Evolution/design of human teeth

With a proper diet we aren't as prone to tooth infections and carries.Early humans, and humans in many areas of the globe, ate a diet with a lot more grit in it and a lot fewer sugars. This helped to "scrub" the teeth.In analyzing maybe >1000 Native American skeletons, I've found that carries are extremely rare. The main problem I see in populations that have an extremely gritty diet is excessive tooth wear, often wearing into the pulp cavity faster than it can fill in (as it is designed to do). This leads to an infection in that tooth, often leaving a large cavity in the bone around the root and resulting in tooth loss.And we couldn't have teeth like alligators as mammals just don't have that arrangement. We're pretty much stuck with what we have.

Start with a lot of roots and things like acorns. Much early boiling was done in baskets with heated stones, and that could add grit. Acorns need to be ground (often in stone bowls), leached (often in sand), and that adds grit to the diet.There are many other sources of wear on early teeth. Eating tough foods causes the teeth to move up and down slightly in their sockets, and that in turn adds a small amount of wear between teeth (interstitial wear). The teeth move forward slightly (mesial drift), creating enough room for the third molars to erupt cleanly.So, for a primitive diet you need to get a digging stick and head for the hills.

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!"

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...)