The teeth of the Patriarchs
by Carl Wieland
Photos from iStockphoto
The patriarchs named in the Bible as existing before the Flood lived to very long
ages—some 900 or so years. So it has been asked—how could their teeth
have lasted and remained functional throughout that time?
Of course, we don’t know with absolute certainty that they did in fact keep
their teeth throughout those long lives. However, even in low-tech cultures today,
one sees that people who look after their teeth reasonably well can keep them in
fairly good condition for at least the majority of their life. And given that the
design of the body as expressed in the genetics of the preFlood world was suited
for a lifespan of 600–900 years1, it would be surprising if their teeth were designed to last for only the first
10% or so of their lifetimes.
Factors affecting tooth survival
Tooth decay can be considered, but it is not something that just inevitably progresses
with age—it depends on things like diet and dental hygiene. Most of us would
know of youngsters with badly decayed teeth, and very elderly people with a near-perfect
set of choppers.
The main thing at issue is the capacity of the teeth to withstand the normal ‘wear
and tear’ of grinding and chewing food. Regardless of how well they cleaned
their teeth, and how optimal their diet was, would the tooth structure not simply
wear out over such vast timespans? The question is worth exploring, even though
the biblical account of preFlood longevity would not be particularly threatened
if we failed to come up with a good answer. But it is of at least passing interest
to find out whether they could have kept their teeth for several hundred
years.
Even in low-tech cultures today, one sees that people who look after their teeth
reasonably well can keep them in fairly good condition for at least the majority
of their life.
We can fairly assume, for simplicity, good dental hygiene and a good diet requiring
a lot of chewing (as opposed to our modern diet), but not such a harsh existence
that their food was mixed with significant dirt/sand, etc. which would greatly increase
wear. (This may have become the norm in the harsh post-Flood period, of course,
as shown in many ‘cave-man’ teeth.)
The main tooth material is the yellowish dentin (elephant ivory is pure
dentin, for instance) coated by the substantially harder2 glassy-whitish enamel. It appears that secondary
dentin can keep growing throughout life. However, the cells that make enamel are
believed to stop producing it once the tooth is fully formed. The average rate of
attrition (wearing down) of enamel thickness today is about 8 thousandths of a millimetre
per year. So given the known thickness of human enamel today (a maximum of about
2.5 mm, and not evenly thick all the way around) that means in about 200–300
years at that rate, they would have exhausted their enamel thickness.
However, it is apparently a misconception that enamel wear is mostly from chewing—in
fact, during chewing, the tooth surfaces do not touch much. Being as hard as they
are, straightout “wear” is less of a problem than cracking/microcracking
of the enamel (the hardest substance in the body). This is why the brittleness of
the enamel needs to be compensated for by the dentin acting as a cushion.
Enamel has further amazing design features to help prevent cracking under normal
usage. Despite being very brittle, it usually remains crack-free throughout our
lives. In glass, once even a tiny crack starts, it propagates through the material.
But recent research has shown how enamel has a number of features that prevent crack
propagation. This includes tufts, which are crack-like
‘defects’ where the enamel joins the dentine that arise during tooth
development. They become the starting point for cracks, but they are deep within
the tooth, so protected from decay. And the crack stabilizes because of
‘stress shielding’ from neighbouring tufts.
Another crack-resistant feature is the arrangement of the rods, the basic units
of enamel, which form a ‘basket weave’ microstructure. There is also
a ‘self-healing’ process whereby organic material fills cracks, gluing
the crack walls and preventing further expansion of the crack.3
In short, factors other than normal chewing are the main causes of enamel wear today.
These include bruxism (the sort of tooth grinding that occurs when people are under
stress), the bacteria that cause enamel decay, and acids in foodstuffs, the latter
two obviously associated with diet.
Even brushing itself, despite its benefits, can contribute to enamel wear. All the
factors listed have links to our modern way of life, which may explain the existence
of indigenous cultures with surprisingly good dental health in old age.
If we assume, then, that the preFlood world had substantially less of those ‘lifestyle
contributors’ to enamel wear, this may well have been able to make the 2–3-fold
difference in enamel attrition rate required to bring the range of ‘enamel
lasting’ up to the patriarchal lifespans.
A further issue
Many of the fossils of extinct human types such as Neandertals (definite descendants
of Adam) show what are known as taurodont molars. This stands for ‘bull-shaped’
teeth, and these teeth are larger, with larger than normal pulp cavities. Contrary
to what one sometimes reads, they are not unique to fossil humans. They are a genetic
variant found in a percentage of people today—sometimes, but not always, in
association with genetic disorders. This particular trait appears to have been more
common in our ancestors.
It has long been believed that such teeth enabled the dentition to better withstand
a more abrasive ‘caveman’ diet. Why this should be is not clear, because
the dentin and enamel are about the same thickness in taurodont teeth as in other
teeth. But it has been speculated that the so-called tertiary or ‘repair’
form of dentin is more readily produced in these teeth. This is manufactured in
response to external factors such as tooth decay.
If taurodont teeth are in fact longer-lasting, as widely believed, this raises an
interesting possibility. Genetic loss factors after the Flood were a major contributor
to the dramatic postFlood decline in lifespans.4
The genes for taurodont teeth may have become less common for reasons linked to
this. In fact, creationist orthodontist Jack Cuozzo stated that in his practice
he sees a few children with “Neanderthal-like taurodont molars”, and
that these children, interestingly, “have a history of longevity in their
families”.5 So genetic
traits towards living longer may indeed be associated with teeth that last longer.
A wild card?
The notion of healthy teeth at many hundreds of years of age may not be nearly as
farfetched as a first glance might have suggested.
Finally, one more intriguing possibility deserves mention. In some creatures, teeth
keep replacing themselves throughout life, but humans today normally only have two
sets of teeth in their lifetime. However, there seems to be plenty of anecdotal
evidence of genuine, though extremely rare, instances of people growing a third
set of teeth in their adult years. If so, then while this could possibly be caused
by a genetic defect (certain mutations, in control genes, e.g., can give ‘extras’
of some things as abnormalities), it does raise the fascinating possibility that
this was part of the gene pool of Adam’s time, and may have been widespread
at one time in humanity. If so, then the genes for it could have become switched
off or corrupted in later generations.
With all those factors and possibilities, in various possible combinations, the
notion of healthy teeth at many hundreds of years of age may not be nearly as farfetched
as a first glance might have suggested.
Related articles
References
- See Living for 900 years for fascinating
details on the likely factors behind the long lifespans; creation.com/900. Return to
text.
- The hardness of enamel on the Mohs scale is 5, more than (untempered)
iron and steel at 4–4.5, though less than glass at 5.5–6.
Return to text.
- See creation.com/enamel for further details and references
on this. Return to text.
- See Living for 900 years; creation.com/900. Return to text.
- Quoted from correspondence in 2010 with CMI’s Dr Don
Batten. (The email was not discussing the question raised by this article.)
Return to text.
| The information on this site can change lives—former atheists tell us so. Why? Because it’s information people haven’t heard before. So keep it coming by supporting the researchers and writers at CMI.  | | |
|
