Why the heck we have wisdom tooth?

[Pawelk198604]

Do wisdom teeth have any evolutionary significance, why mother nature gave it to us, is that her some bad joke.

And why wisdom tooth has the name in any language is the same, in my opinion, "Wisdom Tooth" should be called rather "Pain Tooth"

Just one pardon the expression SOB start erupt and pain as hell

[SargeRho]

It's a remnant from when we had bigger Jaws. They are also called Wisdom Teeth because they emerge later in life.

[DunaRocketeer]

It's probably a carry-over from a species prior to our own. Earlier hominids (even within the genus homo) had larger, and more protruding jaws and a smaller, further aft brain case. As hominids eveolved from robust to more gracile physiologies, our faces flattened and our brains extended forward. The reduction in jaw size means that homo sapiens suffer from what dentists call 'crowding' which is why so many of us require braces.

[Seret]

There's a whole heap of parts that don't function that well in our current bodies (wisdom teeth, apendices, etc). Heck, we're not even finished adapting to standing upright yet, which is why just about everybody gets sore knees and backs. Your body is a work in progress. Mother nature hasn't finished yet, and never will.

[Red Iron Crown]

There's a whole heap of parts that don't function that well in our current bodies (wisdom teeth, apendices, etc). Heck, we're not even finished adapting to standing upright yet, which is why just about everybody gets sore knees and backs. Your body is a work in progress. Mother nature hasn't finished yet, and never will.

Doubtful that she'll even improve us further, since we've effectively removed ourselves from the natural selection process. I expect further improvements to be done through genetic manipulation.

[Seret]

Doubtful that she'll even improve us further, since we've effectively removed ourselves from the natural selection process. I expect further improvements to be done through genetic manipulation.

Actually that's not true. There's still a lot of evolutionary pressure. Natural selection might be of reduced (but definitely non-zero) impact now that we have medicine, but sexual selection is still very much alive and kicking (perhaps moreso as we have less children and are more picky). There's also other mechanisms at work in evolution such as mutation, genetic drift, and horizontal gene transfer. It's a common misconception that we've stopped evolving. You can't really stop it.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Seret

[softweir]

A person's genes are the most powerful factor governing tooth size. Genetics also governs how large our jaws are when we are born, but the amount of chewing we do as we grow has a significant effect on jaw size: children who eat tough, hard-to-chew foods develop larger jaws, those who are fed soft foods develop smaller jaws. A high-protein diet tends to increase jaw development. Those who have smaller jaws are more likely to get wisdom tooth impaction - the main reason for wisdom tooth removal.

This is reflected in the prevalence of wisdom-tooth impaction in different cultures. In much of the developing world wisdom tooth impaction is rare. They have many other problems, but their wisdom teeth usually have enough room to develop. In China, wisdom tooth impaction is a serious problem, and has been that way for so long that a mutation inhibiting the development of wisdom teeth is becoming increasingly common. In Western developed nations wisdom tooth impaction is pretty common, though a high-protein diet and (in some countries) a preference for heavier breads helps reduce this compared to China.

As everybody assumes, our distant ancestors ate very tough foods - badly cooked roots, meat killed on the run (which makes it tough), and nuts and seeds that have to be extracted from tough cases. During that time we were likely to develop large jaws and were prone to losing teeth, so having that extra set of teeth right at the back as spares and to help spread the load while chewing was a distinct advantage. Since then, we have gotten so very lazy about eating!

[Red Iron Crown]

Actually that's not true. There's still a lot of evolutionary pressure. Natural selection might be of reduced (but definitely non-zero) impact now that we have medicine, but sexual selection is still very much alive and kicking (perhaps moreso as we have less children and are more picky). There's also other mechanisms at work in evolution such as mutation, genetic drift, and horizontal gene transfer. It's a common misconception that we've stopped evolving. You can't really stop it.

I certainly agree that there is still sexual selection, mutation and other genetic variance. I'm not as sure that they contribute to natural selection in the sense that the fittest are more able to reproduce, or reproduce more often. Our species is becoming less fit to survive in its environment rather than more so.

[Seret]

I certainly agree that there is still sexual selection, mutation and other genetic variance. I'm not as sure that they contribute to natural selection in the sense that the fittest are more able to reproduce, or reproduce more often.

Sexual selection is all about who gets to mate and how often. Mutations can confer resistance to disease, or just about any positive change you can think of.

Our species is becoming less fit to survive in its environment rather than more so.

I disagree, we've changed the environment so that it suits us better, so our fitness has increased substantially (though not due to evolution). Besides, there are new selective pressures in the modern environment, the main one leaping to mind is car accidents. It's certainly conceivable that we'll pick up adaptations that make us less likely to be killed behind the wheel. I'd also be surprised if our brains didn't change to adapt to the high levels of information we're required to process in modern life.

[Red Iron Crown]

Sexual selection is all about who gets to mate and how often. Mutations can confer resistance to disease, or just about any positive change you can think of.

Certainly, but are the fittest to survive the ones reproducing the most?

I disagree, we've changed the environment so that it suits us better, so our fitness has increased substantially (though not due to evolution). Besides, there are new selective pressures in the modern environment, the main one leaping to mind is car accidents. It's certainly conceivable that we'll pick up adaptations that make us less likely to be killed behind the wheel. I'd also be surprised if our brains didn't change to adapt to the high levels of information we're required to process in modern life.

I wonder. Our technology changes at a blistering pace compared to evolutionary forces. It might be that we move away from driving cars before we have time to adapt to it.

[Kryten]

Certainly, but are the fittest to survive the ones reproducing the most?

Yes, because that's what fitness means in an evolutionary context.

[Red Iron Crown]

Yes, because that's what fitness means in an evolutionary context.

That's true of course. I was more referring to the traditional model of those being fitter to survive in the environment reproducing more often, so that the species becomes better suited to its environment over time. I'm not sure that's the case with people now.

[Kryten]

It's never been the case. The fittest organism to survive in an environment wouldn't have the kind of sexual display structures many organisms have, it wouldn't have deliberately-hindering fitness markers-it wouldn't even have reproductive organs.

[Red Iron Crown]

It's never been the case. The fittest organism to survive in an environment wouldn't have the kind of sexual display structures many organisms have, it wouldn't have deliberately-hindering fitness markers-it wouldn't even have reproductive organs.

The two aren't incompatible. *** organs and sexual display structures make it easier to reproduce, features that enhance survival give more opportunities to reproduce through longer lifespan. I don't think the second half applies to humanity anymore.

[Seret]

Certainly, but are the fittest to survive the ones reproducing the most?

Sexual selection doesn't necessarily have anything to do with effectiveness or efficiency. At the extreme end (giraffe necks, peacock tails, etc) they can actually make survival harder.

[phoenix_ca]

Doubtful that she'll even improve us further, since we've effectively removed ourselves from the natural selection process. I expect further improvements to be done through genetic manipulation.

Nah. That selection process is just playing out differently.

[78stonewobble]

It's never been the case. The fittest organism to survive in an environment wouldn't have the kind of sexual display structures many organisms have, it wouldn't have deliberately-hindering fitness markers-it wouldn't even have reproductive organs.

It still makes sense though, if you're gonna sexually reproduce, to communicate your fitness, in some way to partners. The sexual display structures you mention are a representation of that "fitness".

...

With humans today there are still some attributes that make some people more desirable than others. Some make sense, others... maybe not so much.

I doubt though that many people picks partners based on dental sets (like horses? ).

...

Regarding the appendix. I did read a theory, that it still has a use. It's a survival "bunker" for beneficial intestinal bacteria. Ie. if you get a harmfull bacterial infection, the beneficial ones might survive in the appendix until ready to repopulate the rest of the intestines. Though, that might work both ways. If the harmfull ones get there, they might be harder to get rid of.

Well, I only glanced over it.

[Seret]

I doubt though that many people picks partners based on dental sets (like horses? ).

If that was true people wouldn't spend so much money and endure so much pain for cosmetic dental work.

[78stonewobble]

If that was true people wouldn't spend so much money and endure so much pain for cosmetic dental work.

Oh yeah, that it's part of "beauty" is true enough, but I meant more along the lines of the OP... How many teeth in the jaws. We're not exactly looking for the next evolutionary leap there in our selection.

No doubt, that beautifull and smart (or atleast seemingly so, for both) are traits we actively select.

[Pawelk198604]

Today I removed the lower left wisdom tooth

talked to a dentist if you can avoid it, said that it can expand the gum but it misses the target, because I have just a short jaw, and advises to remove a tooth, like the other two wisdom teeth, I have one tooth that not developed yet.

Unfortunately, after two Lidocaine shots I sound like retarded

[NASAFanboy]

Today I removed the lower left wisdom tooth

http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w460/Pawelk198604/Wisdom%20Tooth/20140721_143533_Android_zps377d4d6f.jpg

Well that's...err...I'll just say it's time for me to diet.

On the other hand, I prefer to think of wisdom teeth as nothing more than another reason as to why we have a love-hate relationship with nature. This is the hate part-it's a piece of useless crap that nature gave us that causes nothing but pain. On a more scientific hand, is it possible that the wisdom tooth serves as "spare teeth" in the case that one tooth is destroyed?

[magnemoe]

Nah. That selection process is just playing out differently.

Well that pretty much qualify for http://www.darwinawards.com/

[Arran]

Well that's...err...I'll just say it's time for me to diet.

On the other hand, I prefer to think of wisdom teeth as nothing more than another reason as to why we have a love-hate relationship with nature. This is the hate part-it's a piece of useless crap that nature gave us that causes nothing but pain. On a more scientific hand, is it possible that the wisdom tooth serves as "spare teeth" in the case that one tooth is destroyed?

We have the wisdom teeth still as the jaw of earlier man was alot bigger, in time our jaws evolved smaller in size, but the wisdom tooth growth is still there.

Due the size of our smaller jaws the growing of that moaler can cause extreme pressure in our jaws that will break the other tooths its glaziers.

But slowly more cases are known by dentists that these moalers doesnt appear in some patients, thus is you can allready assume our tooths are also now cathcing up with the evolving smaller jaws.. I a few decades the more people evoled to a point they dont posses the gene that make this moaler grow is gone..

Like someone earlier said, we still evolving and changing by the day, only its a very slow process that is hardly noticable in one lifetime, but over several generations things will be alot more noticable..

In my hometowns there is a good example of humans evolving, there are still some houses here that date from the 1500's (in this case its an old tavern in Amsterdam), most modern people cannot stand upright there anymore..

Man have grown much taller in the last 600 years, and if you look around with an keen eye, you prolly will see more differences with man of several decades ago to present man, fast forward a couple of generations and the difference between us an those later generations become more noticable as well..

I also remember some tales of a certain brittisch king (forgot wich one) that was for his day a tall guy (around 1.80) and was an exception, nowerdays 1.80 is more an rule as an exception.

All part of evolution..

[christok]

Man have grown much taller in the last 600 years, and if you look around with an keen eye, you prolly will see more differences with man of several decades ago to present man, fast forward a couple of generations and the difference between us an those later generations become more noticable as well..

I also remember some tales of a certain brittisch king (forgot wich one) that was for his day a tall guy (around 1.80) and was an exception, nowerdays 1.80 is more an rule as an exception.

All part of evolution..

That's nutrition, not evolution. And 1.80 probably isn't representative of today's men. Your judgement is affected by the fact that the Dutch are an unusually tall nation.

[Tex]

We have wisdom teeth for the same reason we have the remnant of a tail: the Coccyx! It's just leftover parts that have evolved away.