Scientists Wonder What Fingerprints Are For 347
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."
Primates (Score:4, Interesting)
So maybe finger prints improve grip with smooth timber surfaces. Testing against glass doesn't sound very realistic. We didn't evolve to grip glass. Or maybe (as the summary suggests) it is something to do with detecting the texture of a surface to find a place to grip.
Of course they don't ask why people have unique finger prints. Maybe it evolved to make murderers easier to catch.
Yup. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds about right. Such micro-ridges, I think, WOULD increase grip on rougher surfaces, which is what we would run into in daily life. Also, if those ridges - generally the top layer of skin - would rip off or shred, the damage done to the hand would be less than were it smooth, I would guess. IOW, maybe a safety feature?
Picking your nose (Score:5, Funny)
Picking your nose seems like a good enough reason.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are probably multiple reasons for the fingerprints.
The skin has to be both flexible and durable at the same time, and gripping on moist surfaces should also be safe.
A flexible skin is also allowing for better dexterity and a finer resolution when sensing surfaces.
Ribbed for extra ...? (Score:2, Funny)
Perhaps they helped attract mates?
Re:Ribbed for extra ...? (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps they helped attract mates?
Naturally ribbed, err... fingers, for her pleasure?
Different finger prints (Score:2)
Of course they don't ask why people have unique finger prints. Maybe it evolved to make murderers easier to catch.
I would guess that the only question is why at all do we have finger prints. The uniqueness would then be expected since it would be much more complicated for a system giving rise to same print for everyone to evolve. Start with a system that produces finger prints (for whatever reason), and the usual error while copying the genetic code would certainly make sure that people get unique finger prints.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The fingerprints we have now may be little use for increasing friction, but perhaps at some point in the past before they'd evolved away they'd have been been more pronounced, and would have trapped sticky dirt within more efficiently than todays generally cleaner hands.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Primates (Score:4, Interesting)
Or maybe it didn't evolve that way for any particular reason.
These sort of studies assume we have now evolved to perfection. But that suggests there will be no further evolution, which I don't think is the case.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most mutations that get kept are somehow beneficial. Not all, but most.
Re:Primates (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This doesn't follow (that there should be folks without fingerprints if they have no purpose). It depends on the genetic basis of fingerprints and the genetic history of our species.
One thing we have learned about human genetics is that the human population went through several 'bottlenecks' where the population was reduced to low numbers. Is this what you are referring to?
It's a process called genetic drift. My old botany prof described it with a fun story. Imagine some disaster that reduces the entire
Re:Primates (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Primates (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You can look at individual mutations as alpha builds, communities with the same mutation as unstable beta builds, and traits shared by the entire (well, to like 5 nines) population as stable release. Simply because there will be a future build of debian doesn't mean I can't use lenny stable to satisfaction.
Re:Primates (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly -- why does it have to be for any particular use? More likely it's just an artifact of how skin develops. People forget that many traits didn't evolve for a specific purpose, but rather, were random mutations that were not selected against, becauee they did the species no harm.
The whole question also shows a profound ignorance of the rest of the animal kingdom:
Dogs have noseprints that are as unique as fingerprints (and in fact are legal ID for dogs in Canada). Why is this? Probably no reason at all, other than quirks of individual cell layout in the skin layer.
Chickens have similar uniqueness in the surface of their combs. Why? Likewise, probably no reason, other than it's just a trivial quirk of how the skin cells piled up in a given individual.
Re:Primates (Score:4, Insightful)
Dogs often use their noses like a jack-hammer... the nosepad is not particularly sensitive to touch. If your dog is too wiggly to get a noseprint (which one does with a paper-pad and roll-on ink, much as one would footprint a baby), chances are the dog needs more training, and you need lessons on how to be the pack leader, too.
(Disclosure: I am a professional dog trainer. :)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 :)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Of course they don't ask why people have unique finger prints."
What are the other unique features? Vein patterns and eye color patterns are as unique as finger prints. The odds are the uniqueness is a function of growth unrelated to purpose.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And all this time I thought the fingerprints evolved for gripping the modern day equivalent of tree branches: subway straps and bus door handles.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see why them being unique is so surprising. Faces are unique after all. All of us have a unique genome, apart from identical twins. Still even twins have different fingerprints and hair follicles and so on are in different places. I guess when embryos develop the process for skin folding and hair follicle development is slightly random - i.e. the genes encode the probability of a fair follicle, not its exact location.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you, I'm glad this is the first post listed.
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.
That's totally BS science. That disproves the hypothesis that fingerprints provide improved grip on acrylic glass, not that fingerprints provide improved grip on other surfaces.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why presume they have a function? Evolution weeds out costly features. If fingerprints have little cost, it is wrong to assume they necessarily exist to serve some specific purpose.
It's wet grip (Score:5, Interesting)
I've had the experience of having no fingerprints for a time. I worked at UPS unloading trucks; one of the customers shipped many thousands of small boxes just before the end of the year; the boxes were the precise size that the only way to grip them was with the pads of fingers and thumb (I'm looking at you, Daytimers!). A large portion of those boxes passed through my hands. Shortly after I started work there, I noticed that I was having trouble gripping items that were wet - a water glass with condensation on it would routinely slip through my fingers. When I examined my hands I saw that the ridges of my fingerprints were basically worn away. I wore gloves for a bit while working and the problem cleared itself up.
Another illustration would be to look at the skiving on the bottom of a pair of deck shoes. On a dry surface, they offer no advantage whatsoever, but on a wet surface the difference in grip is remarkable. Or for that matter tire treads - a set of slicks is the absolute best way to maximize grip - unless it's wet, at which point they become the WORST configuration.
Intelligent design (Score:5, Funny)
It's obvious fingerprints were designed by our creator to help the Police catch murderers.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
even God is hooked on watching CSI!
Re:Intelligent design (Score:4, Funny)
CSI may have an alternate hypothesis to their use. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:CSI may have an alternate hypothesis to their u (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they're for nothing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Unlikely. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's more likely for something used this much to have functional features than not. Fingers and claws have been around for quite a while. It's hard to imagine them not evolving useful properties. Of course, this can go too far. Try peeling a gecko from a wall, you need to call the Hulk to help.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean Gecko, or "Gecko". One is the cute little guy that eats bugs and provides an easy thing to rescue girls from, the other is a 5 foot meat eating monitor lizard that tends to try and eat people trying to rescue girls from them.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Depends. Do monitor lizards climb walls and get pulled off by Hulks? If so, probably both.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he means the one that can save you 15 percent or more on car insurance.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That would imply that when a monkey would be born without those (genetic mutation somewhere), there would be no reason for him to be less likely to survive and reproduce than his peers having fingerprints, and when he would procreate, it would create a variation of those monkeys having no fingerprints.
If we have fingerprints, it's genetically possible to be born
Re:Maybe they're for nothing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or a population of primates that happened to have fingerprints became dominant for some other reason.
It is often the case that an environmental shift makes an existing trait advantageous (that trait may have been meaningless in the previous environment), rather than an advantageous trait arising in a static environment.
Re:Maybe they're for nothing? (Score:5, Insightful)
If we have fingerprints, it's genetically possible to be born without, so it's very likely that that mutation existed in the history of evolution, and that one of those specimen procreated, creating that fingerprint-less type of monkey/man.
I would actually question to what extent this is a possibility. Human skin has all sorts of textures and patterns, most of which we don't treat with any significance. It may be that smooth skin is actually difficult to produce by biological processes. This is a possibility that should at least be considered.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not everything has to have a purpose.
Sometimes parents can be mean.
Re:Maybe they're for nothing? (Score:5, Interesting)
What fingerprints are for (Score:2, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Twins are very frequently very similar (same Mom same Dad same err "dice roll")
"Identical" twins (the bet was "split") have some very minor things different due to those features having a nongenetic component (chaos theory get in the way)
I would bet that direct clones of a person would also have Biometric differences.
Re: (Score:2)
Which may seem to imply that fingerprints are formed during development and are not determined by genetics.
Re:What fingerprints are for (Score:5, Funny)
Other than that they serve no other purpose, like wasps.
Hey, if it weren't for WASPs, who would shop at The Gap or Banana Republic? Who would buy purse-sized dogs? And who would keep psychotherapists and badminton set manufacturers in business?
Ridged for extra pleasure? (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry.
I'll get my coat.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Make sure you have more than just the coat, okay?
tactile sensation (Score:5, Informative)
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
Someplace for the oil to go? (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe they work like treads on car tires... let there be someplace for liquids to move *away* from to improve grip. Or, maybe having "with oil" and "without oil" surfaces that can be selected by varying grip allows gripping different types of surfaces.
Also, grip isn't the only thing hands do. Wiping or scrubbing with your fingers requires some level of abrasiveness.
I suspect that there may be a connection between building calluses and having prints. Possibly, prints are just the way we make "tough" skin tha
ummm where did captain obvious go? (Score:5, Interesting)
from TFA (sorry i can figure out how to use the quote function
how is this not obvious? where he have some sort of ridge like pattern (hands, feet) we have more sensitive nerves there. The ridges increase surface area of our skin which means we can feel more using up less volume
the star nosed mole is the perfect example of increased surface area for more touch sensitivity.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
<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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm posting from a Commodore 64, you insensitive clod.
National Public Radio's Science Friday (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Many things (Score:5, Insightful)
More grip, larger surface, which means more flexibility, more nerve-endings - more sensitivity, better warmth-exchange, 'folded-up-ness', which means more protection from wounds, easier to clean (like footprints, the mud just falls out), 'little bits that stick out' - meaning more sensitivity again.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it's the bits that don't stick out that provide the sensitivity. It's kind of like a microserrated knife, they're shaped like so if you turn them edge-up: ___A____A____A____A___ The edges of the A's and the flats are sharpened, and the A's sticking out protect the other sharp parts. The raised parts of your fingers are worn off quickly and easily (it's happened to me dozens of times... but I never burned them off, so they still come back every time, even when I get cuts etc) but the grooves aren't
Bad science or bad journalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
With articles such as this, it's hard to tell whether we're being subjected to bad science or bad journalism. Both the summary and TFA quite categorically state that the "myth" of fingerprints being used to improve grip has been disproven. They then go on to describe how this experiment tested whether fingerprints helped when grasping an extremely smooth surface, and found out that they didn't (well okay, actually they did, but not by very much).
Finally, some alternate hypotheses as to why fingerprints evolved are posited, the first of which is: they may improve grip on rough surfaces. Not acrylic glass or anything, but those other kind of surfaces - you know, the type that actually occur in nature.
I'm pretty sure I don't know much more now than I did before I read the article.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They may have more value in gripping *rough* surfaces, for the same reason that serrated knives stay sharp longer than smooth-edged knives -- only a small amount of the skin (or knife edge) ever comes in contact with abrasive hard surfaces, therefore improving skin (and knife) endurance. Also, it's easier to grip rough surfaces (as occur in nature) if the gripper isn't entirely smooth.
But even after all that.. it's still extremely trivial as it would affect everyday life; I'd guess well below any threshold
The real question is: (Score:4, Informative)
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.
fingerprints don't provide an improved grip? (Score:2)
So what? Who is to say they aren't slowly evolving away and they were much more pronounced in the past when we needed it living out in the wild?
Much like an appendix, its most likely something once useful that is on the way out. Evolution doesn't happen overnight.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Such a function is expected to be useful in a culture lacking modern sanitation and healthcare practice, where diarrhea may be prevalent.
Assuming they are correct ( its still just a theory ), as the human race continues to advance the need would be reduced and eventually eliminated, so ya, it should be 'evolved out' of the species.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Assuming they are correct ( its still just a theory ), as the human race continues to advance the need would be reduced and eventually eliminated, so ya, it should be 'evolved out' of the species.
What is the selection pressure? The places people live with better sanitation (reducing the need for an appendix), are the same ones where appendicitis is a treatable condition; so it's more or less a wash.
my guess (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems pretty apparent... (Score:2, Funny)
Sexy (Score:3, Interesting)
Um... (Score:2)
what fingerprints are for (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
The fact that fingerprints are unique, and grow exactly in the same form even after a burn or erasure clearly shows a higher purpose.
Don't you visit the Creationist mueseum in Texas.
God made us. In his image.
And his fingerprint is what all of us have.
Re: (Score:2)
That's my contention too... based on a lot of side-thoughts but mainly on the fact that dogs' noses also have a unique print, which probably serves no "purpose" either, but is just an artifact of the way skin develops, and the type of skin found on commonly-used pressure points (hands, feet, or with dogs, noses).
Remember, your toes, soles, and palms ALSO have unique "prints". I'd hazard that the microwrinkles in everyone's skin are the same thing (and equally unique), just less "codified" because that skin
Obvious! (Score:3, Funny)
It is to sign prayers.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:what do you think? (Score:5, Insightful)
Throughout history, there have been lots of questions that science has not been able to answer. But science is not static. Over time, it has been able to answer more and more questions and close more and more of the 'gaps.'
For any theist, the 'God of the Gaps' defense is pretty weak. Just because we don't understand something doesn't require a God (or gods) to explain it.
This is not a rejection of theism, but simply a comment on science - just because we don't have an answer now doesn't mean we won't have an answer in the future. And not having an answer does not imply that there is a (or many) God(s).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
My view is that the reason science and religion come up with different answers is because they ask different questions.
Science can tell you how to create a bomb that will kill lots of people. Religion can try to tell you whether or not creating such a bomb is a good idea.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
My view is that the reason science and religion come up with different answers is because they ask different questions.
Q: What makes a rainbow?
Science A:A rainbow is an optical and meteorological phenomenon that causes a spectrum of light to appear in the sky when the Sun shines onto droplets of moisture in the Earth's atmosphere. They take the form of a multicoloured arc, with red on the outer part of the arch and violet on the inner section of the arch. The light is first refracted as it enters the surface of the raindrop, reflected off the back of the drop, and again refracted as it leaves the drop. The overall effect
Re: (Score:2)
Now god only flood small parts of the world at a time...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
-- Robert Frost
http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/a_f/frost/fireice.htm [illinois.edu]
read the interesting comment by Tom Hansen, about the 3rd one down.
Re: (Score:2)
My view is that the reason science and religion come up with different answers is because they ask different questions.
Erm...Religion tries to answer all the questions science does. That's why Galileo and Darwin have been declared heretics; religion tried to answer a question, and scientists provided a better answer, with evidence. The difference is that behavior and philosophy are subjective and cannot be proven or disproven by the scientific method.
So, as Science continues to advance, those who would have previously proclaimed "Religion answers all questions" are now being forced to change their proclamation to "Religi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Aetheism is a religion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I believe there is no God" is as much a statement of faith as "There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is his messenger". There is no scientific evidence to prove or disprove either statement.
Re:what do you think? (Score:5, Informative)
Most atheists explain it as "I won't believe until I see proof of it", though, which is very much scientific.
Re: (Score:2)
And how do you call someone who tells you "I don't care wether there are any gods or not, because I don't have a need to believe in a deity"? Isn't this atheism, too?
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
N
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Carl Sagan had a graph of scientific progress - basically very rapid in Ancient Greece and zero in the Dark Ages
Yeah. Articulated armor, steel long-swords, and crop rotation aren't science at all....
And it sure wasn't religion that got all of the Greek city-states to stop fighting every four years and come together for the olympics. Nope. Not that, either.
You're arguing from authority, and "noted atheist says religion is bad" is no more credible than "pope says modernism is bad."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Carl Sagan had a graph of scientific progress - basically very rapid in Ancient Greece and zero in the Dark Ages. As Christianity lost its grip in Europe science picked up again.
As if the plague had nothing to do with that. Or the breakdown of civility with the fall of the Roman Empire and rise of bands of knights in perpetual raids and gang wars for their lords.
Anyway, there was a lot of progress on science and math during the Middle Ages in the Muslim middle east, which was not exactly a bastion of atheism.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He says his fingertips are no longer nearly as sensitive to heat and cold, and his ability to identify different sorts of rough surfaces has diminished severely; he can't tell the difference between rubber and suede for example without looking now.
I'm sure he'd be willing to have a phone
Re:what do you think? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The only difference between you and someone who doesn't understand logic is.. almost exactly nothing. Science doesn't require irrational belief, it is simply based upon more and more thorough observation and testable hypothesis', while religion is based upon shallow observation and wishful thinking.
The key difference to me between religion and science is that religious folks have to explain all new observations in such a way that it will fit into their current worldview, because they are terrified that conf
Re:what do you think? (Score:5, Funny)
Agreed. I'm not a scientist and to me the answer is as obvious as it is to you.
It is clearly a case of aliens genetically modifying the species to easily identify individuals; we do the same in tagging wildlife.
Re:what do you think? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Just one more thing science can't answer. Of course the answer is obvious but no scientist would ever consider [i]that[/i].
Obviously its so God can sort you out later.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just one more thing science can't answer. Of course the answer is obvious but no scientist would ever consider [i]that[/i].
Forgive me for feeding a troll, but I am assuming that the obvious answer is whatever religion your pappy taught you...So why would a god or devil or FSM care about fingerprints?