Is having five fingers a primitive trait?
446873
by primitive and advanced, a paleontologist doesn't mean the same thing as one normally thinks of when you hear 'primitive' or 'advanced'.\n\nPrimitive means closer to the ancestral form, unmodified from that which has been inherited through phylogeny.  A more proper term would be plesiomorphic.  Two groups which share a plesiomorphic trait, such as five fingers, would be synplesiomorphic, suggesting that those lineages inherited the trait from a common ancestor.  For example, bats, humans, tree frogs and monitor lizards would share the synplesiomorphy of five digits on the forelimb.  This trait can be traced back to the Rhipidistian Sarcopterygian fish.  Primitive does not mean inferior, only that it has not been modified from the ancestral state.\n\nAdvanced, derived or synapomorphous traits are ones that have been modified from the ancestral condition.  The two digits of the T. rex are highly derived from the original five digit condition.  So is the two foreclaws possessed by the two-toed sloth.  These traits, although highly derived, so not share a similar phylogenetic origin.  They also are not necessarily superior to five gigits, or 'more evolved', they are simply an adaptation in that lineage that has taken place that is different that the adaptations that earlier organisms in that lineage possessed.\n\nThe reason we (and all tetrapods) have five digits as a primitive trait is due to the fin structure of that first fishie that started wandering out on land and becoming the first amphibian.  Those Sarcopterygians had a number of bony ossicles in their loby fins that helped provide some support to their fleshy fins as they pushed their way onto land.  It just happened that those ossicles were arranged in more or less five rows, and these rows eventually became adapted to become the digits of our ancestral amphibian great-grandparents.  Had we evolved from the Actinopterygians (ray-finned fish), perhaps we'd have thirty or forty fingers.  Who knows?
1046349
Not true.  He made this up.  Count the toes on your dog or cat; they have 4 plus a dew claw (that "thumb" on their heal).  Most mammals have 5 digits.  Our pinkies were going nowhere.
748877
Proper terminology would be Napoleon Syndrome,and yes it's possible.That's not to say that all short people suffer from this,but there is some scientific evidence that this exists.
1058877
No, I think you would like only 4 fingers. The little one just gets in the way.
457652
Nothing special about five, it could have been four or six.  But what is amazing is that almost all four-limbed creatures have five digits on each limb.  (This is called 'pentadactyly', by the way.)  This includes primates, dogs, cats (don't forget the dew claw), wings of bats and birds, crocodiles, even whales(!).   Even horses hooves develop from one of five toes in the embryonic horse.\n\nWhy is this?  Because all four-limbed creatures developed from the same five-toed ancestor.  Yet another little piece of evidence for evolution to add to the pile.\n\nOh, one other little tidbit ... it's because we have 10 fingers that we developed a base-10 numbering system (that's why we call the 10 symbols we use in our system 'digits' (fingers), and where we get the word 'digital').
1073171
That is definately an Italian trait.  But psychological studies suggest that people who talk with their hands, especially women, are thought of as more honest and sincere in what they are saying.
44585
Unfortunately, the origins are lost in the mists of time. The Romans referred to the middle finger as the digitus impudicus (Indecent digit) and writings suggest that flipping the middle finger was offensive. But it is also culture based. You might see in some British comedies characters forming a V and giving a raspberry (a "phthbt" noise with the tongue and lips) which is apparently a very rude gesture in England.
901226
If you are normally constituted, and only count the appendage of your hands as fingers (i.e. no toes, no little "lady finger" pastries, etc), you should have 10, assuming that you are not one of those who insist that the thumbs are not fingers (which they are).
353826
Let's say at the outset that non-primitive triples (eg (6, 8, 10) and (9, 12, 15) are not particularly interesting. What are interesting are primitive ones eg (3, 4, 5) in which the 3 members of the triple have no common factors. After all, any fool can multiply a primitive triple by 2, 3, 4 etc, what we are after when we go triple-hunting are primitive ones. \n\nAnd what we really want is a method of generating triples, so that gaving found some, we can make more. Preferably a method that only generates primitive triples, so we don't have to exercise quality control and weed out non-primitive ones afterwards.\n\nAnd like the Spice Girls, what we really, really want is a method that generates triples from triples not from generating numbers that don't have any aparent connection with triples being plugged into a formula. Preferably a method that can generate all possible primitive triples just from (3, 4, 5), knowing only that one and no other. That would be so much more elegant and satisfying, especially if some findamental structure and relationships between triples were thereby revealed.\n\nThere are an infinite number of triples. So we want a method that generates the lot, not just a subset of them.\n\nAnd triples have many unusual and unexpected properties, making them rewarding to study, if you like finding patterns in nature. This can create a sense of awe and wonder and beauty, in addition to the aesthetic pleasure of elegance of solution.\n\n====\n\nAt the age of 5 I discovered two simple rules for generating primitive triples. As I recall, I only knew (3, 4, 5) and wondered if there were any more like that. Curiosity got me started. I knew no algebra at five.\n\n(1) take any odd number, square it, halve that, take the numbers either side.\n\nThus 3 => 9 => (3, 4, 5)\n5 => 25 => (5, 12, 13)\n7 => 49 => (7, 24, 25)\n9 => 81 => (9, 40, 41) \n11 => 121 => (11, 60, 61) etc\n\nAll such triples have their two largest sides differ by 1. Note how the other terms advance in an Arithmetic Progression, in steps of 8, 12, 16, 20 etc.\n\n(2) Take any even number divisible by 4, square it, divide that by 4 and take the numbers either side\n\nThus 4=> 16 => 4 => (4. 3. 5)\n8=> 64 => 16 => (8, 15, 17)\n12=> 144 => 36 => (12, 35, 37)\n16 => 256 => 64 => (16, 63. 65)\n20 => 400 => 100 => (20, 99, 101) etc\n\nNB Even numbers that are NOT divisible by 4 (6, 10, 14 etc) will generate triples but they are not primitive triples. And it doesn't work for 2.\n\nAll such primitive triples have their two largest sides differ by 2. Note how the other terms advance in an Arithmetic Progression, in steps of 12, 20, 28, 36 etc.\n\nHaving worked out these two rules for generating triples, in my naivete, I thought that was all there was to it. That these were the only triples in existence.\n\nI told parents and teachers, who didnt know of any other triples and weren't able to help me develop my theories.\n\nNobody told me about (20, 21, 29). If they had have done I would have realised that whilst there was a difference of 1 between two sides here, it was between the two shortest sides, not the two longest sides, so there was almost certainly a series of such triples to be discovered. and more than was dreamed of in my philosophy.\n\nNote that 20 x 20 = 400, divide by 16 = 25 and then take two numbers that are 8 apart either side => (20, 21, 29) so it has similar properties. \n\nIndeed there is such a series, the next triple in it is (119, 120, 169). \n\nNote that 120 x 120 = 14400, Divide by 100, and get 144, take two numbers that are 50 apart, either side and voila we get 119, and 169, so similar properties exist here, too.\n\nYou can generate each from the previous one in the series, and each new triple has legs that are about 6 times the size of the previous one. And the hypoteneise is about 1.41 times the lengths of the legs as these values converge o
494882
Clinodactyly: Curving of the fifth finger (the little finger) toward the fourth finger (the ring finger). Sometimes called "fifth finger clinodactyly" to distinguish it from similar curving of other finger or toes. \n\nClinodactyly is a minor congenital malformation (birth defect). The basis for the clinodactyly is that the middle bone in the fifth finger is underdeveloped and, instead of being rectangular, is wedge- shaped. \n\nClinodactyly may occur as an isolated finding in a person who is entirely normal or it may be found in association with other congenital malformations and, sometimes, mental retardation. It is a common component of Down (trisomy 21) syndrome and Klinefelter (XXY) syndrome. No treatment is required for clinodactyly. \n\n"Clinodactyly" is derived from the Greek "klinein" (to bend, slope or incline) and "dactylos" (finger, toe). Other English words formed from "klinein" include "clinocephaly" (a condition that causes skull depression or flatness) and "clinophobia" (fear of going to bed--that is, to bend the head to a pillow.) Other English words formed from "dactylos" include "dactylogram" (fingerprint) and "dactylography" (the study of fingerprints
90687
http://www.google.com/search?q=history+of+middle+finger
245913
Well, as far as plants are concerned... Many characteristics are very vague in the keys (such as tall vs. short).  Some of the characteristics can only be used during certian stages of the life cycle and sometimes you must go with the perponderence of evidence.  For an example of this, try keying out willows.
1060438
Hey you took my suggestion! LoL... \nanyway... salad_85 is wrong already... "unintended mistake"... don't the teachings tell us God is infallible (meaning NO MISTAKES... intentional and unintentional included)? Also mentioned evolving... a thing Believers are supposedly to DENY?\n\nanyway- I think it is a dominate trait just a joke She likes to play on us humans. A sixth finger, one wouldn't know what to do with it... I know 2 full blooded Cherokee's who have had this... one got it removed, the other has kept his second thumb. (His 6th finger grew out of his thumb- weird looking). He can't really use it at all. But he will not remove it, because it was something he was born with.\n\nOnce again one of God's cruel jokes to play on human kind.\n\nLife is Cruel and Unfair... God is Cruel and Unfair.
216164
Yes, and both their hands and feet have opposable thumbs. \n\nQuoting from the source at the link below:\n"There are four categories of thumb movements determined by the degree of independence of the thumb. They are:\n1) Non-opposable thumbs. Examples: tarsiers, marmosets\n2) Pseudo-opposable thumbs. Examples: all prosimians, Cebidae\n3) Opposable thumbs. Examples: Old World monkeys, great apes, humans\n4) Opposable, comparatively long thumbs. Examples: Hylobatidae\n\nSource: Ankel-Simons, Friderun. Primate Anatomy. Academic Press, 2000."\n\nMost primates have opposable thumbs in their feet (we're an exception) and many also in their hands. However, there are monkeys with reduced thumbs, such as the South American spider monkeys, with only 4 developed fingers in each hand (their feet _do_ have opposable thumbs). This is visible in this photograph:\nhttp://www.ejphoto.com/images_AZ/AZ_SpiderMonkey01.jpg
101925
it would be difficult to judge solely from physical characteristics. \n\ntry researching your genealogy (your family tree).
610445
not really, lets say for some reason (god forbid) u cut ur finger,, now  a finger is supposed to be there but you dont have it, it doesn't mean ur sons and daughters wouldn't have it, they would be born with 10 fingers, not 9.  maybe adam didn't have that rib, i dont know, but when the rest were born, they would be born complete... at least thats how i see it
290232
The fifth metatarsal phalanges.