Evolution/design of human teeth

Message 16 of 58 (640919) 11-14-2011 10:50 AM

quote:

---

I hate flossing. I just wish I had one long curvy tooth.

It didn’t need to be split up. They didn’t have to make separations with me...

But then if my tooth would have fell out, it been bad.

-Mitch Hedberg

---

quote:

---

I have a few cavities. I don’t like to call ‘em “cavities.” I like to call them “places to put stuff.”

Do know where I can store a pea?... Yes, I have locations available.

-Mitch Hedberg

---

Message 17 of 58 (640920) 11-14-2011 11:06 AM

Reply to: Message 16 by New Cat's Eye 11-14-2011 10:50 AM

haha laughed out loud on that one

Message 18 of 58 (640933) 11-14-2011 1:57 PM

Reply to: Message 16 by New Cat's Eye 11-14-2011 10:50 AM

Mitch Hedberg has a point.

Our teeth are evolved from teeth that were evolved to catch fish with one's mouth --- lots of small sharp points. We don't do that, and yet we have separate teeth rather than one long curvy tooth.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Message 20 of 58 (645295) 12-25-2011 5:33 AM

Reply to: Message 19 by Portillo 12-24-2011 11:08 PM

Why would a perfect God use a less than perfect design?

You have it the wrong way around. We now know that man evolved like all other life on earth, it's just interesting to point out that the counter argument - that he was created fully formed by an all powerful, all knowing and perfect, supernatural being - doesn't even make sense in it's own terms.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Message 22 of 58 (645803) 12-30-2011 8:06 AM

Reply to: Message 21 by Robert Byers 12-30-2011 12:54 AM

Unless you have evidence for anything you say, such as that ancient humans did not eat meat, or that immortality was ever a factor, or that there were changes in our mouth/jaw just a few thousand years ago, please stop participating in this thread.

Message 23 of 58 (646276) 01-03-2012 9:54 PM

Reply to: Message 22 by Admin 12-30-2011 8:06 AM

The investigation from me starts from creationist presumptions of biblical boundaries.`
Then investigation of my own which i desceribe by my reasonings.

Its a creationist presumption that men only ate meat after the flood and not before.
To ban this is to ban creationist commentary on a evolution creation forum !!?

The great change in diet then can be said to be shown in modern teeth issues concerning wisdom teeth.`````
It follows and more easily explains or even predicts human teeth problems could only be indeed a problem if there was a diet change that forced a change in the jaw/teeth area.
Its a good creationist point.

Message 24 of 58 (646281) 01-04-2012 12:00 AM

Reply to: Message 23 by Robert Byers 01-03-2012 9:54 PM

On the contrary, there is a great deal of evidence to show that you are entirely wrong.

This "good creationist point" is not supported by evidence.

Changes of diet did occur, but it is well documented as to what the changes were, and when they occurred. Your "no meat before the flood" is shown by the evidence to be incorrect.

If you disagree, because this is the Science Forum, you are required to present some evidence.

You can't just recite catechisms and expect us all to shout, "Amen!"

Message 25 of 58 (646669) 01-06-2012 1:09 AM

Reply to: Message 24 by Coyote 01-04-2012 12:00 AM

The bible is a starting presumption for creationism.
One could say the bible or creationism have the right to make hypothesis as anyone.
Then attack our methodology or conclusions.

The bible says man only began to eat meat after the flood.
Therefore its likely this meant a change in the teeth which would affect the whole head/jaw.
Today we have wisdom teeth problems and so its reasonable to conclude this is from the diet change and explains this unique problem.
The wisdom teeth were not for eating meat however the switch to eating meat crowded them out as other teeth became important.

Why not?

Message 26 of 58 (646681) 01-06-2012 1:58 AM

Reply to: Message 25 by Robert Byers 01-06-2012 1:09 AM

Sorry to hear that. This means you are wrong from the start.

Sure, but then you have to test those hypotheses against real world evidence, and discard them if they are contradicted by the evidence. That's where creationism fails.

I presume you mean "They attack..." We attack your methodology because it is apologetics, not the scientific method. What do you expect us to do?

The bible is wrong.

Humans and their ancestors have largely the same teeth going back several million years. The purported flood was some 4,350 years ago. The bible is wrong again.

"Wisdom teeth" are nothing more than molars, which you can find in primate ancestors going back many millions of years. The bible is wrong again.

The switch to soft foods crowded the rear molars. In "primitive" diets, which are practiced in many cultures today, where tough or gritty foods are eaten there is something called interstitial wear, caused by the teeth moving up and down in their sockets very slightly as tough foods are chewed. This causes wear between adjacent teeth (interstitial wear), which when combined with mesial drift (the gradual movement of teeth forward) leaves plenty of room for the third molars.

Looks like the bible is wrong once more, as are you.

If you would study these things instead of just making things up you'd do better here. (But then, see signature...)

Message 27 of 58 (646884) 01-07-2012 5:29 AM

Reply to: Message 26 by Coyote 01-06-2012 1:58 AM

Just knowing the biblical verses here one could predict a likely problem in the teeth area.

Message 28 of 58 (646889) 01-07-2012 6:49 AM

Reply to: Message 27 by Robert Byers 01-07-2012 5:29 AM

So produce 'em.

In evolutionary terms anything that doesn't cause a problem until after the age of reproduction won't get selected against. The prime example of this is Huntington's disease which is inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. It's fatal, yet it continues to be passed on because it only begins to manifest itself well after reproductive age, usually starting in mid forties. By the time someone knows they carry the gene the've already had children, 50% of whom will also carry it.

So we're stuck with our teeth that are prone to caries and awful abscesses. They can keep us going long enough to pass on these teeth to our offspring without modification.

As to why we don't grow more teeth underneath to replace bad ones, it seems to be something that would be selected against if it had ever happened or started to change. Our bite is very complex. Our teeth are a mixture of carnivore and herbivore and to work well together have a very small tolerance to any change in the size, angle or position of molar cusps. The top molars and bottom molars have to fit together well and all teeth are subject to the same wear so they still function with their partner. A new, unworn tooth appearing would cause havoc. I know this courtesy of an idiot dentist who filled a lower molar, but left the filling too high. The only place in my mouth where my teeth met was the raised filling and the molar above it. I spent a week on soup, none of my other teeth could function at all and even talking and swallowing were difficult. The thought of that happening on a regular basis as replacement teeth grow in makes me shiver.