PDA

View Full Version : Hmmmm ...



RWGR
03-04-2016, 02:28 PM
Scientific paper which says the human hand was designed by a 'Creator' sparks controversy

A recent scientific paper on the movement of the human hand has faced strong criticism for referring to a 'Creator' throughout.

The paper, titled: 'Biomechanical characteristics of hand coordination in grasping activities of daily living' was written by a team of four researchers, three from Huazhong University in China, and one from Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientific-study-paper-creator-intelligent-design-plos-one-creatorgate-a6910171.html

Barry Morris
03-04-2016, 02:43 PM
The incredible dexterity and usefulness of the human hand has always been a wonder to me.

RWGR
03-04-2016, 02:44 PM
I wouldn't have even given it a second thought until seeing this headline.

It is pretty amazing, when you think about it.

Hans
03-04-2016, 07:47 PM
Monkey species have even more amazing hands and feet. I guess Darwin was correct after all.

Barry Morris
03-04-2016, 08:16 PM
Monkey species have even more amazing hands and feet. I guess Darwin was correct after all.

Even more amazing??

When a monkey can tie a surgical knot with one hand using microscope glasses, you call us.

Stronger by a factor of 10, but NOT more amazing.

As to Darwin, that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Hans
03-04-2016, 08:33 PM
Darwin = evolution theory

As for hands: http://news.discovery.com/animals/endangered-species/human-hands-more-primitive-than-chimp-hands-150714.htm

Barry Morris
03-04-2016, 11:15 PM
One could use the term "more primitive", and derive from that the idea that human hands are less useful than monkee hands.

Or a little common sense could prevail, with the realization that, even though monkee hands have evolved further, it doesn't mean they are better. Especially considering, as the article states, monkees do not have opposable thumbs.

Nihilistic Heathen
03-05-2016, 06:36 PM
One could use the term "more primitive", and derive from that the idea that human hands are less useful than monkee hands.

Or a little common sense could prevail, with the realization that, even though monkee hands have evolved further, it doesn't mean they are better. Especially considering, as the article states, monkees do not have opposable thumbs.

Han's article didn't say anything about monkeys. Chimps and monkeys are different, monkeys have prehensile tails chimps don't. It's no wonder you have a hard time grasping things when that simple little tidbit of biology escapes you in a discussion on evolution.

From Han's article...

Another important take-home message is that if human hands are largely primitive, the 'relevant' changes promoting the emergence of widespread reliance on stone tool culture were probably neurological" and not manual—meaning it was our brains that allowed for adaptation.


And that is why you don't see chimps, or monkeys, tying knots while looking through microscope glasses. Our hands evolved the way they did due to our inventiveness and use of tools. Chimps hands evolved differently because they hung out in trees. It's survival of the fittest.