived from molecular sequences (DNA) should match trees constructed independently from morphologyor paleontology (the probability of finding two similar independently-derived trees by chance is extremely small. Many molecular studies have confirmed phylogenetic relationships derived from paleontology and anatomy.

For example, genetic sequences of the proteins myoglobin and hemoglobin were determined for dozens of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, worms, and molluscs. The differences in sequences among different organisms was used to construct a family tree of hemoglobin and myoglobin variation among organisms. This tree agreed completely with trees constructed from the fossil record and comparative anatomy.

Similar family histories have been obtained from the three-dimensional structures and amino acid sequences of other proteins, such as cytochrome c, a small protein found loosely associated with the inner membrane of the mitochondrion, and the digestive proteins trypsin and chymotrypsin.

Molecular studies can also isolate the genes responsible for various traits and how they have changed. For example, recent work has shown that the variation in beak shapes in Galápagos Finches is associated with expression patterns of various growth factors, in particular the expression of a gene called Bmp4 in species comprising the genus Geospiza and the timing and spacial expression of a gene called calmodulin.
www.thisviewoflife.org

 

[T33's Torts]

*grabs notepad and pop corn*

 

[N2TORTS]

*grabs notepad and pop corn*

time for a Pop and a refill .....

---

Reptiles and birds lay eggs, and the emerging young use either an "egg-tooth" to cut through a leathery keratinous eggshell (as found in lizards and snakes) or a specialized structure, called a caruncle, to crack their way out of a hard calcerous eggshell (as found in turtles and birds). Mammals evolved from a reptile-like ancestor, and placental mammals (like humans and dogs) have lost the egg-tooth and caruncle (and, yes, the 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 (Tyndale-Biscoe and Renfree 1987, p. 409). Most strikingly, during marsupial development, an eggshell forms transiently and then is reabsorbed before live birth. Though they have no need to hack through a hard egg-shell, several marsupial newborns (such as baby Brushtail possums, koalas, and bandicoots) retain a vestigial caruncle as a clear indicator of their reptilian, oviparous ancestry (Tyndale-Biscoe and Renfree 1987, p. 409).

Potential Falsification:

Based on our standard phylogenetic tree, we may expect to find gill pouches or egg shells at some point in mammalian embryonic development (and we do). However, we never expect to find nipples, hair, or a middle-ear incus bone at any point in fish, amphibian, or reptilian embryos. Likewise, we might expect to find teeth in the mouths of some avian embryos (as we do), but we never expect to find bird-like beaks in eutherian mammal embryos (eutherians are placental mammals such as humans, cows, dogs, or rabbits). We may expect to find human embryos with tails (and we do; see Figure 2.3.1), but we never expect to find leg buds or developing limbs in the embryos of manta rays, eels, teleost fish, or sharks. Any such findings would be in direct contradiction to macroevolutionary theory (Gilbert 1997, esp. Ch. 23).

Criticisms:

Some evolutionary critics wrongly think that because Ernst Haeckel's "Biogenetic Law" is false, embryology can no longer provide evidence for evolution. However, this is a curious assessment, since neither modern evolutionary theory nor modern developmental biology are based upon Haeckel's observations and theories. The discussion above is in no way an endorsement of either "Von Baer's Laws" or Haeckel's Biogenetic Law. Both of these fail as scientific laws, and both are incorrect as generalizations. Evolutionary change can proceed via these patterns, but it often does not.

The ideas of Ernst Haeckel greatly influenced the early history of embryology in the 19th century. Haeckel hypothesized that "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny", meaning that during its development an organism passes through stages resembling its adult ancestors. However, Haeckel's ideas long have been superseded by those of Karl Ernst von Baer, his predecessor. Von Baer suggested that the embryonic stages of an individual should resemble the embryonic stages of other closely related organisms, rather than resembling its adult ancestors. Haeckel's Biogenetic Law has been discredited since the late 1800's, and it is not a part of modern (or even not-so-modern) evolutionary theory. Haeckel thought only the final stages of development could be altered appreciably by evolution, but we have known that to be false for nearly a century. All developmental stages can be modified during evolution, though the phylotypic stage may be more constrained than others. For more about Haeckel's Biogenetic Law, developmental phylotypes, and the evidence embryology provides in modern evolutionary theory, see "Wells and Haeckel's Embryos" by PZ Meyers, or refer to a modern developmental biology Gilbert 1997, pp. 912-914.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#ontogeny_ex5


For the most part the tooth itself is really in fact a calcareous prominence at the tip of the beak or upper jaw of an embryonic bird or reptile, used to break through the eggshell at hatching.... although, some lizards and snakes develop a true tooth that projects outside the row of other teeth, helps the young to hatch, and also during embryonic stages there is in the back of the head has a special hatching muscle that degenerates a few days after hatching (as does the egg tooth). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2736120/

 

[cdmay]

For the most part the tooth itself is really in fact a calcareous prominence at the tip of the beak or upper jaw of an embryonic bird or reptile, used to break through the eggshell at hatching.... although, some lizards and snakes develop a true tooth that projects outside the row of other teeth, helps the young to hatch, and also during embryonic stages there is in the back of the head has a special hatching muscle that degenerates a few days after hatching (as does the egg tooth). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2736120/
JD' THE TORTS

JD, your quote above solidifies what I mentioned in my previous response--that egg teeth are far more complex than most people take them to be. This further confirms that they are individual to the species, or group involved and would have required an impossible amount of mutations had they come from one 'common ancestor' or progenitor.

Your research and various quotes (also above) indicate that there is no closed science or agreement even among highly educated scientists. One group challenges the opinions of the other ad nauseum.
I would again bring up what most mathematicians do seem to agree on however--that the randomness and chance occurrences of evolutionary advancements are impossible from a mathematical standpoint. Evolutionists blithely ignore or gloss over these facts.

As regards so called remnant organs and limbs in modern species I would argue that they serve some purpose that scientists simply do understand at this point.

The human appendix is a classic example of an organ that evolutionists have pointed to for decades as a remnant organ that we are evolving away. Scientists had always claimed that the appendix serves no purpose in modern humans.
Yet in recent years it has been discovered that the appendix DOES serve an important function in developing neonates inside their mother's womb and even aids in the immune function in adult humans.
Because there was no understanding of these functions until recently, evolutionists erroneously jumped on it to try and bolster their preconceived views.

 

[ascott]

*Angela climbing down from the bleachers, just for a moment *

You gentlemen all realize that you are arguing a topic that will never be agreed upon, right? j

*Angela grabs another glass of wine and heads back up to her seat *

 

[cdmay]

*Angela climbing down from the bleachers, just for a moment *

You gentlemen all realize that you are arguing a topic that will never be agreed upon, right? j

*Angela grabs another glass of wine and heads back up to her seat *

Enjoy the wine!
I agree that most who argue one way or the other will not be swayed. But I hope to at least present some facts that others might find useful in helping to make a decision about what they believe.
In my opinion there are a lot of nutty religions in the world. Darwinian evolution is just another one of them.

 

[N2TORTS]

The only difference is creationism is something else, more of a "hop on board and we got your back" like the Bloods and Crips. It has an industry supporting it and perpetuating it, and it has people who buy into it so willingly. And you, because you think that everything came from nothing in a click of a magic man’s fingers, are part of this. Folks out there derping on daily about something that we, using the entire knowledge collectively gathered by the human race, know is a lie ( the Grand Canyon in 6 days really? ). Honestly, though, some of those same folks forced into those beliefs probably think it’s a lie too – but too damn proud and to stupid to admit it. That’s the problem. It’s not about fossils, or genetics, or radiometric dating, it’s about the unwillingness to learn and better yourself. And it always will be..........

PS : Great example of "Transition" (better word than Evolution?)
***200 million years old.*** fossil from China of an animal that is distinctly turtle-like (opps there goes the 6,000 year theory)
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/26/odontochelys-a-transitional-tu/

---

Another FACT I must add........I don't ever recall in 50 years anyone knocking on my front door wanting to discuss science or egg tooth evolution .....but hell and high water I have those fruitcakes knocking on my door once a week wanting to "share the book of knowledge"
ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME ?
Funny thing I have a DR. Degree in Theology/D.D and a Masters in Science...I really wonder what they want to talk about . I always invite them in and ask if they want to smoke a dube...first