The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Why did God give us wisdom teeth?

Having just had a wisdom tooth removed, in the following article, I look at wisdom teeth from evolutionary and creationism perspectives.

I’m interested in reasons why God gave us wisdom teeth given they serve no function and often cause problems.


Why do I (a male) have nipples? They seem to serve no particular function.

According to this article male nipples do serve a purpose.

“male nipples still serve a purpose as an erogenous zone.”


I think my feet must also serve a double function. :heart_eyes:

But why is this topic in the Theology category?

I assumed that the explanations from creationism and evolution fall under theology, but happy to change to another category if it’s more relevant.

Even more peculiar, why, if creationism is correct, are there so many beetle species, about 400,000 described species with likely untold tens if not hundreds of thousands more undescribed ones?

Only under an evolutionary scenario do these and many other truths of nature make any sense.

Not so. The beetle “species” was one of the “kinds” that God created during the week of creation - “creeping things” (Gen. 1:24). All subsequent kinds of beetles developed through the process of microevolution.

1 Like

Not so fast, my friend. So you accept that microevolution leads to the process of speciation. But speciation leads to macroevolution. So, you are accepting that macroevolution, too, occurs apart from creationism.

There are many taxonomic levels of beetles between the species level and the order level (the beetle order level, i.e., Coleoptera level). These levels, e.g., genus, subfamily, family, etc., would result from speciation, which you imply you accept. So, if you accept microevolution, occurring apart from creationism, leading to speciation, you logically must also accept macroevolution occurring apart from creationism.

Not necessarily. That argument remains unproven.

God may have chosen to display his wisdom via evolution.

1 Like

Yes, necessarily. The argument is logically sound. If you accept microevolution leading to speciation, it follows that you also accept, by logic, microevolution leading to macroevolution through the intermediate step of speciation.

Yes, and that is a stance that theistic evolutionary biology takes.

1 Like

From “Speciation, Yes; Evolution, No”:

Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes (genons) with new information for new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms (“molecules to man” or “fish to philosopher”). Suppose there are islands where varieties of flies that used to trade genes no longer interbreed. Is this evidence of evolution? No, exactly the opposite. Each variety resulting from reproductive isolation has a smaller gene pool than the original and a restricted ability to explore new environments with new trait combinations or to meet changes in its own environment. The long-term result? Extinction would be much more likely than evolution.

…[T]he study of biological classification was founded by Karl von Linné (Carolus Linnaeus) on the basis of his conscious and explicit biblical belief that living things were created to multiply after kind, and that these created kinds could be rationally grouped in a hierarchical pattern reflecting themes and variations in the Creator’s mind. If evolution were true,…classification of living things ought to reflect a sequential pattern, like the classification of wind speeds, with arbitrary divisions along a continuum (e.g., the classification of hurricanes into categories 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 along a wind speed gradient). In sharp contrast, living things fit into distinctly bounded hierarchical categories….

The definition of evolution used by most biologists is “a change in allele frequency over time in a population.” (An allele is simply an alternate form of a gene.)

When a population becomes geographically separated from its ancestral population, it is subject to potentially new natural selective pressures and mutation rates. The environment is different after all for the two populations. Any genetic changes that result from mutation and selection in the isolated new population do not become obliterated by interbreeding with the ancestral population because of geographic isolation, which prevents interbreeding. Thus, over time the new and ancestral populations become genetically distinct. In other words, there has been a change in allele frequency over time in a population from an original condition in the ancestral population.

That is evolution, by definition. Speciation IS evolution.

Is it true, as I"ve read, that the vast majority of mutations are detrimental to the species?

I distinctly remember a friend, sharing a video - on his dental experience!

Within arguments about Evolution vs. Creation, I would suggest that “speciation” generally corresponds to microevolution, and the term “evolution” is normally taken to mean “macroevolution” or “Darwinian evolution.”

And regarding natural selection, with millions of years of DEATH through the mechanism of “survival of the fittest,” finally leading to the appearance of man, this biblical challenge bears repeating:

1 Like

I remember the conservative, Protestant Wheaton college - producing this textbook:

Yes, that seems to be true. But there are so many mutations per generation in most species that even a small percentage of positive mutations can be meaningful to evolution.

Also some slightly detrimental ones or neutral ones can be carried and used later in changed environments where they may in fact be no longer detrimental or neutral. That has been demonstrated in bacteria that carried a mutation for metabolizing styrene. That mutation did not become beneficial until the bacteria were exposed to styrene. In environments with styrene, they were superior to the wild-type bacteria because they could live on an energy supply–styrene–unavailable to the wild type.

1 Like

Thanks L, very interesting.