Evolution/design of human teeth

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

---

haha laughed out loud on that one

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.

Are you sure your not confusing intelligent design with optimum design? Optimum design is perfect design which doesnt really exist. For example a car or computer is intelligently design but that doesnt mean it will never breakdown or have faults. The argument that "God wouldnt have done it that way" seems like a questionable way of proving that man isnt a machine.

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.

In the original creation we were just not to eat meat.
Then since we would live forever our teeth would be too strong to be damaged or easily replace themselves in a way not happening now.
After the flood we only then started eating meat and this further changed our mouth/jaw which today is probably the reason for wisdom teeth problems.

Hi Robert,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.

This is a creationist opinion.
This evolution verses creation forum.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.

You have presented no scientific evidence to support this "presumption."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!"

its not just a science forum but a evolution verses creation forum.
By your line of reasoning there could be no creationist defence since your saying always creationism is not scientific.
A very strange forum it would be.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?

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...)

Thats fine and makes my point.
these other peoples show its diet that can be seen as the origin for teeth issues.
We don't have the room because we eat meat or not the other suff.
We don't eat the other stuff because we have a better meat diet.
After the flood this was the big deal and so much so we have unique issues with teeth.Just knowing the biblical verses here one could predict a likely problem in the teeth area.

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.

Sickle cell anemia is fatal and occurs in people in their reproductive years, and yet continues to be passed down genetically.

Sickle cell anemia is caused by having two copies of a recessive gene, those carrying only 1 recessive gene can pass it on to their offspring. Those people with sickle cell anemia will have their lifespan shortened to ~40 years or so, which is more than enough time to reproduce and pass on the recessive sickle cell genes