# Egg tooth evolution?



## diamondbp (Dec 20, 2013)

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.


----------



## Team Gomberg (Dec 20, 2013)

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 (Dec 20, 2013)

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 (Dec 21, 2013)

tortadise said:


> 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 (Dec 21, 2013)

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 (Dec 21, 2013)

tortadise said:


> 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 (Jan 17, 2014)

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 (Jan 29, 2014)

OctopusMagic said:


> 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 (Jan 31, 2014)

_*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 (Jan 31, 2014)

cdmay said:


> _*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.
> 
> ...



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 (Jan 31, 2014)

> _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 (Jan 31, 2014)

ascott said:


> > _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 (Jan 31, 2014)

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 (Jan 31, 2014)

ascott said:


> 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 (Jan 31, 2014)

_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 (Jan 31, 2014)

> 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 (Jan 31, 2014)

ascott said:


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





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 (Jan 31, 2014)

OctopusMagic said:


> 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 (Jan 31, 2014)

> 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 (Jan 31, 2014)

ascott said:


> > 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.


----------



## cdmay (Jan 31, 2014)

diamondbp said:


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



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 (Jan 31, 2014)

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 (Jan 31, 2014)

N2TORTS said:


> 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 (Jan 31, 2014)

diamondbp said:


> N2TORTS said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



"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 (Jan 31, 2014)

N2TORTS said:


> diamondbp said:
> 
> 
> > N2TORTS said:
> ...



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 (Jan 31, 2014)

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 (Jan 31, 2014)

diamondbp said:


> 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?





diamondbp said:


> 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 (Jan 31, 2014)

diamondbp said:


> N2TORTS said:
> 
> 
> > diamondbp said:
> ...



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 (Feb 1, 2014)

*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 (Feb 1, 2014)

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 (Feb 1, 2014)

> 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 (Feb 2, 2014)

ascott said:


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



"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 (Feb 2, 2014)

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 (Feb 2, 2014)

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 (Feb 2, 2014)

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 (Feb 3, 2014)

N2TORTS said:


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





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 (Feb 3, 2014)

E=MC[2]


----------



## Yvonne G (Feb 3, 2014)

N2TORTS said:


> 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 (Feb 3, 2014)

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 (Feb 3, 2014)

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.




Yvonne G said:


> N2TORTS said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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~


----------



## ascott (Feb 3, 2014)

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


----------



## cdmay (Feb 3, 2014)

ascott said:


> 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 (Feb 3, 2014)

cdmay said:


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



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 (Feb 3, 2014)

"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. Sergeevâ€™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 â€¦..

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 (Feb 3, 2014)

N2TORTS said:


> "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. Sergeevâ€™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
> 
> ...



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


----------



## diamondbp (Feb 3, 2014)

N2TORTS said:


> N2TORTS said:
> 
> 
> > "Egg teeth of Squamate reptiles and their phylogenetic significance
> ...



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 (Feb 3, 2014)

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


----------



## OctopusMagic (Feb 16, 2014)

diamondbp said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.
> ...


----------



## cdmay (Feb 18, 2014)

_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 (Feb 18, 2014)

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.â€*â€¦..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 â€¦ yes I would expect that â€¦.bring this one up next Sunday â€¦.â€œCreation Museum founder Ken Hamâ€ <----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? ) 

Hummmmâ€¦â€¦â€¦.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 (Feb 18, 2014)

cdmay said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2014)

cdmay said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2014)

OctopusMagic said:


> cdmay said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have the slightest idea what I'm arguing against?
> ...



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 (Feb 21, 2014)

"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 GalÃ¡pagos 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 (Feb 21, 2014)

*grabs notepad and pop corn*


----------



## N2TORTS (Feb 21, 2014)

tffnytorts said:


> *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 (Feb 23, 2014)

_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 (Feb 23, 2014)

*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 (Feb 24, 2014)

ascott said:


> *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 (Feb 24, 2014)

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 manâ€™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 itâ€™s a lie too â€“ but too damn proud and to stupid to admit it. Thatâ€™s the problem. Itâ€™s not about fossils, or genetics, or radiometric dating, itâ€™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


----------



## diamondbp (Feb 24, 2014)

Wow! I haven't checked this thread in a while and was unaware of the activity on it.

I'll just say this. Until I get at least ONE LOGICAL EXPLANATION for the appearance of an egg tooth by evolutionary processes I will refuse to comment on the various other topics that were brought up.

PS. It has to be "logical"...............that means involving logic


----------



## cdmay (Feb 25, 2014)

diamondbp said:


> Wow! I haven't checked this thread in a while and was unaware of the activity on it.
> 
> I'll just say this. Until I get at least ONE LOGICAL EXPLANATION for the appearance of an egg tooth by evolutionary processes I will refuse to comment on the various other topics that were brought up.
> 
> PS. It has to be "logical"...............that means involving logic




You're gonna be waiting a long time.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Aug 10, 2014)

Wow, you really have been waiting a long time! Bummer. Sorry I missed it. I've only recently been around again and am somewhat surprised it's still open, but at least I found it this time. Anyway, the trouble with your question, as posed, it that it is not a scientific one. You are asking for an argument (conjecture) and the measure of success is convincing you of its logic. Never mind the discrepancy between requesting logic while maintaining the supernatural, but science is not based on whether or not you or anyone else accepts the "logic". 
As to the focal point of your post, given that certain amphibians ((Eleutherodactyl frogs) posses both egg teeth and direct development (no tadpoles) the expression of those genes in reptiles and birds doesn't seem like much of a stretch. Furthermore, given the presence of 'egg teeth' in spiders, it is apparently not that unique an adaptation. 
Sorry if that's more empirical than logical, but I have zero training in philosophy. 

Cheers


----------



## enchilada (Aug 14, 2014)

whatever things that helps you survive well until you pass the reproduction age, will be more and more effective and "obvious" after generations.because this advantage can pass on.
Thats one of the reasons why we get so many chronicle disease when old: Those disadvantages/potential defects does not affect us during reproduction age, thus can be passed on to future generations.


----------



## Alaskamike (Sep 13, 2014)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> Wow, you really have been waiting a long time! Bummer. Sorry I missed it. I've only recently been around again and am somewhat surprised it's still open, but at least I found it this time. Anyway, the trouble with your question, as posed, it that it is not a scientific one. You are asking for an argument (conjecture) and the measure of success is convincing you of its logic. Never mind the discrepancy between requesting logic while maintaining the supernatural, but science is not based on whether or not you or anyone else accepts the "logic".
> As to the focal point of your post, given that certain amphibians ((Eleutherodactyl frogs) posses both egg teeth and direct development (no tadpoles) the expression of those genes in reptiles and birds doesn't seem like much of a stretch. Furthermore, given the presence of 'egg teeth' in spiders, it is apparently not that unique an adaptation.
> Sorry if that's more empirical than logical, but I have zero training in philosophy.
> 
> Cheers


Gotta say , of all the relies I do luv this one. Especially 
"Never mind the discrepancy between requesting logic while maintaining the supernatural, but science is not based on whether or not you or anyone else accepts the "logic".
Thanks.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Sep 18, 2014)

Alaskamike said:


> Gotta say , of all the relies I do luv this one. Especially
> "Never mind the discrepancy between requesting logic while maintaining the supernatural, but science is not based on whether or not you or anyone else accepts the "logic".
> Thanks.



And thank you


----------

