Talk:Human vestigiality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A summary of this article appears in Vestigiality.
Charles Darwin This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology.
Start rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Mid rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale
To-do list for Human vestigiality: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Include more and better references - more recent refs are needed to go with older ones.
  • A section on the social/religious controversy
  • Expand to include more examples and more detail for existing examples

[edit] Wisdom Teeth?

I have encountered research* that suggests that the diet of hunter-gatherer societies and the original diets of indigenous peoples prevented/still prevents abnormalities of the dental arch, including crowded and misplaced teeth. I am removing Wisdom Teeth from the list of human vestigial organs, unless someone can find a better source to support this idea.

  • Price, Weston Andrew. 1945. Nutrition and Physical Degeneration: A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and Their Effects. Redlands, Calif.

Disconformist 21:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow at all. How does this make their wisdom teeth non-vestigial? Do they come through like normal teeth or something? This affects the article wisdom teeth and vestigiality as well, so changes need to be consistent, though I think it should be discussed first. They should never be removed from this article, even if they were only a historical example, though I don't see at all how they could possibly be considered non-vestigial when they don't come through until many past humans would have been dead and when they do they usually only cause problems. I haven't got that book at a nearby library and there is no page number, so I can't really check up on this one. Could you provide a little more context?
In Descent of Man, Darwin writes that wisdom teeth are more variable than other teeth, which is a sign of vestigiality. He also writes that they are more vestigial in the 'civilized' races as opposed to African race, which he attributes to diet. Richard001 23:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
If wisdom teeth are more vestigial in societies whose diet has changed as a result of agriculture, then their vestigiality is largely dependent on the society in which the diet exists. In addition, peoples living in societies where diet is non-agricultural have no issues with their wisdom teeth. They come in with no problem at all. All of the present-day wisdom teeth difficulties come from the diet of the person having the difficulties, and have nothing to do with a predisposed biological basis.
Also, when you say that wisdom teeth come in "until many past humans would have been dead," you are assuming that they came in at the same time they currently do. Disconformist 00:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, what mechanism is proposed that allows them to come in sooner? And how does diet make them grow crooked? This is like ESP, I'm very skeptical if you can't provide a mechanism by which the teeth are delayed and rearranged in alignment by diet. Richard001 01:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I did my research, you can see what I've written and improve if need be. Disconformist 02:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts here, but I'm confused as to why you don't think the wisdom teeth are vestigial. One hypothesis is that they are no longer needed because our species stopped eating so much plant food. Another suggests it was because we cook our food and make it softer. I don't see how that suggests they are any less vestigial, and both of these ideas seem to compliment each other in explaining their reduction. Richard001 03:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess what I'm attempting to explain is that wisdom teeth are not *biologically* vestigial. They are *culturally* vestigial, and I think that makes a lot of difference.
Disconformist 17:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh okay, I see that now with your changes. I'll have to do more reading on this. Cultural vestigiality is interesting too, especially as our environment changes so rapidly. Can we call a trait that is vestigial to modern societies vestigial? It's certainly debatable, as we have no idea what environment we will be living in in the future (and for better or worse, it will certainly be different from our current one). Richard001 23:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bug in "coccyx" section

"In rare cases it can persist after birth." ~ What's 'it'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.243.195.136 (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Reworded, thank you. Tim Vickers 17:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)