Comment History
"Okay, fine! Make it woof , shit, and act exactly like a dog and prove me wrong! "
That's an appeal-to-ridicule fallacy.
"I bet Smilodon's enamel sabers were too evolved to erode and decay from the wind just like the weak, soft teeth of lions, tigers, wolves, humans, and kitty cats."
This doesn't even make any sense. They have the same composition, and how are modern carnivoran teeth weak and soft?
"Sabertooths have been extinct and we have not seena living one since!"
You could go around denying everything about palaeofauna using that.
"Perhaps prehistoric apex predators had much stronger enamels than the modern predators we have today."
And how does that even work? Enamel is somehow stronger in prehistoric times? How does that even work? It's the same material. It's like saying that 3-billion year old rocks are harder than 10,000-year-old rocks of the exact same composition.
Now, I do think bulldog machairodonts are a bit far-fetched and I think tooth pockets similar to that of clouded leopards, except larger, are much more likely. But you can't just go around wanting nature to strictly conform to your favored aesthetic, especially if you use poorly-thought out statements like a certain material (enamel) somehow being stronger and more resistant in prehistoric times than in the present even though it's the exact same material.
That's an appeal-to-ridicule fallacy.
"I bet Smilodon's enamel sabers were too evolved to erode and decay from the wind just like the weak, soft teeth of lions, tigers, wolves, humans, and kitty cats."
This doesn't even make any sense. They have the same composition, and how are modern carnivoran teeth weak and soft?
"Sabertooths have been extinct and we have not seena living one since!"
You could go around denying everything about palaeofauna using that.
"Perhaps prehistoric apex predators had much stronger enamels than the modern predators we have today."
And how does that even work? Enamel is somehow stronger in prehistoric times? How does that even work? It's the same material. It's like saying that 3-billion year old rocks are harder than 10,000-year-old rocks of the exact same composition.
Now, I do think bulldog machairodonts are a bit far-fetched and I think tooth pockets similar to that of clouded leopards, except larger, are much more likely. But you can't just go around wanting nature to strictly conform to your favored aesthetic, especially if you use poorly-thought out statements like a certain material (enamel) somehow being stronger and more resistant in prehistoric times than in the present even though it's the exact same material.
I am not trying to bend nature to my bodding. I am stating that this theory might just be wild speculation. Perhaps it is likely that the Earth once had specialized predatory land animals with stronger enamels thanks to evolution but eventually became extinct, leaving only land predators with weaker enamels. It is obvious that we have yet to learn more about the ancient past before we make any controversial assumptions. Had the author even experimented and observed the teeth to get the evidence? Absolutely not. Perhaps Smilodon had secreted lots of saliva from its tongue to keep its sabers hydrated for a longer period of time than what we find in modern big cats. Thing is that I do not buy what Duane is spewing and I'm not the only one who thibks that way.
The material itself is the same strength in all animals, simply because it's the same material. There's no evidence that enamel is stronger in one or some animals than in others. Heck, exposed tooth homologues like tusks actually have less enamel and more of the other softer tooth material like dentin and cementum.
Enamel's already harder than bone and keratin (the latter of which is exposed in countless animals), the hardness of enamel isn't really what matters, it's just that it's not naturally regenerated once formed, is the more expensive to grow and maintain, and is more vulnerable to chemical attack.
Enamel's already harder than bone and keratin (the latter of which is exposed in countless animals), the hardness of enamel isn't really what matters, it's just that it's not naturally regenerated once formed, is the more expensive to grow and maintain, and is more vulnerable to chemical attack.
Actually there is evidence for enamel in some animals being stronger. Take a look: markwitton-com.blogspot.com.br… musk deers have exposed tusks, but these have preserved enamel. Walruses are semi aquatic, but their tusks have almost no enamel.
And saying that covered teeth decay way slower is not actually accurate because almost all (if not all) mammals with covered teeth start to get yellowish teeth over time (a clear sign of enamel decay). Crocodilians have a very thin enamel layer and as Mark Witton said, many crocodilians spend a lot of time (some times many weeks) far away from rivers and lakes, altough they still hunt perfectly thanks to tooth replacement (the teeth with decayed enamel are soon replaced by enamel covered ones. Never wondered how can some adult crocodiles have yellowish or even orange teeth while other afult crocodiles have extremely white ones?
I think I have a good explanation here dovahkiinhu3br.deviantart.com/… that would apply to most animals (musk deers may be an exeption and I have no idea of how they manage to keep their tusks with a great enamel layer). And
, due to all that I said your current smilodon may not be outdated, but broly's "snow leopard smilodon" is also accurate by now, so just chose which one you prefer.
And saying that covered teeth decay way slower is not actually accurate because almost all (if not all) mammals with covered teeth start to get yellowish teeth over time (a clear sign of enamel decay). Crocodilians have a very thin enamel layer and as Mark Witton said, many crocodilians spend a lot of time (some times many weeks) far away from rivers and lakes, altough they still hunt perfectly thanks to tooth replacement (the teeth with decayed enamel are soon replaced by enamel covered ones. Never wondered how can some adult crocodiles have yellowish or even orange teeth while other afult crocodiles have extremely white ones?
I think I have a good explanation here dovahkiinhu3br.deviantart.com/… that would apply to most animals (musk deers may be an exeption and I have no idea of how they manage to keep their tusks with a great enamel layer). And
, due to all that I said your current smilodon may not be outdated, but broly's "snow leopard smilodon" is also accurate by now, so just chose which one you prefer.That was before Mark Witton's post 
Ah, but I do not know if the author knew about Witton's post so it is better to prevent than to give a medicine 
Great, now I have to redue my drawings for my novel because the one I have in my drawings page is outdated.....
Well, if you prefer the exposed-saberteeth look then you're free to use that in your fictional works, since, well, it's your world...
Unless you want to make it conform to reality as much as possible, then in that case, go ahead and do so.
Unless you want to make it conform to reality as much as possible, then in that case, go ahead and do so.