The claim is often made by evolutionists that some birds have teeth, calling them atavisms. However, of all the “atavism” claims that I have seen, this is definitely the most ridiculous. They consist of jagged ridges within a beak and a toothlike structure used in hatching.
Some birds have jagged ridges within their beaks that superficially look like teeth. These are serrated edges inside the beak called tomia. These conical projections are made of cartilage and help the bird in gripping food. These are not hard structures like teeth and any similarity is superficial. Calling them atavisms or any form of evidence for universal common descent is fallacious.
An egg tooth is a structure found on some baby birds that helps them to break through the shell of their egg. Despite the name, it is not a tooth or anything even close to one. First of all, it is on the outside of the beak. Second, it is never used for chewing or anything even related to food. Its only purpose is to aid the baby bird in hatching and then it eventually falls off. Calling them atavisms or any form of evidence for universal common descent is fallacious.
Now there are birds in the fossil record that do have teeth, however, it is a jump in logic to claim that these birds are ancestral to modern birds and descended from dinosaurs. The fact that there are some extinct birds that had teeth only shows past differences in variety, not ancestry. Furthermore, they still do not qualify as atavisms.
The claim that any living bird has teeth, even nonfunctional ones, is completely false. Claims of such seem to be nothing more than evolutionist wishful thinking. While it is true that fossils show us that some extinct birds did have teeth, none of the structures claimed as atavistic teeth and birds even remotely qualify.
----------------------
References:
