Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9094 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,611 Year: 12,723/6,534 Month: 6/2,210 Week: 337/460 Day: 6/22 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution/design of human teeth
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1533 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 5 of 58 (640807)
11-13-2011 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by frako
11-12-2011 2:56 PM


On teeth
From an evolutionary standpoint our teeth design make no sense they are verry prone to infection, caries and loads of other stuff and i cant see myself as a caveman with a tooth infection wanting to go and hunt mammoths and father children...
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.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by frako, posted 11-12-2011 2:56 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by frako, posted 11-13-2011 12:50 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1533 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 8 of 58 (640811)
11-13-2011 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by frako
11-13-2011 12:50 PM


Re: On teeth
So what exactly did the early humans eat if it sounds tasty i might change my diet...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by frako, posted 11-13-2011 12:50 PM frako has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1533 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 24 of 58 (646281)
01-04-2012 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Robert Byers
01-03-2012 9:54 PM


"Good creationist points" and other catechisms
Its a creationist presumption that men only ate meat after the flood and not before.
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.
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.
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!"

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Robert Byers, posted 01-03-2012 9:54 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Robert Byers, posted 01-06-2012 1:09 AM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1533 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 26 of 58 (646681)
01-06-2012 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Robert Byers
01-06-2012 1:09 AM


Re: "Good creationist points" and other catechisms
The bible is a starting presumption for creationism.
Sorry to hear that. This means you are wrong from the start.
One could say the bible or creationism have the right to make hypothesis as anyone.
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.
Then attack our methodology or conclusions.
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 says man only began to eat meat after the flood.
The bible is wrong.
Therefore its likely this meant a change in the teeth which would affect the whole head/jaw.
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.
Today we have wisdom teeth problems and so its reasonable to conclude this is from the diet change and explains this unique problem.
"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 wisdom teeth were not for eating meat however the switch to eating meat crowded them out as other teeth became important.
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...)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Robert Byers, posted 01-06-2012 1:09 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Robert Byers, posted 01-07-2012 5:29 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022