I suppose. I still think there must be a much better reason for us to have non-replicable teeth than metabolism since there obviously IS a different solution. (Caveat: of course, evolution doesn't always pick the most efficient system - it works with what it's got.)
I tend to think that the reason we have non-replaceable teeth is because cutting-and-grinding action is just SO GOOD that evolution does not care about losing a certain percentage of gene carriers to tooth decay. It strikes me as inefficient, but what the hell. If evolution was a tech person, I think she'd try to feed me a line about it being feature not a bug.
I do want to correct the bit about the Ornithopods: they had complex, differentiated teeth that were also replaceable. The rate of replacement of each tooth in the tooth battery is used to estimate the population of all the hadrosaurs. Aaaand the reason that matters is because now it seems like they had feathers too (http://www.livescience.com/animals/090318-feathered-ornithischian.html). Which is pretty recent and also, mind-blowing.
Maybe you knew that and I'm just being an ass. My apologies if so.
Re: Aw man, LJ ate my original comment:
I tend to think that the reason we have non-replaceable teeth is because cutting-and-grinding action is just SO GOOD that evolution does not care about losing a certain percentage of gene carriers to tooth decay. It strikes me as inefficient, but what the hell. If evolution was a tech person, I think she'd try to feed me a line about it being feature not a bug.
I do want to correct the bit about the Ornithopods: they had complex, differentiated teeth that were also replaceable. The rate of replacement of each tooth in the tooth battery is used to estimate the population of all the hadrosaurs. Aaaand the reason that matters is because now it seems like they had feathers too (http://www.livescience.com/animals/090318-feathered-ornithischian.html). Which is pretty recent and also, mind-blowing.
Maybe you knew that and I'm just being an ass. My apologies if so.