Some mammals have no teeth but they still possess the gene for tooth enamel. Why did God include this? Can evolution better account for this gene? [Spirituality & Religion]
The creationist often likes to ascribe genetic similarity to a common designer; the potter using the same clay, as it were. That this imposes human limits on god notwithstanding, why would god (as a perfect designer) include tooth enamel genes in animals like baleen whales with no teeth?
Of course evolution tells us that baleen whales evolved from land-going mammals and amphibious mammals like ambulocetus which of course had teeth. Same again for any other toothless animal like a platypus.
This is a bit of a gotcha question, i admit but it does present a good example of what i identify as the flaw in the "common designer" explanation for shared DNA.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
No. God created the gene for tooth enamel because those mammals have teeth like everyone else even though their teeth are different. Evolution can't explain away anything.
[quote] because those mammals have teeth like everyone else even though their teeth are different.[/quote]
lol what?! Um...no they don't. Wow, dude😲 For example, baleen whales have baleen. What's baleen? [quote]Baleen is similar to bristles and consists of keratin, the same substance found in human fingernails and hair.[/quote]
What are teeth made out of? Enamel, dentin and cementum.
So baleen whales have no teeth.
Pangolins don't have teeth either.
Nor does a giant ant eater.
Look it up.
I know denial is your main response to inconvenient evidence but that was a weird thing to say. You're flat out wrong. Would you like to try that again?
No you're absolutely wrong. I challenge you to google any one of those animals, click on the wiki page and the ctrl + f "teeth".
Copy and paste what you find there.
Or.... you can just stop this absurd attempt to save face and admit that you can't think of why god included the gene for enamel in animals with no teeth...(not that i actually expect that level of honesty from you).
Like seriously, wow. We're not even debating evolution in this instance. You're just flat out denying an objective, empirical, verifiable fact about certain animals. This is embarrassing even for you.
Try again. Please show a little intellectual integrity. Thanks.
Actually it's a challenge for [i]you personally[/i] to validate your claim that these mammals without teeth actually do have secret teeth.
You are denying observable fact. [b][i]This is not a matter of our different positions on god and this is not a matter of our different positions on evolution[/i][/b]. This is a matter of you flat out denying an observable, objective [i]fact[/i] because you don't like it.
So are you going to take up my challenge and spend 1 minute on google to validate your claim about secret teeth?
Or are you going to back down from me, fingers in your ears and tail between your legs?🤔
@Pikachu [quote]Actually it's a challenge for you personally to validate your claim that these mammals without teeth actually do have secret teeth.[/quote]
