Jump to content


The Curious Case Of The Toothed Chicken


  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 November 2009 - 08:14 AM

Harris, M.P., Hasso, S.M., Ferguson, M.W.J. & Fallon, J.F. (2006). The Development of Archosaurian First-Generation Teeth in a Chicken Mutant. Current Biology, 16:371-377.



In this paper, the morphology of chicken mutants with the autosomal recessive mutation taplid2 is described. Rather unusually, bearers of this mutation develop teeth and a jaw structure bearing significantly more in common with crocodiles then with other chicken, and the mutation occurs on the same homologous region used for development of reptile mouths. From an evolutionary perspective, birds - now a seperate clade of reptiles - no longer express teeth, but have not necessarily lost the genes with which to make them. If, as YEC science contends, genetic homologies are evidence of essential common design -theres no such think as junk, organismal dna shows no evidence of common descent- why did god feel the compulsion to include such bizzare characters? What purpose does it serve? Is it a co-incidence, and nothing more?

Posted Image

Embryonic chicken teeth

Thanks,

mcstone

#2 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 11 November 2009 - 08:44 AM

Chicken teeth prove evolution? Is that what you are trying to claim?

#3 Guest_FrankH_*

Guest_FrankH_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 November 2009 - 09:37 AM

Chicken teeth prove evolution? Is that what you are trying to claim?

View Post

Of course teeth in chicken don't "prove" evolution. Evolution, like the Germ Theory of Disease, Quantum Gravity and any other Theory you wish to name will NEVER be proven. Not the way Science works.

For "proofs", check out math. No, this is NOT time wasting nor baiting or whatever. If one is going to discuss science then use the terms and meaning science uses, not the common vernacular.

However as current Theory of the Avian/Dinosaur predicts, birds are direct descendants of dinos and we would expect vestigial parts showing up every now and again.

#4 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 November 2009 - 09:40 AM

Chicken teeth prove evolution? Is that what you are trying to claim?

View Post


I enjoyed the blurry picture. It reminded me of the blurry 8mm film of Big Foot strolling away from the cameraman.

Chickengator
Posted Image

Big foot
Posted Image


:) You be the judge

#5 stick

stick

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • London

Posted 11 November 2009 - 09:44 AM

I enjoyed the blurry picture. It reminded me of the blurry 8mm film of Big Foot strolling away from the cameraman.  :)

View Post


surely you're not telling us that you don't believe in bigfoot?

#6 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 November 2009 - 09:46 AM

surely you're not telling us that you don't believe in bigfoot?

View Post


:)

#7 Guest_FrankH_*

Guest_FrankH_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 November 2009 - 09:50 AM

I enjoyed the blurry picture. It reminded me of the blurry 8mm film of Big Foot strolling away from the cameraman. 

Chickengator
Posted Image

Big foot
Posted Image
:) You be the judge

View Post

Yeah, but I bet if you'd go and study embryology and after you see those pictures, if you'd break open the egg, you'd see them too!

#8 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 November 2009 - 09:52 AM

I remember listening to a debate between Phil Fernandez and the Infidel Guy (I have it somewhere on mp3... I'll have to listen to it again).

Anyway, the Infidel Guy brought up this chicken-o-saurus with "Raptor-like" teeth. And Dr. Phil asked who's to say they're "Raptor-like" teeth. Why cannot raptors have "Chicken-like" teeth? I was cracking up :)

The whole thesis was based upon using "Raptor-like", as opposed to using "Snake-like" or "Reptile-like", or even "Chicken-like" to give the dinosaur-like connotation.

Now, we get a fuzzy picture. What's next? An artists interpretation???? :)

#9 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 11 November 2009 - 10:11 AM

There was an article recently in one of those Scientific magazines you find on news stands that talked a lot about this. I need to see if I can find it. In it they talked about these teeth and other similar findings, such as the Chicken has the same number of vertebries in its tail that a t-rex has...

Here is just a quick link i found about it
dino-chickens!!!!!!

But seriously though I think the name of this thread would make an awesome children's book!

:)

#10 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 November 2009 - 10:29 AM

There was an article recently in one of those Scientific magazines you find on news stands that talked a lot about this.  I need to see if I can find it.  In it they talked about these teeth and other similar findings, such as the Chicken has the same number of vertebries in its tail that a t-rex has...

Here is just a quick link i found about it
dino-chickens!!!!!!

View Post


I wonder how many vertebra Big Foot has. And does he have more that the Chicken-o-sauris ?

But seriously though I think the name of this thread would make an awesome children's book!

:)

View Post

:)

#11 Guest_FrankH_*

Guest_FrankH_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 November 2009 - 10:50 AM

I remember listening to a debate between Phil Fernandez and the Infidel Guy (I have it somewhere on mp3... I'll have to listen to it again).

Anyway, the Infidel Guy brought up this chicken-o-saurus with "Raptor-like" teeth. And Dr. Phil asked who's to say they're "Raptor-like" teeth. Why cannot raptors have "Chicken-like" teeth? I was cracking up  :)

The whole thesis was based upon using "Raptor-like", as opposed to using "Snake-like" or "Reptile-like", or even "Chicken-like" to give the dinosaur-like connotation.

Now, we get a fuzzy picture. What's next? An artists interpretation????  :)

View Post

As chickens, generally, don't have teeth what is a "chicken like tooth"?

As we have the fossils of Raptors AND their teeth, here: http://www.arizonask...saurus_Fossils/

Yeah, they can be sold they are that common!

What type of "snake-like teeth"? Fangs? Reptile teeth? Carnivore or Herbivore?

Yup, "Raptor like teeth" is a very apt and descriptive visual aid for teeth on a chicken

#12 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 November 2009 - 11:03 AM

As chickens, generally, don't have teeth what is a "chicken like tooth"?

View Post


If that chicken had teeth, then chickens do [in fact] have teeth. And were that the case, then it had chicken-like teeth.


As we have the fossils of Raptors AND their teeth, here: http://www.arizonask...saurus_Fossils/

View Post

And we have live lizards and snakes, and their teeth. Do they have lizard-like teeth (and snake-like teeth) or raptor-like teeth. And are you going to be highly presupposition-like and pretend they are.

Yeah, they can be sold they are that common!

View Post


Ah, the Frank-like connotation! Big foot track plasters are pretty common, and can be found for sale as well.

What type of "snake-like teeth"?  Fangs?  Reptile teeth?  Carnivore or Herbivore?

View Post


No, “Chicken-like” teeth.


Yup, "Raptor like teeth" is a very apt and descriptive visual aid for teeth on a chicken

View Post


Seems to me raptor-like teeth are extremely similar to some “snake-like teeth” and are therefore not that unique.

#13 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 November 2009 - 11:11 AM

By the way, can you show me the teeth in the picture?

Posted Image

Or are they as prevalent as Big foot? :lol:

#14 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 12 November 2009 - 12:05 AM

http://www.yourdicti...y.com/egg-tooth

egg tooth
a tooth-like structure on the nose or beak of young reptiles and birds used to break the egg membrane or shell at the time of hatching



#15 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 November 2009 - 03:42 AM

Of course teeth in chicken don't "prove" evolution.  Evolution, like the Germ Theory of Disease, Quantum Gravity and any other Theory you wish to name will NEVER be proven.  Not the way Science works.

For "proofs", check out math.  No, this is NOT time wasting nor baiting or whatever.  If one is going to discuss science then use the terms and meaning science uses, not the common vernacular.

However as current Theory of the Avian/Dinosaur predicts, birds are direct descendants of dinos and we would expect vestigial parts showing up every now and again.

View Post


There are humans that grow double row teeth, what does that prove about where or what we descended from?

Attached File  double_row_teeth.jpg   2.88KB   4 downloadsAttached File  double_row_teeth1.jpg   15.96KB   4 downloads

#16 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 12 November 2009 - 06:57 AM

There are humans that grow double row teeth, what does that prove about where or what we descended from?

View Post


It shows that not all children lose their baby teeth when the adult teeth come in. It's possible that it was fairly common in the olden days of the bible seeing they probably didn't have an equivalent to modern dentistry.

#17 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 November 2009 - 09:47 AM

I like the way nobody has tried answering the questions. People have even implicated the originality of the photo. Make no mistake; these are teeth, albeit embryonic teeth, and they have associated jaw developments. Despite subjective assessments, they are actually most similar to archeosauran teeth; not snake or any other reptiles. Please at least read the paper, im willing to bet no one has.

Perhaps its because theres no possible comeback, theological or none, for YEC.

There are humans that grow double row teeth, what does that prove about where or what we descended from?


Nothing, having two (or more) sets of teeth is normal for mammals. What isnt a normal aspect of development, or so the various contradictory statements of YEC would have us believe, is having clearly derived traits from a different, unrelated "kind". Reptiles after their own kind, and so forth. Its not: "birds after their own kind, but with a few reptilian traits thrown in"

What does it all mean?????

#18 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 November 2009 - 10:19 AM

I like the way nobody has tried answering the questions. People have even implicated the originality of the photo. Make no mistake; these are teeth, albeit embryonic teeth, and they have associated jaw developments. Despite subjective assessments, they are actually most similar to archeosauran teeth; not snake or any other reptiles. Please at least read the paper, im willing to bet no one has.

View Post


Okay, I’ll ask again “Can you show me the teeth in the picture?”.
Posted Image

Just point them out so we can continue the discussion.

#19 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 12 November 2009 - 11:51 AM

There are humans that grow double row teeth, what does that prove about where or what we descended from?

View Post

Sharks have multiple rows of teeth.

#20 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 November 2009 - 04:04 PM

I like the way nobody has tried answering the questions. People have even implicated the originality of the photo. Make no mistake; these are teeth, albeit embryonic teeth, and they have associated jaw developments. Despite subjective assessments, they are actually most similar to archeosauran teeth; not snake or any other reptiles. Please at least read the paper, im willing to bet no one has.

Perhaps its because theres no possible comeback, theological or none, for YEC.
Nothing, having two (or more) sets of teeth is normal for mammals. What isnt a normal aspect of development, or so the various contradictory statements of YEC would have us believe, is having clearly derived traits from a different, unrelated "kind". Reptiles after their own kind, and so forth. Its not: "birds after their own kind, but with a few reptilian traits thrown in"

What does it all mean?????

View Post



All of this is in assuming that evolution is a true absolute fact, right? That is why any other explaination is rejected, so why should we bother? You will just say: God did it, right? So most here are not willing to fall into this trap.

Besides, concerning God and creation. What answer would you accept? Nothing, right? Asking questions that you are not really interested in hearing the answer to, can be considered wasting time.

This question is like me asking you were the matter and energy can from for the big bang, when matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed? To what point do I ask a question like that out right, and base a whole thread on it. Unless I'm planning on wasting everyones time?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users