Reason for fingernails?

[TenDimensions]

Can a Creationist explain to me why people have fingernails if they aren't vestigal claws?

Other than a convenient form of torture :eek: I am unable to come up with a function for them other than vestigal claws.

[Sozo]

Today @ 10:31 AM
TenDimensions:

Can a Creationist explain to me why people have fingernails if they aren't vestigal claws?




Because biting the ends of your fingers would hurt like hell.

[Lizard]

:rofl:

[Yog^sothoth]

hmmm, i would say the evolutionist answer to that mayhap be the creationist answer

[Zakath]

To give fingernail parlors something to work on?

[Sher]

:lol: Sozo :rofl:

Posted by TenDimensions on Today 11:31 AM:
Reason for fingernails? Can a Creationist explain to me why people have fingernails if they aren't vestigal claws? Other than a convenient form of torture I am unable to come up with a function for them other than vestigal claws.

First, ask any man who doesn't have longer fingernails how many times he has asked a woman in his life to take care of a delicate task ... removing a store label, scratching the hard to reach itchy, convenient tweezers.

Both long and short nails protect the ends of our fingers and toes (assuming you question toenails as well), areas of high nerve sensitivity. We are able to sense things with the tips of our fingers such as braille. I am sure anyone who has ever banged a fingernail with a hammer will attest to the relief that the fingernail exists and the whole tip of the finger wasn't damaged. Likewise, toes. Stubbing your toe will prove the sensitivity of that area. This sensitivity is useful in the dark to prevent serious harm when we simply stub our toes instead of damaging our feet. But drop something on or kick something with this sensitive area, and the toenail will take a lot of the blunt force. The whole tips of the toes and fingers couldn't be encased in nail because the sensitivity would be lost. I would measure this akin to our skull that protects our brain, and our ribs that protect our heart and lungs.

So the short answer to your original questions is for protection and for detail work/picking small things up.

{edit for spelling}

[Sozo]

Top 10 reasons for fingernails...

10. Try picking your nose without them

09. An itch will last much longer

08. The whole chalkboard thing would lose all meaning

07. A special tool would be needed for stickers

06. The decibel rating on tapping would decrease

05. (as noted earlier) Biting the ends of your fingers would hurt like hell

04. There would be an over abundance of coins on the ground everywhere

03. The pain of a hammer would intesify greatly

02. Our toes would have no one to relate to

01. Our belly buttons would overflow with lint

[TenDimensions]

Today @ 12:58 PM
SherBear:
First, ask any man who doesn't have longer fingernails how many times he has asked a woman in his life to take care of a delicate task ... removing a store label, scratching the hard to reach itchy, convenient tweezers.


I was hoping someone would come up with this answer. But here's the problem with that answer. You're essentially relegating the fingernail to a tool. A tool by the way, that would only be useful later in our technological advancement and scratching can be achieved by a twig.

So if the fingernail is there as a tool, why not have more "tools" designed into our bodies?

I don't buy the protection thing, by the way. The sensitivity you're describing is only on the front side of the fingertip. The nails aren't protecting the tips from anything.

I think the evolutionist answer is that nails are the remains of claws and that they did provide a function enough so that they stayed. I can imagine pre-tool using man cutting into fruits using his fingernails.

However, what I can't see is a wholly (holy?) formed human being who is capable of tool use needing fingernails as a tool since he's already a tool user.

[Sozo]

Ten...

Why not put all your effort into disproving the resurrection of Christ. Everything else would fall in place, and you would only have to concentrate on one minor event.

[Stratnerd]

Try picking your nose without them

:idea:

darn it sozo... that's the first thing that popped into my head, literally

[TenDimensions]

Today @ 01:52 PM
Sozo:
Ten...
Why not put all your effort into disproving the resurrection of Christ. Everything else would fall in place, and you would only have to concentrate on one minor event.

If you think that's possible, I'd be very intriqued. I happen to think trying to disprove an event from 2,000 years ago is pretty impossible if people are willing to believe that someone can rise from the dead with God's will.

[Sozo]

Today @ 01:32 PM
TenDimensions:



If you think that's possible, I'd be very intriqued. I happen to think trying to disprove an event from 2,000 years ago is pretty impossible if people are willing to believe that someone can rise from the dead with God's will.



:hrm: Aren't you accustomed to going back several millions of years to prove what you believe? :huh:

[Xmansmommy]

Sozo, that's hilarious! :rofl:

[Sher]

Today @ 01:42 PM
TenDimensions:

I was hoping someone would come up with this answer.Ah, so you were trolling? :bonk: :lol: J/K :smile: But here's the problem with that answer. You're essentially relegating the fingernail to a tool. A tool by the way, that would only be useful later in our technological advancement and scratching can be achieved by a twig.Yet, it does have uses as a tool. That cannot be denied. And why do you assume that splinter removal and detail work of some nature weren't present in the beginning of time?

I further explained how it serves as protection.I don't buy the protection thing, by the way. The sensitivity you're describing is only on the front side of the fingertip. The nails aren't protecting the tips from anything.First error I see here is that the sensitivity is on both sides of the fingertip. Ever lose a nail, or have something jabbed up under one? The skin is VERY sensitive on that side, more so than the other. Granted that sensitivity could be exacerbated because it is the fingernail and hasn't "toughened", but even without a nail the skin, when it toughens, still remains extremely sensitive ... and more susceptible to damage. Second point is a question: Why you assume that there might not be a created intention for the nails to be kept slightly longer? It is society preferences that dictate the short/long lengths that are "attractive" for men and women. If we all maintained an average length nail of an eighth to a quarter inch of nail past the fingertip, it would provide protection for the tips as well. I think the evolutionist answer is that nails are the remains of claws and that they did provide a function enough so that they stayed. I can imagine pre-tool using man cutting into fruits using his fingernails.That is a nice story, but can you prove it as good science? And even today we open some fruits with our nails, oranges and tangerines readily come to mind. However, what I can't see is a wholly (holy?) formed human being who is capable of tool use needing fingernails as a tool since he's already a tool user. There is a lot of assumption in that point. Why do humans use fingernails today as a tool if we can create something or purchase something that works just as well, or sometimes even better? I could as soon ask what purpose teeth serve, when we can grind our food with rocks (or food processors) and gum it to death before we swallow it? Why create a tool when we have one provided for us? We were designed to be vegetarians, eating fruits and herbs. Why couldn't God have provided nails for that reason as well as for protection? To be readily available for eating, opening the fruits and picking through the herbs? This speculation spirals into hilarity as we review each body part to question why we have this instead of that, or instead of lack of that. Why 10 fingers and 10 toes? Why not eight of each? Or 15 of each? Why only two arms? Why not a third arm growing out of somewhere for when we "need a third hand"? Speculation is pointless.

[Socratism]

Today @ 01:42 PM
TenDimensions:


What I would like to know is whether any serious scientist has proposed that human fingernails are vestigial leftovers derived from ancestral claws?

This is probably just another fantasy of an ignorant high school student. But I could be wrong, since Dawkins is supposed to be a serious evolutionary scientist and his "Selfish Gene" fantasy is in the same league as this dumb fingernail/claw idea.

[Stratnerd]

Whether man has evolved or not, independently of fingernails might be a better way of determining their use. I don't think fingernails, or any feature examined in isolation, will be of any help going the other way.

[Socratism]

Today @ 03:14 PM
Stratnerd:

Whether man has evolved or not, independently of fingernails might be a better way of determining their use. I don't think fingernails, or any feature examined in isolation, will be of any help going the other way.

Perhaps you can answer my question.

Do you know of any serious scientist who believes that human fingernails are vestigial leftovers derived from ancestral claws?

[Stratnerd]

Do you know of any serious scientist who believes that human fingernails are vestigial leftovers derived from ancestral claws?... I never asked a scientist what they thought about fingernails

[Socratism]

Statnerd has never asked a scientist about fingernails (and I presume has not read anything about same from a serious scientist as well or he would have mentioned it).

So I will repeat the question for a wider audience:

Does anyone here know of any serious scientist who believes that human fingernails are vestigial leftovers derived from ancestral claws?

[Stratnerd]

If looked at within the context of evolution then I'd say they were. I'm not saying they're useless (as I pointed out above) but they probably don't serve the purpose or the extent of the purpose for which they originally existed (which is the definition of vestigial). I've just never seen it explained and probably no one else has either but what's the point you're trying to get across?

BTW, I am a scientist but not so serious....

[TenDimensions]

Today @ 02:39 PM
Sozo:

:hrm: Aren't you accustomed to going back several millions of years to prove what you believe? :huh:

Good point! :smile: I suppose the big difference is that in the first case I'd be trying to disprove something that really couldn't be disproven if it happened last year let alone 2,000 years ago. Anyone want to try and disprove this
happened (http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,915125,00.html)?

While the thing I'm commonly defending although something millions of years ago, is based on materialism and physical evidence.

The two really aren't comparable - one is based on written testimony and the other is based on physical evidence.

[Stratnerd]

TD-

What I love about that story is that they still cut it up and sold it!

[Socrates]

Stratnerd:
I'm not saying they're useless (as I pointed out above)Good, because as long as they have a use, they are perfectly well explained by creation.... but they probably don't serve the purpose or the extent of the purpose for which they originally existed (which is the definition of vestigial). More likely a revisionist definition since evolutionists lost the war over this alleged 'evidence'. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993) defines ‘vestigial’ as ‘degenerate or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution.’ (Emphasis added).

[Stratnerd]

Good, because as long as they have a use, they are perfectly well explained by creation.
and if not what? the "Fall" is there any possibility of falsification?

More likely a revisionist definition since evolutionists lost the war over this alleged 'evidence'. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993) defines ‘vestigial’ as ‘degenerate or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution.’ (Emphasis added). I don't know how you decide something is functionless but the hair on my hands hasn't helped me much. But I've seen vestigal used for characters that aren't necessarily functionless, perhaps the OED needs updating?

[tgamble]

03-18-2003 @ 07:39 PM
Sozo:
:hrm: Aren't you accustomed to going back several millions of years to prove what you believe? :huh:

Are you serious when you suggest that science involves time travel or was that a joke?

[tgamble]

Today @ 05:14 AM
Socrates:

Stratnerd:
I'm not saying they're useless (as I pointed out above)Good, because as long as they have a use, they are perfectly well explained by creation....


And if they DON'T have a use, blame it on the mythical fall! Creation can explain anything and everything!

but they probably don't serve the purpose or the extent of the purpose for which they originally existed (which is the definition of vestigial). More likely a revisionist definition since evolutionists lost the war over this alleged 'evidence'.

LOL!

[Sozo]

Today @ 04:43 PM
tgamble:

Are you serious when you suggest that science involves time travel or was that a joke?

To prove the earth's age through science does not require time travel, but rather "spacey" travel

[tgamble]

Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
Sozo:
To prove the earth's age through science does not require time travel, but rather "spacey" travel

Or simply doing a bit of geology. Radiometric dating for example. Or astronomy including mesuring the distence of stars. Geologists proved long ago that the earth was old, with radiometric dating we now know how old it is.

[Socrates]

I wrote about fingernails and other supposed vestigial organs:

Good, because as long as they have a use, they are perfectly well explained by creation.

Stratnerd:
and if not what? the "Fall" is there any possibility of falsification? Are you a naive Popperian too? Fact is, Biblical Creation includes the Fall, and too many anti-creationists ignore that.

And what about evolutionists? If it's (allegedly) badly designed, then obviously a creator wouldn't have done it that way, so it must have been jury-rigged by mutation/selection. If it's amazingly wonderfully designed, that shows how superbly effective mutation/selection can be!


Socrates:

More likely a revisionist definition since evolutionists lost the war over this alleged 'evidence'. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993) defines ‘vestigial’ as ‘degenerate or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution.’ (Emphasis added).

I don't know how you decide something is functionless It's impossible to show this even in principle. All that's scientifically possible is to show that there is no KNOWN function. This is a major reason why the evolutionist Scadding thought that vestigial organs were a poor argument for evolution. but the hair on my hands hasn't helped me much.Shave it off then! But this is not correct. Pilo-erection IS useful -- goose-pimpling is mainly to trap an insulating layer of air in the upright hairs, as well as squeeze oil onto the skin. The hairs help stop the oil glands being clogged. The muscle contractions themselves generate heat, of which more can be generated by shivering. Body hairs provide extra sensitivity to touch, and also help in the cooling process by keeping perspiration in an even layer rather than dripping off. The fact that men tend to perspire more is why men have more body hair than women. Dr David Menton (an expert anatomist) pointed out that if we have a muscle at all (e.g. those to raise the hairs), it must have a use, because muscles atrophy on disuse. But I've seen vestigal used for characters that aren't necessarily functionless, perhaps the OED needs updating?More likely, evolutionary propagandists should stick to the lexical meanings!

[Stratnerd]

Are you a naive Popperian too? are you clueless? I'm a Lakatosian with a smattering of Bayesian from my mother's side?
And what about evolutionists? I mentioned above that individual characters, in isolation, don't provide evidence either way but apparently creationists see otherwise.

I don't know how you decide something is functionless You do you decide if a use has anything to do with the reason it was created? Give God have freckles in mind as a good thing for some people and a bad thing for others?
Pilo-erection IS useful you've got to be kidding. Do you actually think I'd suffer if I shaved the few hairs on my knuckles. Golly, talk about grasping straws. Plus this ignores the variation out there.. so is there more intended function for hairier people as opposed to those that are more bare, or is their bareness another intended function . Seems awefully silly to me to argue that the good Lord found it nice to give some people freckles and others moles.

[Sauron]

03-18-2003 @ 10:52 AM
Sozo:

Ten...

Why not put all your effort into disproving the resurrection of Christ. Everything else would fall in place, and you would only have to concentrate on one minor event.

Since you're the one with the affirmative claim, poptart, I think the burden of proof is on thee - not on him.

[Sozo]

Today @ 11:45 PM
Sauron:

Since you're the one with the affirmative claim, poptart, I think the burden of proof is on thee - not on him.

That's only true if there is no God, douchbag. Prove that there is not.

[Socrates]

I asked Stratnerd:
Are you a naive Popperian too?

He replied:
are you clueless? I'm a Lakatosian with a smattering of Bayesian from my mother's side? You sounded like a naive Popperian, but AiG has likewise pointed out the merits of Lakatos' idea about auxiliary hypotheses www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2003/0207.asp
I don't know how you decide something is functionless

You do you decide if a use has anything to do with the reason it was created? On a case-by-case basis. Evolutionists have to do the same thing to decide whether something is adapted for its function or the result of pre-adaptation for something else.
Give God have freckles in mind as a good thing for some people and a bad thing for others? A post-fall defect in melanin distribution.
Pilo-erection IS useful

you've got to be kidding. Do you actually think I'd suffer if I shaved the few hairs on my knuckles. Golly, talk about grasping straws. Plus this ignores the variation out there.. so is there more intended function for hairier people as opposed to those that are more bare, or is their bareness another intended function. Because you can do without them doesn't mean they are useless. The same function is found in most other skin, and most people would regard piloerection as useful. So what's the problem that the skin on the back of your hands has the same genetic information expressed. In any case, YOU were the one who claimed it as an argument against creation, so it's up to YOU to prove it's useless.Seems awefully silly to me to argue that the good Lord found it nice to give some people freckles and others moles.Seems awefully silly to me to make dishonest straw man arguments and assume that likelty post-fall defects were there in the beginning. Silliest of all is any idea that God couldn't communicate clearly what He ACTUALLY did!

[Stratnerd]

Silliest of all is any idea that God couldn't communicate clearly what He ACTUALLY did! you can claim this all you want and until you're blue in the face it doesn't make it history.

Like I've said before, any single trait, in isolation, is useless as evidence for and against evolution or creation.

However, I'd still like to know how you decide if a trait was due to the Fall or it was part of the original creation... variation in freckles for example.

[TenDimensions]

Yesterday @ 12:49 AM Sozo:
That's only true if there is no God, douchbag. Prove that there is not.

Hey! HEY! Moderator!! You have programs in place to edit d-a-m-n (really, guys, go ahead and try to post using that word) and you guys let douchbag through?

Religious types are so sensitive - they're just words, they can't hurt you! :whip: Turn off the censorship! :whip: Turn off the censorship! :whip:

:rofl: :rofl:

[Socrates]

Socrates:
Silliest of all is any idea that God couldn't communicate clearly what He ACTUALLY did!

You can claim this all you want and until you're blue in the face it doesn't make it history. Exactly -- it's because it IS history that I will keep saying it. And your disproof is, what? Anyway, this was more directed at your churchian allies.Like I've said before, any single trait, in isolation, is useless as evidence for and against evolution or creation. Then why bring them up!?However, I'd still like to know how you decide if a trait was due to the Fall or it was part of the original creation... variation in freckles for example.By comparison with other speciments, for example. As I said, it's a case by case thing.

And once more, if an organ has a function, then it makes sense under a creationist perspective. For example, the coccyx works very well at its function as a muscle attachment. Rufie can whinge all he likes about how God didn't kiss his patoot and design it "better". But Rufie has yet to prove that it is hindered in its function in the least the way it actually is!

[Saxonella]

Humans have fingernails because we are primates, and one of the defining features of primates is...flattened nails instead of claws on fingers and toes.

All primates have them. In many of the more "primitive" primates, such as lemurs, only some of the digits have nails while the others have claws*, but all Old World monkeys and all apes (including humans) have flattened nails on all digits.

*interestingly, in those prosimians who retain claws, it is because the claws are put to specialized uses, and not the nails.

[Evo-Devo]

I asked myself this same question but I generalized it with all apes and many monkeys and instead of saying what is the reason that we have fingernails, I asked why do most primates have them. seeing that our fingertips have more nerve endings than anywhere else on our bodies why is it that if your fingers are very calised you can still have the same sensitivity but they can take much more of a beating. seeing that all Apes and many monkeys have fingernails I beleive that the reason why goes back to our common ancestor.

[Meh_Gerbil]

So ya can paint 'em.

[EvoUK]

Oh bless- I haven't seen a sarfati post in so long I had forgotten how much of a pompous donkey he was...

[Meh_Gerbil]

I think a more interesting question is why evolution allowed us to lose claws -- I see that as more problematic than fingernails.

We live in a world where claws would be very useful -- people are virtually defenseless 1 on 1 against any other animal bigger than that which may be punted. We cannot run, climb, jump or anything -- a nice set of claws would be something that wouldn't be selected against.

[Frumious]

I think a more interesting question is why evolution allowed us to lose claws -- I see that as more problematic than fingernails.

We live in a world where claws would be very useful -- people are virtually defenseless 1 on 1 against any other animal bigger than that which may be punted. We cannot run, climb, jump or anything -- a nice set of claws would be something that wouldn't be selected against.



Who say we can’t grow claws? I have attached a picture of a cutaneous horn that looks just like a claw. Claws and fingernail have almost identical composition. It is only the shape that is different. Keratinocytes are capable of making either hair, nail or the top layer of the skin, the stratum corneum, and sometimes they get a little confused. This one grew on the nose instead of the finger so it isn't too useful. Fingernails are more useful for picking things up than claws would be.


Frumious

[EvoUK]

We live in a world where claws would be very useful -- people are virtually defenseless 1 on 1 against any other animal bigger than that which may be punted. We cannot run, climb, jump or anything -- a nice set of claws would be something that wouldn't be selected against.

Firstly, evolution works with what it has. I can think of many things to add/take away from the basic human body to make it generally "better" at survival. We evolved larger cerebral cortexes- can't have everything I guess.

Intelligence has obvious advantages that can help with survival, so it is consistent with evolutionary theory. What remains to be explained is why human brains are significantly larger (relative to body size) than brains of other animals.

Much of how larger brains evolved may be explained by neoteny, the prolonging of immature periods of development. Evolving a larger brain does not require large genetic change, just a relatively small change to keep the brain growing for a longer time

And who said claws were selected against?

[OfficialPro]

Can a Creationist explain to me why people have fingernails if they aren't vestigal claws?

Other than a convenient form of torture :eek: I am unable to come up with a function for them other than vestigal claws.

Dude just think. If there were claws on people instead of fingernails, there would be no proctologists (unless they got declawed LOL) ;)

[Evo-Devo]

And who said claws were selected against?

I did some research on this as I have been wondering what the point of fingernails are, and I found out that one of the first true primates, Cantius known to the Eocene-54 million years ago. Was the first to have flat fingernails, now this was way before the brain size was changing all that much. So I now wonder what was the evolutionary "push" for fingernails. Why is it that an arboreal primate who, you would think, would benefit so much from having claws, developed flat nails instead?

[Frumious]

I did some research on this as I have been wondering what the point of fingernails are, and I found out that one of the first true primates, Cantius known to the Eocene-54 million years ago. Was the first to have flat fingernails, now this was way before the brain size was changing all that much. So I now wonder what was the evolutionary "push" for fingernails. Why is it that an arboreal primate who, you would think, would benefit so much from having claws, developed flat nails instead?

Maybe they work better for grasping branches or for peeling fruit.

Frumious

[Evo-Devo]

Maybe they work better for grasping branches or for peeling fruit.

although you would think that it would be easier to grasp branches with claws, and primates do not peel fruit, ie... if you have ever seen an ape eating a banana they don't peel it they eat the whole thing

[Frumious]

although you would think that it would be easier to grasp branches with claws, and primates do not peel fruit, ie... if you have ever seen an ape eating a banana they don't peel it they eat the whole thing Actually, I think it is easier to wrap your hand around a branch without clawing yourself with fingernails rather than claws but I guess sloths do ok so that might not be right. Another possibility I have thought of is manipulating small objects. Primates generally do a lot of grooming behavior for social bonding. I think it would be easier to pick off fleas with fingernails rather than claws.

Frumious

[Evo-Devo]

Another possibility I have thought of is manipulating small objects. Primates generally do a lot of grooming behavior for social bonding. I think it would be easier to pick off fleas with fingernails rather than claws.

I agree with that and I thought of another plausible reason: Primates have been and still are big fruit eaters while sloths eats mostly leaves, and I suspect that it would be quite hard to dexteirously pick fruit with sharp claws that is without puncturing it and losing valueable juice.

Evo-Devo

[Jugulum]

Primates generally do a lot of grooming behavior for social bonding. I think it would be easier to pick off fleas with fingernails rather than claws. Plus, fingernails are easier to paint--another important aspect of grooming behavior for social bonding.

[Frumious]

I agree with that and I thought of another plausible reason: Primates have been and still are big fruit eaters while sloths eats mostly leaves, and I suspect that it would be quite hard to dexteirously pick fruit with sharp claws that is without puncturing it and losing valueable juice.

Evo-Devo

Makes sense to me, t hough I like that bit about painting also but I think it's more important for toenails.

Frumious