Creationists: Why is it that chickens and other toothless birds have genes for making teeth?

:::: waving hand wildly in air :::::

I know!!! I know!!!! pick me, pick me!!!!

cuz god made them that way, that's why!!!!!

It's a matter of point of view. Some people believe that all species have in some ways common DNA or genes, is because most probably we came from one creator. You have a different view because you believe in evolution. Some claim that the problem with evolution is that the proof is not sufficient. They say that what we actually have is mere conjecture, words like: could have and probably, and must have been, shows uncertainty. Accordingly even the fossils that have been uncovered shows no record in transitional form. The fossils only showed that there were these species that existed. The closest we have I think is the human fossil records but then it was found out that it was subject to fraud.

see http://www.allaboutcreation.org/human-evolution.ht...

I know I'm wasting an answer here - but I'll take the 2 points anyways:

Maybe DNA is like the tinker toys of creation - depending on what you want to happen, you tweak different parts of the DNA to make it happen - everything is made of DNA - or a lot of it - and different parts get turned on and off to make the individual creations....

I'd also point out - evolution is a theory - it can't be proven as the origin of life - it's called an "abductive method" - look it up. It takes as much or more faith to believe that evolution is the origin of life as it does to believe that God created everything.

Be careful when you say "every" scientist agrees with something - it's just not true. You clearly don't have much experience with the sciences.

the bible and everything in it is a myth. middle east is one of many regions in the world with their own religion and mythic storytelling.

every culture has a flood story and even if there was a global flood that killed the whole humanity, then we would have a large archaeological gap when humans would be missing. yet there is no evidence to support it. there was a flood in iraq around 4000 years ago and the survivor was a sumerian king that loaded a boat with food (typical thing to do when a disaster happens) and went down the stream where he found more survivors. and then some guy wrote in the bible that noah built an arc and went around the world with all 10 billion species. its ridiculous.

science accepts evolution as a fact, so I'll go with the science.

Before considering how life began, we must first understand the term “organic evolution.” Organic evolution, as theorized, is a naturally occurring, beneficial change that produces increasing and inheritable complexity. Increased complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life had a different and improved set of vital organs. This is sometimes called the molecules-to-man theory—or macroevolution. [See Figure 4 on page 6.] Microevolution, on the other hand, does not involve increasing complexity. It involves changes only in size, shape, or color, or minor genetic alterations caused by a few mutations. Macroevolution requires thousands of “just right” mutations. Microevolution can be thought of as “horizontal” (or even downward) change, whereas macroevolution, if it were ever observed, would involve an “upward,” beneficial change in complexity. Notice that microevolution plus time will not produce macroevolution. (micro + time ≠ macro)

Creationists and evolutionists agree that microevolution occurs. Minor change has been observed since history began. But notice how often evolutionists give evidence for microevolution to support macroevolution. It is macroevolution—which requires new abilities and increasing complexity, resulting from new genetic information—that is at the center of the creation-evolution controversy. Therefore, in this book, the term “organic evolution” will mean macroevolution.

However, stressful environments for some animals and plants cause their offspring to express various defenses. New genetic traits are not created; instead, the environment can switch on genetic machinery already present. The marvel is that optimalc genetic machinery already exists to handle some contingencies, not that time, the environment, or “a need” can produce the machinery.

Mendel’s laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations occurring within species. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, as in the dog family. A logical consequence of Mendel’s laws is that there are limits to such variation.a Breeding experimentsb and common observationsc also confirm these boundaries

it is not a matter of what genes we or any other life form has. It is a matter of which ones are turned on and why that is the core of the mystery.

may I suggest that there may an alternative to your suggestion as the only possible answer. What if the map for all life is there within the DNA and genes of all life. This is evidenced by how much we have in common with all biological life. We have a lot to learn yet. Mapping does not imply understanding of how it works and varies for the benefit of individual forms of life.

And Greeks don't need back hair.

However the idea that chickens have DNA to make teeth is incorrect, else chickens would have teeth. The DNA would be - to use - seemingly useless. You'll find that most of the 'evidence' from this comes from scientists 'inducing' the growth of teeth in chickens. So in order to show 'natural' evolution scientists manipulated DNA! I believe they did this too when the chickens were still embryos.

Harris MP, Hasso SM, Ferguson MWJ, Fallon JF (2006) The Development of Archosaurian First-Generation Teeth in a Chicken Mutant. Current Biology 16(4):371-377

You can view the ‘teeth’ here in Scientific American…

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mutant-chicken...

Does it prove Evolution? Apparently not because creationists can use the same evidence...

Evolutionists interpret these observations as consistent with their belief that reptiles evolved into birds. Creationists interpret it as consistent with their belief that the ancestral created kind from which the chicken is descended contained the information to generate teeth. To support this, we point to similar types of teeth in extinct birds.

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4516

Shame on you! And God said, "Let their be chickens!" And there were chickens, and he saw it was good as they pecked and scratched at the earth. What's wrong with you people? Read the bible! If chickens wore genes and had teeth, there'd be no KFC. We might even have KFP. (Kentucky Fried People) Just the thought of that forces me to the solace of the good book. Oh yea of little faith. Don't worry about chicken teeth! Except for maybe in China, we don't eat the beaks anyway! You could have a point on the genes. It's time to stop this offensive nudity of animals. They've got away with it for too long! Who knows how many have been tempted into deviancy. It's the work of the Devil!

The same reason manatees have toenails and dolphins sometimes have stubby legs.

Just because it is off doesn't mean its gone. Of course, why would a creator include such information....

Edit: The teeth the chicken was developing were actual real teeth unlike a hen's tooth. They were also oddly similar to archosaur teeth of a alligator or dinosaur.

People do have tails. The Tailbone does not extend out of the body, but it is definitely there. Strkyer, from ELLEN and LOVE LINE, has a vestigial tail that is visible. A lot of people do.

The cancerous aids predates like an aligator and its just a thylokoid spindle, then the bird is hoity and fly's in formations. If you beat the bird, it will deny you are cool.