Seems pretty dumb in our biological design to not be able to regenerate such a functional (and also easily breakable) part of our body.

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    5 months ago

    Just a note, biology doesn’t have a design. If you’re looking for some kind of logic or plan, you’ll be disappointed.

    Things are the way they are because a long time ago, it helped something survive and procreate. That’s it, survive and procreate. Every other consideration is secondary.

    We can theorize about why two sets of teeth were advantageous at some point, but that doesn’t provide an answer to “why?”

    • jaybone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      But if you knew the environment, and therefore what evolution would select for, you could essentially “design” biology right?

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Sure. Dwarf Wheat is a great example of humans creating a plant to survive in specific environmental conditions with massive benefits. Or we could look at introduced species, like the cane toad, which are too good at surviving their new environments.

        We don’t (yet) have the biological capability to “design” an entire species from the ground up, but if we did, I’m certain our first attempt would be a collosal failure that could potentially wipe out humanity. But that’s just based on how good we are at ignoring warning signs.

  • kinsnik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    5 months ago

    The diet that we evolved to consume (fruits, lean meats and fibrous plants) was much less damaging to our teeth than the current high-sugar, high-fat, highly processed foods. And human lifespans was shorter, so less time for teeth to damage. So there wasn’t a strong evolutionary need to regenerate them (unlike an animal like sharks)

  • Nakedmole@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Because our design is not particularly intelligent …

    Edit: Scientific proof of my thesis:

      • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        “Intelligent design” is the term Young-Earth Creationists use when they want to sound smart while questioning evolution as powered by natural selection.

        Source: My childhood and teen years.

    • kautau@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Philosophical take.

      We can. We figured out how. Thousands of humans fly every day across the planet faster than any bird. We can also live in environments we were definitely not designed to whether it’s with clothing, fire, or advanced HVAC systems. And we’ve pushed that further with our own little atmospheres under the sea or in space.

      Evolution didn’t stop with us. It is us. Evolution, in trying every possible permutation landed on an organism that adapts the world around it, rather than waiting generations to adapt to the world around it.

      Now it’s a matter of if our social and societal evolution will see us succeed or end in failure. If we don’t solve the climate crises we created, if we end up murdering each other, if we get smacked by an unforeseen object from space, potentially built by even more advanced evolution, we lost, and evolution will continue. Evolution is us, but far too often we’re too blind to see that gift, and advance responsibly

    • Nemo Wuming@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      And how come we need to sleep?

      And eat food?

      And why not have wheels for feet?

      And what would a chair look like if our knees bent the other way?

      • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        I know the point of your answer was not to dwell on these things, but:

        And what would a chair look like if our knees bent the other way?

        Is actually very interesting, would’ve we designed it as a normal chair but we would rest our chests instead of backs? Or would they have a place to rest the legs instead of on the floor?

  • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    5 months ago

    There are VERY few circumstances in nature where someone in nature who gets all their teeth knocked out is gonna survive long enough to reproduce

    • Granixo@feddit.clOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      You said it.

      In nature.

      “Population pressure and the stress of modern life may cause an increase in violent tendencies. The urban environment is the incubator for all sorts of undesirable behaviors…”

  • xia@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    5 months ago

    I think they are intended to, and they actually do… once (child teeth). Probably just broken due to genetic decay or environment (e.g. if humans are no longer fully maturing and what we call adult teeth are actually “intermediate” teeth). I suspect a deeper understanding of the recent tooth-regrowth drug(s) may provide a clue as to why it is currently broken.

  • kandoh@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    My personal theory is that this mutation among humans would lead to older members of the tribe living longer and being more of a burden on the younger members.

      • Notyou@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Depends on if they can grow the teeth with planned obsolescence in mind. 10K but they last a year.

        I could see it being a trend. Get the new off off white model with Bluetooth capability so you know when to brush your teeth. 10K for the install with a monthly service fee of 2.5K.