Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Wonder What Fingerprints Are For
Hugh Pickens writes "The BBC reports that scientists say they have disproved the theory that fingerprints improve grip by increasing friction between people's fingers and the surface they are holding. Dr Roland Ennos designed a machine which enabled him to measure the amount of friction generated by a fingerprint when it was in contact with an acrylic glass at varying levels of pressure. The results showed that friction levels increased by a much smaller amount than had been anticipated, debunking the hypothesis that fingerprints provide an improved grip. Ennos believes that fingerprints may have evolved to grip onto rough surfaces, like tree bark; the ridges may allow our skin to stretch and deform more easily, protecting it from damage; or they may allow water trapped between our finger pads and the surface to drain away and improve surface contact in wet conditions. Other researchers have suggested that the ridges could increase our fingerpads' touch sensitivity."
They use auto-balancing centrifuges.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
There is a fair amount of evidence that they increase tactile sensitivity. We have nerves that are sensitive to specific vibrational frequencies. As fingerprints run over edges, then generate vibrations at frequencies we have maximal sensitivity for.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5920/1503
The USA's National Public Radio show, "Science Friday" discussed this:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105310429&ft=1&f=5
The show talks about this result, and reveals that New world monkeys have similarly ridged
skin on the gripping side of their tails. Touch sensitivity, and resistance to blistering are
posited as potential answers.
Why do they have to be for something?
Evolution does not forbid random things, that are neither bad nor good for something.
Sometimes, humans try too much, to fit things into the artificial set of meta-rules that they did create, to describe the complex results of more basic and emergent rules. But those meta-rules have their own artifacts, that are not present in the basic rules and therefore are not present in the world. Like there having to be a "reason" for everything. A human concept that should describe causality, but adds something more to it, which does not exist in reality.
Other than that, it is obvious, that they enhance the grip, even in situations with liquids.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Not really. Survival of the fittest means survival of those most able to have lots of children, and that's as valid now as it has ever been.
Most atheists explain it as "I won't believe until I see proof of it", though, which is very much scientific.
It depends on what scale you're looking at. Neutral Theory says that MOST mutations are neither beneficial nor harmful.
Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
Of course. And "I believe there are no pink unicorns" is equally a statement of faith using your logic.
<quote>quote goes here</quote>
If you copy and paste that you'll get this:
quote goes here
You can also do <b>bold</b>, <i>italic</i>, and a few other basic things:
You can also do bold, italic, and a few other basic things.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
That's an interesting question, and now that you mention it, I'm one of those, whatever they are. "Atheism" does actually mean "without gods", NOT "anti-gods".
Atheism has its ROOTS in foreign words that roughly translate as "without gods." But it doesn't mean that any more than "Pagan" means "woodland religion."
Atheism: A religious creed that posits that there are neither God nor Gods, nor any supernatural entity.
Agnosticism: A religious creed that posits the existance or non-existance of the divine is beyond its members knowledge.
Pagan: Any religious creed that posits a belief in a God or Gods other than that described by the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions.
Neo-Pagan: A reliigous creed that asserts belief in many gods, supposedly with its basis in pre-Christian Europe.
Aside from "Pagan", all three are relatively modern inventions, each younger as a viable religion than the United States of America.
Even without errors in copying the genetic code, people get unique finger prints. The overall pattern and general style will end up the same, but they're still unique, even between twins with identical DNA. Reminds me of the markings on the cloned cat. The clone was a calico, just like the original, but that seemly random pattern in a calico's fur? Turns out, it actually is somewhat random. Identical DNA doesn't produce identical fingerprints either...
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Of course they don't ask why people have unique finger prints
The passing over of amniotic fluid inside the womb, over a fetus determines fingerprint array during fetal development.
Each mother will of course...swash amniotic fluid differently over each fetus.
This has been researched and shown.
I take issue with the folks that ask why do fingerprints have to do anything. Even if they were ever a "neutral" mutation. Nature has an insidious habit of stumbling into situations where they do provide a benefit. They have been preserved, even have flourished. We have them and we will find more uses for them. It's like "junk" DNA. If we ask the right question we find this stuff that does not transcribe still plays an important role in the way genes are expressed.
Trust me, you will enjoy your regular mutt a lot more, and he'll be happier too, if you get the master-and-dog relationship right :)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?