p. 167 | GOOD HEALTH

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · May 30, 1878

GOOD HEALTH.

Proper Diet for Man.

(Continued.)

WE begin our comparative examination with the organs of mastication, the first of which are the

TEETH.

The teeth of man are thirty-two in number, sixteen upon each jaw, each set consisting of four incisors or front teeth, two cuspids, sometimes erroneously called canine teeth, four bicuspids or small cheek teeth, and six molars or large cheek teeth. These teeth, unlike those of any other known animal, are arranged in the jaw in close juxtaposition. Another fact worthy of notice is that the teeth of man are all of the same height, or at least so nearly so that an argument based upon the difference could have little weight. The surface of the incisors is such as to make them well adapted for the purpose of cutting the food, while the molars appear to be specially adapted to the purpose of triturating or grinding substances placed between them. Now let us briefly compare these organs of mastication with those of other animals.

In herbivorous or ruminating animals we find the incisors much longer and stronger than in man. The molars are also better adapted for grinding than those of man. In fact, the whole structure of the teeth is different. Instead of being completely encased in enamel, as is the case in man, they are made up of alternate layers of bone and enamel arranged vertically. As the soft bone wears away much faster than the enamel, the surfaces of the teeth constantly present a rough, uneven surface. There seems to be, however, considerable resemblance in the incisors of each. The teeth of gnawing animals, like the rat, beaver, etc., also differ from those of man to such an extent as to leave no possibility of establishing any dietetic relation between them.

Many, however, profess to find a remarkable resemblance between human teeth and those of the carnivora. Let us consider this matter with some attention. The incisors of flesh-eating animals are usually very sharp, round, and pointed, or acuminate. In man the opposite is the case. Then, when we look at the back or molar teeth, we again find a vast difference. In the carnivora they present a sawlike surface, and the two jaws shut together like shears. But, says one, there is certainly a great likeness in the eye or corner teeth, usually called canine teeth from their supposed resemblance to the cuspids of the dog. Upon examination, however, we find even still less resemblance here than in the incisors and molars. In man the eye-teeth are a little more pointed than the incisors, it is true; but this is merely the result of a gradual transition from the chisel-like incisors in front, to the rough, jagged molars of the back portion of the mouth.

Again, in man the cuspids or eye-teeth are seldom longer than the other teeth, and when there is any difference it is not sufficient to be in any degree appreciable. On the other hand, the carnivora have these teeth very long and powerful, often protruding from the mouth, as well as being very sharp and pointed. Any one who doubts the truth of this statement can easily satisfy himself by looking into the mouth of a cat or dog. Upon doing so, he would find very little resemblance to his own teeth. It is, indeed, surprising that any scientific man who cared anything for his reputation as an accurate observer should claim to find such a resemblance here.

But suppose we grant, for argument's sake, what we do not admit by any means, that the similarity of what is termed the canine teeth in man to the same teeth in carnivorous animals is sufficient to establish man's carnivorous character, then in what a predicament do we find ourselves. Upon a little investigation, we observe that many animals which are universally acknowledged to be herbivorous, observation of their habits for centuries having fully established the fact, not only having teeth of this kind also, but have them developed to an extent incomparably greater than they are in the human species. Let the reader who is sufficiently interested in this matter to wish to investigate it take the pains to examine the mouth of a horse. If he has never before thought of the matter, he will be surprised to see the wonderful similarity between the bridle teeth of the horse and the cuspids of the dog. He will find in the horse two long teeth in the upper jaw, occupying the same position in the mouth and presenting much the same appearance as the canine teeth of carnivorous animals. The stag also has canine teeth, and the camel is furnished with four such teeth in each jaw, presenting very much the same appearance as the teeth of predaceous animals. Judging, then, by the canine teeth alone, we should be obliged to consider the camel even more of a carnivorous animal than the dog.

Then we are brought to the inevitable conclusion that if the so-called canine teeth of man prove him to be a flesh-eating animal, it must also prove the same of the horse, camel, stag, etc., and not only so, but the evidence in case of the latter animals is much more ample and conclusive. Being brought, then, by fair and logical reasoning, to a conclusion at once so absurd as well as fallacious, we cannot do otherwise than decide that the cuspids in man and herbivorous animals were provided for some other purpose than that of tearing meat, and, consequently, that they are in no way indicative of a carnivorous character.

Again, the canine teeth of the carnivora are for the express purpose of seizing and holding their prey, and tearing the flesh from the bones. These teeth in man are evidently utterly worthless for this purpose, and, consequently, they must have some other for which they are adapted.

Here we see this favorite and much vaunted argument for man's carnivorous character fall to the ground when subjected to the test of careful criticism. It, in fact, destroys itself; for it proves altogether too much to be true if it proves anything at all. It is indeed astonishing that so whimsical an argument should ever have been urged by rational men.