My wife and I were joking about Halloween costumes and since I still have pretty good canines, not filed down like her's that I could go as Dracula without the teeth. Ok, there not that bad, she was exageratting a bit. But it brought up a good point. Us having canine teeth, at least to me proves we evolved. There is no reason to give humans canine teeth when fire was already established for cooking meat for thousands and thousands of years before God supposedly did the deed. The teeth evolved specifically for tearing meat. So why would a god create us with these teeth. There is only one logical explanation for us having them at all. So in this cooperative life they shrank but are still there, because we have not evolved to a point where they are no longer needed and/or because there is no evolutionary gain to remove them. If god created a modern man who had use of fire and tools and wouldn't need these teeth for fighting or tearing raw flesh. Then why give us teeth which is solely for tearing raw flesh ? Thoughts ?
everyone has canine teeth..ALOT go get their teeth to look like hollywoods mouths...Now the only thing I can think about why everones is shaped different, and why they seem different from back then, is because of "breeding"..I personally think our "evolution" is just years and years of breeding...
yes it is. I mean, look back.. we lived, learned, told storys to our children.... things where different 100 years ago!! as a result of our breeding, we have created some of the best minds ever... and the best technology ever... I dont think its because people are going to school.. tho it is a factor.... its years of genetics creating new generations of knowlege.. its how they use it, to see if anything comes from it.. --apparently i dont have the smart thing because I am sitting here thinking of everything, and I get stumped on wording everything lol--..
Outside of mathematics, scientific theories are not “proven”. A theory is an explanatory and predictive framework to explain observed phenomena. There is no proof for evolution, there is only evidence that supports the theory. The history of science is littered with theories that have been thrown out as a result of new phenomena/data that cannot be explained by the existing theoretical framework. However, of all the theories in biology (if not science as a whole), this is least likely to happen for the theory of evolution. There is a lot of evidence for evolution.
Sure, maybe what I am asking or saying is: Doesn't having canines prove we evolved ? Not just evidence of evolution, but evidence that has no better explanation to explain where we came from. IOW, unless there is a better theory to explain it, what are we left with ?
I am not sure how to set up the testing protocol for this. I just called my dentist and he refuses to pull them and then put them back. But I do use them. On certain steaks and the heavy whole grain breads I love. I have a body memory sense are other foods, but none come to mind at the moment.
Well of course some of it is, although whether it's "natural selection" depends on your point of view. Melanin blocks sunlight, reducing the risk of melanoma but also reducing the production of vitamin D. The very light-skinned Eastern Indo-European Lithuanians and the very dark-skinned Eastern Indo-European Bengalis are only separated by four thousand years of migration in opposite directions. Neolithic Europeans invented dairy farming. Lactase, which is necessary for the digestion of milk, did not occur naturally in adult humans, but those few who had it got better nutrition. Today most people of western European ancestry can drink milk, while lactose intolerance predominates in the rest of the world. Nonetheless laymen like to talk about theories being "proven true" and most scientists, as I've noted before, are completely inept at communicating with laymen. I use the term "proven true beyond a reasonable doubt." In other words, until some shred of respectable evidence surfaces to contradict a theory like evolution, it is unreasonable to doubt it. Fire was of course the first technology that allowed us to eat meat more efficiently. (It's been estimated that it took a Paleolithic human three hours every day to eat enough raw meat to survive.) But the technology of metallurgy does the same thing. We can cut meat into bite-size pieces and apply our entire dentition to the job of rendering it down. Or we can just swallow those pieces whole and let our stomach acids do the work. We can also grind it into even finer bits. My father had worked in the Chicago stockyards during the Great Depression and all the guys there developed a taste for raw beef to reduce the family food bill. (They were allowed to eat as much as they wanted on the job but they could not take any home.) He instilled in me a taste for raw ground beef at a very early age. I would still eat it, but I don't trust it to be as clean as it was 55 years ago.
Fraggle, Beyond a reasonable doubt is fair. I think it is beyond a reasonable doubt that canine teeth proves we evolved and were not created by a god in his image a few thousand years ago.
I think it is beyond a reasonable doubt that canine teeth in humans proves we evolved and were not created by a god in his image a few thousand years ago. Anyone out there have an argument against ? Let's hear it.
Humans are unique among our closest primate relatives in having such SMALL canines. Gorillas and chimpanzees have huge canines more appropriate to a predator, even though they are herbivores. The males use them in fighting for dominance. Not necessarily biting (although the true chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes, is a mean S.O.B., unlike the bonobo chimpanzee, Pan paniscus, the free-lovin' hippie of the jungle), but posturing and getting the other fellow to back down. Ardipithecus, the "missing link" that was discovered in Ethiopia and recently popularized on the Discovery Channel, is two million years older than any previously discovered hominid, and it has the same small canines we do. Ardi is fully bipedal and therefore has hands that can be used for carrying and a confident two-legged stride that wouldn't be prone to dropping things on a long-distance walk, and so is equipped to be a food gatherer rather than a grazer. It's hypothesized that the female of this species did not choose her mate on the basis of his fierce macho posturing, but rather for the much more practical reason that he could bring home more food for her and her baby. So they lost the canines as they evolved bipedalism.
Holy Crap!! Why were her canines filed down? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Dentists do that?
Yes, a little to even the teeth, they could only do so much with braces. Her bite is not nearly as bad as it was Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
When do we get to the 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' kind of evidence for evolution because that seems to enough to find people guilty of crime? In some places it's enough to earn a convicted murderer a death penalty.
