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."

4 of 347 comments (clear)

  1. What fingerprints are for by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 1, Redundant

    They're for US immigration to scan. Other than that they serve no other purpose, like wasps.

    Seriously though, did you know that identical twins have different fingerprints? Not so identical after all.

  2. Re:what do you think? by stonewallred · · Score: 1, Redundant

    wrong, on more levels than you are aware.

  3. Bald is not a hair color by sesquipedalian_one · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The "faith" of an atheist is not the same as the faith of a theist. You're conflating two different uses of the word. I have faith that there is no god in exactly the same way that I have faith that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster, or that I have faith that Russel's teapot does not, in fact, exist. If you want to call that "faith," it's within the boundaries of English usage, but it's an entirely different faith than positive faith in a particular god. And you clearly have no clue about scientific evidence. The default position is we assume things do not exist unless we are presented with positive evidence to the contrary. It's the theists who have the burden of proof, not the atheists. To this point, the theists have failed spectacularly.

  4. Re:what do you think? by mpcooke3 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    By this definition of faith everything I don't believe in and yet lack a scientific proof that proves it's non-existance means I have "Faith". This certainly makes me a man of a million faiths!

    To start with I would like to take this opportunity to declare my faith in the "non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster".