Biblical predictions and checking data

[randman]

Nick's idea is this anamoly shows up due to our distant heritage. It is not necessary that it would still always show up, just that it indicates something, and he thinks it may indicate longevity of life pre-flood.
I happen to agree.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


I've got to hang this one on my wall. Here you have it, folks. A classic example of evolutionist thinking.

You failed to provide any evidence whatsoever -- NOT EVEN ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE -- that babies have a second set of teeth already formed (or as "nubs" below the surface.

All of the bodies organs are developed during the fetal and early infant stages. I was comfortable to take Rufus' word for it, because I have never caught him misrepresenting the truth, and his scientific acumen is impressive. I'm glad someone was able to post a link with corroboration for the hard core skeptics like you. Here is another:
http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/texts/guide/hmg32_0003.html

Now I must admit that this is actually fairly logical, since they're going to get their second set in as little as 5 years. But logic doesn't prove anything, it just presupposes something. What you REALLY need is EVIDENCE. EVEN ANECDOTAL evidence would help -- at least that would give you a start.

So do you provide any?

No. Instead, you provide the X-ray of a 7-year old -- a child that is actually IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING HIS SECOND SET OF TEETH.

This fascinating X-ray shows that the second set of teeth are present.

DUH! HE'S IN THE PROCESS OF CUTTING HIS SECOND SET RIGHT NOW -- OF COURSE HIS SECOND SET OF TEETH WOULD BE PRESENT IN THE X-RAY!

You are right, no one originally posted much corroboration for what, I imagine, was assumed to be common knowledge.

But that simply obvious fact doesn't deter your imagination.

Ooooh.. there's that word again.

You extrapolate that because you can see them when he's 7, he must have had these teeth in his gums when he was a baby! Again, no evidence whatsoever. You just IMAGINE that this is true. Whether or not it is true is totally irrelevant -- it may very well be true. But YOU HAVEN'T DEMONSTRATED IT EVEN WITH ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE YET, so most reasonable people would stop there before even postulating the next theory.

Imagine, imagine, extrapolate... don't you give ANYONE credit for just being informed? Ever?

But no -- that's not evolutionist thinking works.

On the basis of the unproven first extrapolation -- that the second set would be present in babies -- YOU EXTRAPOLATE THIS FURTHER A SECOND TIME TO ASSUME THAT THE THIRD SET OF TEETH WOULD ALSO BE PRESENT IN BABIES, EVEN THOUGH THEY WON'T CUT THEM FOR ANOTHER 100 YEARS.

Perhaps their absence in infants (and adults) is not so telling. After all, sharks form new teeth in adulthood from skin tissue, and have them lined up and waiting for one to fall out. However, it is a valid objection, since every other human organ develops during gestation and shortly after.

Again. No evidence whatsoever, NOT EVEN ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE. But you ASSUME it must be true, because that's how YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE IT SHOULD WORK. In fact, you are so vehement in your assumptions that you won't even believe that people can cut a third set of teeth (in spite of evidence to the contrary) unless their body obeys the rules of your imagination.

Or is consistent with the knowledge of human growth & development ---- OR unless there is good evidence that it can happen, such as a couple of well-documented cases in the medical literature.

In other words, your imaginary rules take precedence over any substantial evidence whatsoever, because wherever the evidence is lacking, you have the ability to fill in the gaps with your imagination.

That's the core philosophy of evolution.

There is a thread here for you!!!!

 

[RufusAtticus]

Wow, Nick, in all your hand waving and ranting you never got around to explaining the biology of tooth formation for the third set. What is so special about them that don't show up on x-rays and by pass the requirements of development?

Here is a link explaining the development and difference between deciduous and permanent teeth. Can you explain how the third set fits into this, or simply provide some medical evidence that humans have even have a third set?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

Here is a link explaining the development and difference between deciduous and permanent teeth.

I'm getting the impression you think I simply won't visit your links, because you keep handing me evidence against your arguments. First you claim that permanent teeths will show up in the X-rays of babies and demonstrate that with an X-ray of a 7 year-old child.

Now you send me to a link that refutes your argument in not in pictures but in text. I quote:

Calcification begins during the fourth month of fetal life. By the end of the sixth month, all of the deciduous teeth have begun calcification.

By the time the deciduous teeth have fully erupted (two to two and one half years of age), cacification of the crowns of permanent teeth is under way. First permanent molars have begun cacification at the time of birth.

So the baby teeth form early, as one would expect. The first permanent molars begin calcifictaion at birth, but the rest of the teeth do not begin calcifying until 2 to 2 1/2 years of age (toddler). In other words, they are not present in X-rays of babies because they haven't formed yet.

Can you explain how the third set fits into this

Based on your link, I would guess that the third set of teeth behave just like the first and second. They form in advance of when they emerge (duh). How far in advance seems to depend on which kinds of teeth, and when the "target date" is for emerging. Your link demonstrates clearly that there is no evidence that the teeth must have formed 100 years in advance of when they will emerge. Quite the contrary, it plainly says that most permanent teeth don't start to calcify until you hit 2 to 2 1/2 years old, which is about 3-5 years before the child cuts those teeth.

Wow, Nick, in all your hand waving and ranting you never got around to explaining the biology of tooth formation for the third set. What is so special about them that don't show up on x-rays and by pass the requirements of development?

Obviously you can't read your own links, since it shows that those requirements you made up don't exist.

 

[chickenman]

you still have a major problem npeterley - a 3rd set of teeth does not make living to 900 years of age possible

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by chickenman
you still have a major problem npeterley - a 3rd set of teeth does not make living to 900 years of age possible

Indeed! I have some distant cousins on my dad's side who went through about 5 sets in a normal lifespan. The whole family. No one ever found out why.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by seebs


Indeed! I have some distant cousins on my dad's side who went through about 5 sets in a normal lifespan. The whole family. No one ever found out why.

Five sets of NATURAL teeth? REALLY? Tell us more... maybe there IS something to Nick's otherwise poorly supported hypothesis of extra sets of teeth...

 

[chickenman]

you missed the point entirely npeterly- you need a new brain, a new liver, a new heart as well- where is your documented evidence that cell division occurs at a rate adequate enough to maintain these organs? Don't bother looking because you won't find any

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by chickenman
you still have a major problem npeterley - a 3rd set of teeth does not make living to 900 years of age possible

ROFL!! I don't have a problem at all! I never said it made it possible to live 900 years.

I said the third set of teeth was POSSIBLE evidence that we were designed to live 900+ years, which is as long as the Bible said people lived pre-flood.

Note: I did see the post above regarding a person who got 5 sets of teeth. If my guess is right, then I would also guess that people would get a fourth set, fifth, and so on, but nobody lives long enough to test that theory. IMO the person who got 5 sets is not necessarily supporting evidence for my theory, because of the rapidity with which they occurred in that case. It COULD be supporting evidence, but IMO you would need to have a few 900 year old people around to see why the timing was so different in that case. And we ain't gonna see any people that old again until late in the Biblical millenium, assuming my interpretation of Revelation is correct or close to being correct.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Five sets of NATURAL teeth? REALLY? Tell us more... maybe there IS something to Nick's otherwise poorly supported hypothesis of extra sets of teeth...

That's all I know. I think the family name over on that branch was "Loomis", and as a kid, I thought they were related to the armored car people. I just remember being told about this once; my grandma on that side of the family may have written it up, she did a geneology, but I don't know if it ever got picked up by any of the people who collect old geneologies.

However, they just got teeth fairly often for a while; doesn't help with longevity at all.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by chickenman
you missed the point entirely npeterly- you need a new brain, a new liver, a new heart as well- where is your documented evidence that cell division occurs at a rate adequate enough to maintain these organs? Don't bother looking because you won't find any

Go back and read the whole thread. We already covered that.

On second thought, my memory for handles and names is so poor, for all I know it may have been you who raised these objections before. If that's the case, don't bother reading the whole thread because if you didn't understand or agree with the answers then, you won't now.

 

[chickenman]

oh sorry, I see, so anecdotal evidence of people getting a third set of teeth could be possible evidence that people once lived 900 years old, but you have yet to explain about all the other things that would need to regenerate for this to happen - fair enough

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by chickenman
oh sorry, I see, so anecdotal evidence of people getting a third set of teeth could be possible evidence that people once lived 900 years old, but you have yet to explain about all the other things that would need to regenerate for this to happen - fair enough

Well, I looked back and saw that it WAS you. You're the person who thinks the only way this can work is if cells can survive for 900 years, despite the fact that we magically live 70 year or more with cells in our bodies that routinely die in hours, days or months. You're the person to whom I responded about how a pre-flood environment may not have caused as much continual cell damage as the current environment.

Okay, so I guess that explanation I have yet to produce but managed to go back in time and post earlier wasn't enough for you.

From an earlier post:

and the fact remains that the cells most vital to human existence (neurons) stop dividing after adolescence (except olfactory neurons)

I think you're confusing cell division with cell growth. Cells do not stop dividing at adolescence, they simply shift out of "growth mode." They keep dividing.

The question is, why do we age the way we do now if we were designed to live 900+ years? There are several possible answers, but we can't test any of them because we don't have the same pre-flood environment in which to test our theories.

The one theory that you'll find most in discussions like these is that the pre-flood environment was not as hostile to cells. I think that's probably true.

But if you read enough of those anecdotal accounts of people who get a third set of teeth, you'll see there's another factor that may have been involved. Many of the people who get new teeth also grow new hair (the same color it was before they went gray and it fell out), get a better complexion, and show other signs of rejuvenation.

Are those just anomalies, or are they related to getting the third set of teeth? I don't know. But let's do something the evolutionists love to do -- speculate.

In other words, assume for a moment that BOTH of the above theories are true -- that the pre-flood environment was more hostile to cells, thus accelerating aging, AND there is the possibility that we would all go through some natural rejuvinating endocrinology changes at some point after 100 years old if we simply lived in an environment that allowed us to get that far in good condition. Sounds to me like that would be evidence that fits the prediction that we were designed to live 900+ years.

Unlike the evolutionists, however, I still consider speculation to be speculation, and theories to be theories. Until we can reproduce the process, or understand all the environmental factors and the pre-programming in the human genome to confirm the theory, it will remain a theory.

 

[chickenman]

well see, the fact is, neurons do not keep dividing after adolescence (with the exception of some cells in the hypothalamus and olfactory neurons) this is why scientists are currently researching stem cells, and have tried stem cell implantations to rejuvenate regions of the brain where neurons have died. The reason they have to look for stem cells to do this is because normal neurons do NOT regenerate - once you lose them, they are gone. I don't know what you are talking about with respect to "growth mode" the reason the brain gets bigger between birth and adolescence is due to cell division, not because neurons get bigger.

 

[RufusAtticus]

So the baby teeth form early, as one would expect. The first permanent molars begin calcifictaion [sic] at birth, but the rest of the teeth do not begin calcifying until 2 to 2 1/2 years of age (toddler). In other words, they are not present in X-rays of babies because they haven't formed yet.

Read that again, Nick. It's referring to the crowns, which form only part of a tooth. So your conclusion and critique are erroneous. If you look carefully at figure titled "Development of the Deciduous Dentition" you will notice that the 6 month old (baby) shows tooth-buds for its permanent teeth.

Based on your link, I would guess that the third set of teeth behave just like the first and second. They form in advance of when they emerge (duh). How far in advance seems to depend on which kinds of teeth, and when the "target date" is for emerging. Your link demonstrates clearly that there is no evidence that the teeth must have formed 100 years in advance of when they will emerge. Quite the contrary, it plainly says that most permanent teeth don't start to calcify until you hit 2 to 2 1/2 years old, which is about 3-5 years before the child cuts those teeth.

But that's not how development works. Everything is laid out in fetal and early childhood development. That's how our bodies work. An easy example is female reproduction. A woman has no use for a uterus or a birth canal until she hits puberty, yet she is born with them. Your argument would have us expectation a girl to lack most of her internal reproductive organs until she is about seven. (Actually, the way some people act, she shouldn't get them until she is engaged.) Even more surprising is that she is born with every single ova she will ever release in her lifetime. According to Petreley’s Rule of Development, she should not even produce one until the day before she ovulates.

Once again Nick, can you explain the biology and development of this mythic third set of teeth. Specifically why we shouldn't expect to find any evidence for them until every other organ in the body is deteriorating.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by chickenman
well see, the fact is, neurons do not keep dividing after adolescence

Um. That's REALLY interesting. It really is.

Now, unless you're saying we all die when we're 16, I don't see your point.

I wish I could recall the term for that "growth mode", but I can't. G-something seems to ring a bell but it's been too long.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

But that's not how development works. Everything is laid out in fetal and early childhood development. That's how our bodies work. An easy example is female reproduction. A woman has no use for a uterus or a birth canal until she hits puberty, yet she is born with them. Your argument would have us expectation a girl to lack most of her internal reproductive organs until she is about seven.

ROFL!!!

No, your argument is that the first egg has to form and then sit there and wait until the girl hits puberty.

No no no -- I got that wrong.

Your argument is that ALL THE EGGS HER BODY WILL EVER PRODUCE IN HER ENTIRE LIFETIME have to be in some partial state of formation when she's a baby, otherwise she'll never form them.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley
No, your argument is that the first egg has to form and then sit there and wait until the girl hits puberty.

My argument is that that does happen, as a consequence of human development. Now, Nick, will you explain the biology and development of this mythic third set of teeth. Specifically why we shouldn't expect to find any evidence for them until every other organ in the body is deteriorating.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Neperteley...

Crack open a basic college biology book... You will find that all the eggs that a woman will ever have are made before birth... Sperm is a different story though.

Please do a little bit of study before you say something is stupid, otherwise it will be you that looks stupid when you speak. This goes for all things that you do in life.

Look at it this way...
If someone whe had never even bothered reading the bible were to make ofhand comments about it that were so easily proved wrong just by opening the book you would find there ignorance on the subject laghable would you not?

Your basic ignorance of biology (you don't have to believe in evolution to study boilogy either.) is making you and the religion you claim to represent look bad.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus


Read that again, Nick. It's referring to the crowns, which form only part of a tooth.

You're right. Here's what it says, exactly:

By the time the deciduous teeth have fully erupted (two to two and one half years of age), cacification of the crowns of permanent teeth is under way. First permanent molars have begun cacification at the time of birth.

It doesn't actually say when the calcification for all the permanent begin. It only says the molars have begun calcification at birth.

Regardless, your whole premise is hilariously flawed. Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that I'm right that we were designed to live 900+ years, and that we would cut new teeth approximately every 100 years or so.

That means we could be cutting our 11th set of teeth on or about our 900th birthday.

According to you, the only way that would be possible is if we were born with 11 sets of teeth in our jaws all lined up and waiting for their turns to emerge at the right times. Indeed, the poor fellow who got 5 sets of teeth MUST have had them all lined up waiting to emerge back when he was a baby, otherwise he must be lying about having gotten 5 sets of teeth.

Why?

And here's the brilliant logic behind your whole argument: It must work that way, only that way, and could not possibly work any other way because...you say so.

And as evidence that you are right, you present the fact that our first set of permanent teeth are already forming 5 years before we get them. The fact that the next set emerges 100 years later is totally irrelevant -- these teeth MUST be formed and ready to go 100 years prior to that -- when we were a baby -- or else they can't possibly exist.

And the scientific evidence that teeth you get 100 years later must exist when you're a baby is...you say so.

Well, gosh, if you say so, it must be true. End of argument.