Talk:Thumb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removed the "theorized evoluion", "according to evolution theory" and other nonsense. It is implicitly understood that all scientific theories are theories. Yet we don't talk about 'round-earth theory', do we?

If there is any scientific evidence against either evolution or the oblate spheroidness of the earth, I'd like to hear them.

Emphasizing that evolution is "just a theory" makes us (WP) seem like some backwater pamphlet published by the wellmeaning-but-dim local pastor.

Finally, the name 'Homo Sapiens' is not according to evolution theory - the name was coined long before evolution was discovered.

Is a thumb a finger?

Finger is a realative term much like arm. An octopus could have 8 arms or 8 legs or 4 arms with 4 legs, there is no difference as they are all just limbs in the end. Scientifically we need ways to distinguish ambiguities like this so in humans we define upper limbs and lower limbs (or anterior and posterior limbs). So a finger is a digit and a thumb is a digit too, we have 5 digits, problem solved. Thumb and finger just remain as unclear common names for the digits located on our anterior limbs.

After all, the thumb forms a natural counterpart to the rest of the fingers in that it helps holding things by pressing them against the other fingers. I agree totally with you. Dieter Simon 00:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


Someone please mention the two phenotypes (I might mean genotype, I'm not sure) or types of thumbs: the type that stays straight, and the type that bends backwards.

Contents

[edit] Panda

Somebody please explain which kind of Panda bear this article is referring to. There's more than one kind of Panda you know, and I doubt the small red Panda has opposable thumbs. And if he does please say so too. Bernalj90 01:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Red Panda is a panda by name only, it is not related to the big white fella. It's a racoon, basically. Might still merit some clarification ... but in zoology the red panda is considered to be "incorrectly" named. Perhaps sticking the latin name in would help, I'll leave it to someone better qualified in anatomy and zoology than me! 90.195.131.159 13:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)BC

[edit] Images

Must there be TWO images of the "Thumbs Up?" The article only needs one of these images. The only reason for a second image would be to label the name of each finger, perhaps signaling out the thumb. BuildingBridges 07:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thumb a finger?

I digress that the thumb isn't a finger. Please edit the first paragraph to conform to such. Is there any new evidence I've missed that may explain this part of the article? --Andrex 16:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I usually say that a human has five fingers. "Evidence"? Heh, I think it's more a matter of definition. ;) -- Northgrove 20:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The quoted graph on this subject, in the current revision, is not required
to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea
and thus probably not an instance of being "acceptable under 'fair use' " per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text. I am paraphrasing it (preserving the attribution of the opinions).

--Jerzy•t 17:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Focusing on the ideas of that quote clarified for me how unencyclopedic the section was overall, and how disingenuously clueless the author of the quote is, in pretending to knowledgably arbitrate between two unsound essentialist PoVs. The view on "finger" expressed by his popular-amusement book is not encyclopedic; what would be is coverage of who among serious thinkers held each of the two contending views he presents, and who, especially since Origin of Species, led the way in making fools of both of those sides by treating the linguistic issues while clarifying the inadequacy of trying to explain nature by assuming essences and refusing to do any science that could show that essences of the sort that pre-scientific philosophers came up with are about as rare as hens' teeth.
    --Jerzy•t 21:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creationism

"Others dismiss this explanation and explain the development of the thumb as: 'God did it.'"

Someone deleted the above sentence. Why? Evolution v. Creation is a highly controversial topic and I see no reason why 1 sentence giving the perspective of creationism cannot exist among the many giving the evolutionist perspective. - MC24

Then you should explain your statement within the connotation of this Evolution-versus-Creationism controversy, and not just make a bald assertion assuming everyone will understand it. This is an encyclopaedia and we have readers of all persuasions, all our articles need to be as neutral as possible, thus giving opinions of either camp. Dieter Simon 00:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, I agree with Jake Lancaster, I was just going to delete the statement he removed, myself. This is an encyclopaedia which is honestly trying to describe a natural science concept. Dieter Simon 14:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. But the point is, you're trying to describe it just ONE way when there is a sizable number of people who have a separate view. This is supposed to be NPOV. It isn't fair to just give one view and say you're "honestly" trying to inform the reader. That's honest according to your POV, but not an honest assessment of the multitude of views that exist. Informing the reader as to another sizably held POV in just 1 sentence is not too much to ask. I'm not even asking for "equal time." Just 1 sentence reflecting the views of millions when discussing a contentious issue is entirely appropriate. - MC24
What you are suggesting has nothing to do with natural sciences. You should know that this is not , repeat not a religious or theological article; this is a natural science article. You are free to introduce what you are advocating in articles which discuss the theological side of creationism. You are free to do so, nobody is stopping you. It is quite incongruous in an article of any of the sciences, whatever they are.
However, if I may refer you to the main discussion relating to Evolution, of which your thoughts are part, please see Wikireason where a general discussion is taking place.
Dieter Simon 01:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Dieter Simon 02:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Opposable Thumb

Can someone explain what is meant by 'opposable' thumb?

Thank you, Emerick53 14:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)emerick53

The thumb is the only digit on the human hand which is able to oppose or turn back against the other four fingers, and thus enables the hand to refine its grip too hold objects which it would be unable to do otherwise. Just imagine holding a glass when drinking, a pencil or any other of item of limited size without the thumb forcing the item back against the other fingers. Just try to hold a glass of water without the thumb, you can see what is meant by opposable. Dieter Simon 21:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the thing about opposable thumbs evolving in homo habilis because if chimps have them I would imagine early humans did too. ~ Feel free to revert if you think I made a mistake. Haplolology Talk/Contributions 00:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
It appears chimps don't have opposable thumbs. Have re-entered section with three sources. Dieter Simon 23:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I remember talking to an anthropologist several years ago about the opposable thumbs, and he stated that simple opposition is not unique to humans, but that our ability to oppose our thumbs against the sides of our fingers is, and is more responsible for our fine motor control. I'm not well-versed on this subject, however, and I could be misremembering, and even if I'm not it could be non-universally accepted among anthropologists. I'd love it if an actual expert could clarify this notion with some appropriate citations. 64.203.237.248 (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I have hitchikers thumb

I'm not double jointed but can easily (non-forcefully) bend my thumb backwards. I've also noticed that my thumbs are cannot squeeze hard. Curious if anybody else has the same?--Improfane 15:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

This article claims that the opposable thumb evolved with the H. habilis (or erectus), yet in the next section it does onto detail the various apes that also have opposable thumbs/toes. I think there needs to be some further clarification here.203.173.147.170 00:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Picture

The picture of Hitchhiker's thumbs is not very good. The owner of the thumbs is forcing the joints. I can get just as much bending without external application of force. I know a much better picture is possible. Whether it's worth anyone's time, I do not know.

- Misha

216.254.12.114 (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)