Is there any proof of beneficial mutations?

The lack of third molars can be beneficial in certain circumstances.However, in most societies around the world, and for most of history, I doubt that they would have been so much of a problem.Normal dental wear, eating normal prehistoric foods, causes some flexing of the teeth in the gums and this causes what is called interproximal wear. When the teeth are used properly this wear is just enough to reduce the space between adjacent teeth slightly due to abrasion, and through mesial drift the teeth move forward slightly. This allows enough room for the third molar to fit.With our modern diets of soft processed foods, the interproximal wear is insufficient, and there is often not enough room for the third molars.I suspect, based on the percentage of people missing third molars, that there was a mutation somewhere along the line but that there was insufficient selection pressure to either eliminate that mutation or to cause it to spread to all members of the population.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Undisputed? By who? Creationists?The "teach the controversy" nonsense we get from creationists means nothing in terms of science. It is pure religious apologetics. Means nothing in the real world, where evidence matters.Have you ever studied the fossil record? I did, all the way through my Ph.D. exams. You are trying to peddle creationist nonsense to those who know the field, and know you're peddling nonsense. You should be embarassed!And you should realize that those creation "science" websites are lying to you. The dating methods are based on assumptions that are consistent with the evidence, unlike the arguments put forward by creationists who don't know the difference between radiocarbon dating (used for once-living things within the past 50,000 years) and other forms of radiometric dating that can be applied to rocks. If you don't even know this very basic fact, why should we consider anything else you say to be worth anything? And if you are this ignorant of the details of radiometric dating, how do you know the assumptions that you find so repugnant really are unfounded? You only know because some creation "science" website told you so (and they are lying to you). That is what your religious belief teaches you. (What else that they teach you is false?) The HUNDREDS of books mean nothing if they are not based on evidence. We are back to that "teach the controversy" nonsense that creation "scientists" tried for a while. Just because there are two sides doesn't mean both sides are of equal merit. How do you feel about a flat earth? There are books supporting that nonsense. How about the "faked" moon landings? There are books supporting that also. There are books on hollow earth, Atlantis, the Velikovski nonsense, and no telling what else.Means nothing.How about returning to the topic now? Remember, beneficial mutations?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Click to enlarge.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.