Blessings,
Denis
On Wed, 15 Nov 1995, Denis Lamoureux wrote:
> Greetings Stephen,
> Greetings from the cold end of the planet! Your post on the "bird with
> teeth" caught my attention, especially
> since I was in Berlin at the Humbolt Naturual History Museum in September
and I
> had the rare privilege of seeing the fossil of Archaeopteryx that was
> discovered in 1886.
>
> On Mon, 13 Nov 1995, Stephen Jones wrote:
>
> > Much is made of the fact that Archaeopteryx has teeth, rather than a
> > beak. The problem is that birds with beaks have now been discovered
> > that may have been near-contemporaneous with Archaeopteryx:
> >
> >
> > If birds with beaks existed "just a few million years after
> > Archaeopteryx made its debut", then if evolutionists wish to maintain
> > that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form between reptiles and birds,
> > it seems they must postulate either: a) a very rapid transformation
> > of teeth into a beak; or b) assume that Archaeopteryx dates from
> > further back in the fossil record.
> >
> > The problem for evolution with a) is finding a naturalistic
> > evolutionary mechanism that can transform a full set of teeth into a
> > beak in "just a few million years".
>
Denis:
> Respectfully, this is where I would quite disagree with you. No one
> familiar with developmental biology would ever say teeth are transformed
> into a beak--that makes absolutely no embryological sense. These are
> entirely different developmental processes and mechanisms. The
> transition postulated is very simple and could occur very quickly.
> First, we would need the lost of tooth forming ability in the oral
> epithelium. For example, the lost of the epithelial initiatory mechanism
> expressed early in development of the 1st branchial arch would be rather
> easy (An aside, this is an area I am dealing with in my current PhD as
> X. laevis [the South African Claw frog] does not have teeth in the
> mandible and I am in the process of doing some "cut and paste" embryology
> to determine why that is so). Second, the evolution of a keratinous
> type reaction in the oral epithelium and its selection would again not be
> all that problematic since that molecular program would be in place and
> all that would be needed would be its initiation.
>
> In light of my response for your first question, there is then no need to
> deal with your second question.
>
>
> One last comment with regard to the Archeopteryx fossil I observed in
> Berlin. For me it was quite a REVELATION (and as a theologian I quite
> use this word in its proper sense as "natural revelation") because I have
> spent the last 3 years looking at polyphyodont/homodont teeth
> (specifically, amphibians and reptiles). I was
> utterly stunned as I peered upon this creature's dentition--IT IS UTTERLY
> REPTILIAN. It has long been noted in comparative odontology
> that reptiles have a Zahnreihen spacing just a little under 2.0, and as
> a result they have back-to-front wave replacement at alternate tooth
> positions. This feature was clearly evident in this specimen--it just
> blew me away. To the best of my tooth knowledge, THAT IS A REPTILIAN
> MOUTH AND THOSE ARE REPTILIAN TEETH in a creature with definitive
> feathers.
>
> As always Stephen,
> Praising the Blood of the Lamb,
>
> Denis
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD (cand)
> Department of Oral Biology Residence:
> Faculty of Dentistry # 1908
> University of Alberta 8515-112 Street
> Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
> T6G 2N8 T6G 1K7
> CANADA CANADA
>
> Lab: (403) 492-1354
> Residence: (403) 439-2648
> Dental Office: (403) 425-4000
>
> E-mail: dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
>
> "In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
> rather than expose thy opponent."
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>