MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Digits digits (Life Sciences)
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
sheena



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Darwinian evolution has been used to explain the diversity of species. Living in different ecological niches promotes the development of 'adapted' characteristics which enhance the organism's ability to compete, survive and breed. We have big animals living in big open spaces and small animals living in small spaces and so on. However, let's not ignore the similarities among animals - why do the vast majority of animals have five digits - not two or three or ten or twelve - on each hand/toe? If one digit is good then two should be better and ten or twelve might be better again. Why five?
Send private message
Wireloop


In: Detroit
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Why five?

Five is the natural progression of growth and destruction.
We call this progression 'PHI', but the Greeks called it LOGOS.
It is the equilibrium between corporeality and incorporeality.
Flowers and leaves are like hands, afivepoints areachin'.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Sheena, you have to understand that Wireloop is invariably right but it takes several tries to squeeze out of his brain anything that is useful. Him and his brain being more than usually distant from one another.

Which reminds me, I am preparing a short discourse on our relationships with our brains for the TV series, so I will post up something when I've finished working out what it is.
Send private message
Martin



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Luck. They all share an ancestor that had 5 digits. This ancestor came to dominate the land and so its descendants all have 5 digits. The changing lifestyles of these descendants has resulted in changes to the morphology of the digits.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This is extremely unlikely. Given the choice on offer, unless there was something particularly useful about five - or perhaps something that makes five the default position - we would have a much livelier array.
Send private message
Martin



View user's profile
Reply with quote

The genes which determine digit number also controls hand, feet and genital development. Mutations varying digit number would offer little advantage and most probably cause considerable harm. Some animals have adapted vestigial thumbs etc. in situations where they do not need five digits.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Interesting but not illuminating. If you're correct (and by the way, do they really understand genetics to this degree of certainty?) the system seems capable of delivering one penis and two balls without any difficulty alongside five fingers and toes. On the other hand, as you say, the system seems in some way too basic since for example the horse has to go to all that trouble to develop one toe into a hoof and vestigialise the rest.

But even so you haven't said why it chose five in the first place. Does this number turn up elsewhere in nature, for instance in leaf patterns?
Send private message
Martin



View user's profile
Reply with quote

I think they are called hox genes. There were some women who had hox mutations they had strange hands and feet plus no uterus. A bum deal.
Some very early land animals had eight digits, for example Acanthostega, however the five digits won out and they disappeared.
It does occur a lot in nature.
Send private message
Wireloop


In: Detroit
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Some very early land animals had eight digits, for example Acanthostega, however the five digits won out and they disappeared.
It does occur a lot in nature.

That seems to be correct.
I suppose the question is, is why five digits, for the most part, 'won out'. Right Sheena?
I mean just to push it off on 'luck' seems a little like the ostrich with its head in the sand, eh Martin? Unless of course you are willing to give us a definition of 'luck' ; )

It was Plato, borrowing from 'Pythagorean ideals', who was enamoured with the idea that there were exactly 5 'solids' that composed all matter. He did not consider it luck per se, but 'providence'. Not that Plato is anybody we should listen to, but it is comforting to know that others in the past have contemplated these things.














Send private message
Wireloop


In: Detroit
View user's profile
Reply with quote













Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Not sure how relevant it is but those of you who read my Dance of the Great Powers will remember that
a) there are always precisely five great powers at any one time and
b) I didn't know why.
This seems a good a time and place as any to try to concentrate my thinking on this question.

My first thought was that five represented 2 plus 2 with one over as the 'balancing item' ie the fifth Great Power acted as the stabilising item. But this must be wrong because 3 would make a system too (or any odd number, come to that). Then there was the idea that Great Powers are always in the Temperate zone of the earth and therefore tend to be 'strung along' in two rows of three and two.This makes a pentagram (of sorts) but again I couldn't see why this should be so important. After that I kinda gave up and decided, "What the hell, what works works." Perhaps Mother Nature came to the same conclusion ie five is a default number, the lowest one that doesn't suffer from built-in problems. So what's so wrong about having eight digits that leads to extinction?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
So what's so wrong about having eight digits that leads to extinction?

To be fair, spiders have survived.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There was a discussion on the radio about symmetry where one of the interviewees stated that the brain is structured in such a way as to recognise symmetry and she cited the bumble bee being attracted to flowers because of their symmetrical pattern (apparently bees lack a sense of direction and are colour blind). I don't know if this is accepted in the science community. Why not the other way round, that flowers evolved a symmetrical pattern to attract the bees?
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

What were the bees doing before flowers?
Send private message
AJMorton



View user's profile
Reply with quote

They were being pre-bee, non-flower loving insects, I reckon.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2  Next

Jump to:  
Page 1 of 2

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group