Tooth Study Takes Bite Out of Evolution | The Institute for Creation Research

Tooth Study Takes Bite Out of Evolution

Secular scientists have told incredible stories for over a century about how fossil teeth supposedly support the idea that humans evolved from primates. A lack of knowledge about tooth development has provided fertile ground for wild speculations about evolving tooth sizes, skull shapes, foot shapes, and even life habits. A new report changes all that conjecture.

Countless scholars have presumed human evolution before they even looked at the paleoanthropology evidence—which are just handfuls of teeth and skull fragments. One infamous chapter saw a fossil pig tooth interpreted as coming from an extinct ape-man.1 How would actual biological knowledge of tooth growth have affected these evolutionary conjectures?

An international group publishing in Nature showed that the second and third molars develop according to the size of the first molar.2 In modern humans and extinct human varieties like Neandertals, molars tend to grow slightly smaller toward the rear of the mouth. In extinct apes called australopiths3 the molars "tend to get bigger towards the back," according to a brief Nature summary of the work.4 With this model, researchers measure a single tooth and use it to predict other molar sizes.

This research conveys at least three implications for origins. First, it erases prior attempts to fit tooth sizes into evolutionary speculations. Anthropologist Aida Gómez-Robles at the George Washington University wrote for Nature, "This complexity may make teeth less useful for inferring phylogenies than we tend to recognize."4 In other words, the newfound fact that biology explains tooth sizes undermines the century-old endeavor of constructing phylogenetic trees to illustrate speculative evolutionary relationships.

Second, teeth do not directly develop according to unknowable ancient natural factors like diet, but according to a biological program. Where did that program originate? All known programs come from real live programmers.

Lastly, this research shows another anatomical distinction between man and apes. Modern and extinct human variations exhibit a distinct tooth characteristic—molars become smaller toward the back of the mouth. Extinct ape molars had the opposite trend. This fits with other key anatomical distinctions between man and apes, like hand shapes,5 foot shapes,6 hip shapes,7 plus unique inner ear and skull orientations.

Programmed biology, not evolution, explains ape and human molars. Time will tell if those secular scientists who built careers on tooth evolution stories will accept the speculative nature of their conjectures or not.

References

  1. Parker, G. 1981. Origin of Mankind. Acts & Facts. 10 (11).
  2. Evans, A. R. et al. 2016. A simple rule governs the evolution and development of hominin tooth size. Nature. 530 (7591): 477-480.
  3. The australopith genera included in the study were Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, and Paranthropus.
  4. Gómez-Robles, A. Palaeoanthropology: What teeth tell us. Nature. 530 (7591): 425-426.
  5. Guliuzza, R. 2009. Made in His Image: The Connecting Power of Hands. Acts & Facts. 38 (10): 10-11. 
  6. Thomas, B. 2009. Did Humans Evolve from "Ardi"? Acts & Facts. 38 (11): 8-9. 
  7. Thomas, B. Evolutionist Tosses out 'Ardi' As Human Ancestor. Creation Science Update. Posted on ICR.org June 8, 2010, accessed March 3, 2016. 

*Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on March 14, 2016.

The Latest
NEWS
Where Paleontology Fails, Paleo-Robots Avail
A Phys.org science article begins with what could be read as a religious story that occurred a long, long time ago. Life on Earth started in the...

NEWS
Puzzling Fossils at an Unlikely Time
Wherever and whenever life is found, it is incredibly complex. This certainly applies to cyanobacterial photosynthetic life that supposedly were some...

CREATION PODCAST
A Theory Designed to Be...Anti-Design | The Creation Podcast:...
Science is objective. At least, that’s what we’re told. But there are inherent issues with this statement that can...

NEWS
Seeing the Case for Creation in Fruit Flies
Our brain is designed to smoothly and constantly process what we see via the incredibly sensitive photoreceptors (cones and rods) of our eyes.1...

DAYS OF PRAISE DEVOTIONALS
Winter 2024
...

NEWS
Amazing Defense Systems
Bacteria (prokaryotes) are ubiquitous. A fraction cause disease in people, animals, and plants, but the majority are the foundation for the global food...

NEWS
Octopus and Fish Plan a Complex Coordinated Hunt
The octopus—an invertebrate—never fails to surprise researchers with its incredible abilities.1,2 The octopus was designed...

NEWS
A ''40 million year old'' 100% European Gnat
Finding well-preserved creatures in amber1 is a landfall for creation scientists, much like the numerous discoveries of soft dinosaur tissue...

CREATION PODCAST
The Undeniable Power of Narrative | The Creation Podcast: Episode...
Science is objective. At least, that’s what we’re told. But there are inherent issues with this statement that can cause...

NEWS
Paintbrush of the Creator
Who doesn’t enjoy the amazing color patterns of butterflies?1,2 Such beautiful designs and construction do not reflect blind naturalistic...