|
Feedback archive ? Feedback 2010
The teeth of the patriarchs
Published: 20 March 2010(GMT+10)
stockxchg
It’s very rare indeed that someone will write to CMI with an enquiry on the
origins issue which has not yet been addressed in any of the thousands of articles
we’ve published. USA correspondent Ann T. recently presented us with just
such a question:
As a young earth creationist, I have wondered how the teeth of the long-lived patriarchs
could have lasted and remained functional. I assume that there would not be any
decay, but how could the enamel and dentin be replaced after so many years of wear?
CMI’s Dr Carl Wieland replies:
Dear Ann
You raise an interesting question, one I don’t think we’ve been asked
before, and one that is worth exploring a little.
Before getting onto the main point, I would like to address your comment about “no
decay”. Because the patriarchs lived after the Fall, they might well have had tooth
decay—why not? But since that depends on things like diet and dental hygiene, and
is not a straight line function of age (I’ve known youngsters with totally
decayed teeth, and 90-year-olds with a near-perfect set of choppers), it’s
not something we can easily take into consideration, as you suggest.
Even in low-tech cultures today, one sees that people who look after their teeth
reasonably well keep them in fairly good condition for at least the majority of
their life.
So the first thing I would say is, how do we know that they kept their teeth during
those long lifespans? Quite simply, we don’t. However, even in low-tech cultures
today, one sees that people who look after their teeth reasonably well keep them
in fairly good condition for at least the majority of their life. So one would think
it unusual if the design of the body as expressed in the preFlood world (see the
article Living for 900 years) was suited for
a lifespan of 600–900 years, but such that the folk concerned would only have
teeth for the first 10% or so of their lifetimes. So that is a good motivation for
this exploration—not that anything about the biblical account of preFlood longevity
is under threat if we don’t come up with a good answer, but it would be of
some interest to find out whether they could have kept their teeth for
several hundred years. 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 exacerbate wear. (This may have become the norm in the
harsh post-Flood period, of course.)
As I understand it, secondary dentin can keep growing throughout life, so that would
appear to be the answer for that. On the other hand, the cells that make enamel
are believed to stop making it once the tooth is fully formed. The average rate
of attrition (disappearance of thickness) of enamel 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 it’s not even all the way around) that means
in about 200–300 years at that rate, they would have exhausted their enamel
thickness.
However, apparently it’s a misconception that enamel wear is mostly from chewing—in
fact, during chewing, the tooth surfaces do not touch much. Being incredibly hard,
straightout “wear” is less of a problem than cracking/microcracking, which is why
its brittleness needs to be compensated for by the dentin acting as a cushion.
Wear of enamel today is mostly due to other factors than normal chewing; these include
bruxism (the sort of tooth grinding 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.
We assume, then, that the preFlood world had substantially less of those “lifestyle
contributors” to enamel wear, the difference 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.
Another thing possibly worth mentioning is that 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, but are a genetic variant found in
a percentage of people today. (Sometimes, but not always, in association with genetic
disorders. They appear to be a genetic variant that was 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 their counterparts.
But it has been speculated that the so-called tertiary form (“repair”)
dentin is more readily produced in these teeth. This is manufactured in response
to external factors such as tooth decay.
The notion of healthy teeth at hundreds of years of age is not at all farfetched.
This is obviously a fairly complex subject, and as a non-dentist I am already way
out of my depth, and invite participation from other readers. However, all this
raises the possibility of whether the genetic loss factors (discussed in the
Living for 900 years article) might also be linked to a loss (of frequency,
at least) of the genes for taurodont teeth that might have been able to withstand
the enamel-erosive forces for much longer. Perhaps research on today’s taurodonts
might shed light on this, though I don’t think it’s at the top of the
list for creationist research projects. [Author’s note inserted subsequent
to the correspondence: a creationist orthodontist has just stated in an email1 that in his practice he sees
a few children with “Neanderthal-like taurodont molars” and that these, interestingly,
“have a history of longevity in their families”. So genetic traits towards living
longer may indeed be associated with teeth that last longer.—CW.]
I know this has involved a lot of speculative elements, of necessity, but at least
it has put it on the table. I think that even the glimmers of things discussed might
already be such as to make the notion of healthy teeth at hundreds of years of age
not nearly as farfetched as might have seemed at first glance.
Thanks once again for a very interesting question.
Kind regards,
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Carl W.
Managing Director
Creation Ministries International Ltd (Australia)
A reader’s comment
Stuart M., New Zealand:
I have read several articles on this topic and all to date discuss tooth wear. Another possibility that appears to not have been considered is that maybe we had more than two sets of teeth then. Currently we have two sets of teeth, the first been replaced with the second set generally prior to about 10 years of age. Then thats it. Who’s to say however that back in time we didn’t have a third or even fourth set throughout those extended lifetimes? CMI responds:
Thank you for your most interesting comment. Of course, that would mean that this was part of the gene pool of Adam’s time, hence originally in our gene pool. So it would suggest that these would be switched off or corrupted/lost nowadays.
There are rare reports of people getting a third set of teeth—just type ‘third set of teeth’ into e.g. Google.
While this does not necessarily mean that latent information has been switched on (certain mutations, in control genes, homeobox genes, etc can give ‘extras’ of some things, or things growing in the wrong place, for instance), it remains an intriguing possibility. |
Related article
Reference
- Dr Jack Cuozzo, in personal correspondence to Dr Don Batten
unrelated to this issue. Return to text.
| If you were to read an article every day from this site it would take you 20 years to read them all. Such a wealth of information didn’t arise by chance. Please help us to keep on keeping on.  | | |
|
