From a designer standpoint its even worse the designer should have known that this teeth design blows, why could he not give us a version of alligator teeth that have a spare tooth ready underneath the teeth they are using so if one falls out it gets replaced instantly and a noter spare is grown underneath.
Observe the dull monotony of an alligator's teeth:
compared with the wondrous diversity going on in your own mouth!
Alligator teeth don't do that much. They grab on to their prey and grip it tight, then they just swallow the whole thing, perhaps after suffocating it. Your teeth, however, are designed for the complex task of processing a variety of foods to match your varied diet. Not only do they come in different shapes and sizes, but you have the necesary jaw machinery for chewing and grinding. I'd like to see an alligator do that.
Complex dentition comes at the price of not being continuously replaceable, but it definitely has it benefits.
Edited by caffeine, : Something went horribly wrong
Sure but since you argued for the designer why dint the designer make our teeth out of aluminum or something similar that does not go bad as our calcium made teeth. Did he not know that our teeth will cause us problems in the modern era or does he just like to see us in pain?
I wasn't arguing for a designer. I was saying that our teeth aren't replaceable because mammals evolved specialised, heterodont teeth instead.
Now that I think about it, though, why should this be the case? I understand that we couldn't have teeth that move forwards or backwards in the mouth as old ones are worn away and new ones grow to replace them, since this would mess up the configuration of our teeth. I just read a little on crocodiles, however, and this isn't how they do it. Their teeth are in fixed sockets, and new ones grow beneath the old ones. Why couldn't we have new molars growing under our molars and new canines growing under our canines?
That is what i was asking from a designers point of view we had a poor designer but from evolutions point of view it makes sense since we had no problems with our old diet there was no selective pressure to modify our teeth.
Well, I wouldn't say no problems. You can still damage teeth, and it would presumably be advantageous to be able to undo the damage. In human societies the selection pressure may be small because we can cook food and the famiy can help to care for the guy with broken teeth, but we're talking about an evolutionary change that happened deep in history.
Why evolve teeth that are only replaced once. Is there a cost in replacing them throughout life that mammals avoid?