How does evolution explain unique fingerprints?

[ServantofTheOne]

Why are our fingerprints unique? what is the mechanism that makes it so. If we slowly developed from apelike ancestors, why no duplication in fingerprints.

How can it be that each and every one of us are born with this uniqueness. Randomness. even randomness would create duplicates... yet we have no duplicates in fingerprints.. why?

not even identical twins have the same fingerprint. can the evolutionary theory explain such a fascinating aspect of humanity.

 

[CelineDion]

It doesnt explain anything.

 

[caravelair]

why do you assume that your fingerprints are genetically determined, and not a product of development?

 

[ServantofTheOne]

why do you assume that your fingerprints are genetically determined, and not a product of development?

who says its genetically determined? identical twins have same dna, however different fingertips. why? and how?

 

[Validus]

...and a more important question: Why can't I ever seem to find 2 popcorns exactly alike?

What does this MEAN????

 

[caravelair]

who says its genetically determined? identical twins have same dna, however different fingertips. why? and how?

you implied that since identical twins have the same dna, they should have the same fingerprints. this would be true, if fingerprints were determined by one's dna (ie. genetically determined). however, since identical twins do not have the same fingerprints, it is logical that fingerprints are not determined by one's dna, or at least not entirely. what does this have to do with evolution anyways?

 

[AirPo]

what does this have to do with evolution anyways?

Nothing.

 

[ServantofTheOne]

Nothing.

just because you don't have an explanation for it, doesn't mean it has nothing to do with evolution.

ev·o·lu·tion n.

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
   1. The process of developing.
   2. Gradual development.
2. Biology.
   
   1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
   2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

how does evolution explain the development of the uniqueness of human fingerprints.

 

[MoonlessNight]

who says its genetically determined? identical twins have same dna, however different fingertips. why? and how?

Fingerprints are determined in a large degree by various developmental factors in the womb. Twins (and by twins I assume you mean identical ones) may have the same DNA but they will not be exposed to the exact same conditions. Ergo, different fingerprints.

 

[AirPo]

how does evolution explain the development of the uniqueness of human fingerprints.

It doesn't. Nor does it need to.

 

[kingreaper]

Why are our fingerprints unique? what is the mechanism that makes it so. If we slowly developed from apelike ancestors, why no duplication in fingerprints.

Why are snowflakes unique? what is the mechanism that makes it so. If they develop from water, why no duplication in snowflakes.

How can it be that each and every one of us are born with this uniqueness. Randomness. even randomness would create duplicates... yet we have no duplicates in fingerprints.. why?

randomness doesn't produce duplicates with fingerprints because any given fingerprint is amazingly unlikely, the exact same reason that no two games of monoploly are identical, there are too many possibilities

not even identical twins have the same fingerprint. can the evolutionary theory explain such a fascinating aspect of humanity.

its irrelevant to evolutionary theory, as it isn't genetic ( at least not totally)

 

[Dal M.]

If we slowly developed from apelike ancestors, why no duplication in fingerprints.

Because apes also have unique fingerprints.

even randomness would create duplicates... yet we have no duplicates in fingerprints.. why?

For the same reason that no two snowflakes are (according to popular belief) ever alike: there are so many variables involved in the development of a fingerprint that it's astronomically unlikely to find two identical outcomes.

not even identical twins have the same fingerprint. can the evolutionary theory explain such a fascinating aspect of humanity.

What you mean to ask, I guess, is whether fingerprints can be explained naturalistically. The answer is yes.

Fingerprints and physical appearance in general are part of an individual’s phenotype, which arises from the interaction of the individual’s genes and the developmental environment in the uterus. In the case of fingerprints, the genes determine the general characteristics of the patterns that are used for fingerprint classification. As the skin on the fingertip differentiates, it expresses these general characteristics. However, as a surface tissue, it is also in contact with the amniotic fluid in the uterus. The fingertips are also in contact with other parts of the fetus and the uterus, and their position in relation to uterus and the fetal body changes as the fetus moves on its own and in response to positional changes of the mother. Thus the microenvironment of the growing cells on the fingertip is in flux, and is always slightly different from hand to hand and finger to finger. It is this microenvironment that determines the fine detail of the fingerprint structure. While the differences in the microenvironment between fingers are small and subtle, their effect is amplified by the differentiating cells and produces the macroscopic differences that enable the fingerprints of twins to be differentiated.

http://www.forensic-evidence.com/site/ID/ID_Twins.html

 

[ServantofTheOne]

"its irrelevant to evolutionary theory, as it isn't genetic ( at least not totally)"

irrelevant to evolutionary theory?? If we did develop over time from a common ancestor to the apes and monkies, they should have fingerprints that are closely associated to human fingerprints.

why is it that the koala bear has the most similar fingerprints to humans? how can this be explained in light of evolutionary theory.


"The Koala has fingerprints that are so similar to the human fingerprint that it is almost impossible to tell them apart because of the pattern, shape and size of the ridges. Under the microscope, the ridges look exactly the same. The width of the ridge, the shape, general size and pattern is the same. The main difference is that the entire human palm and fingers are covered with ridges while the koala only has ridges on its fingertips and some parts of the palm."
http://www.alumni.ca/~fren4j0/animal_fingerprints.htm

 

[kingreaper]

"its irrelevant to evolutionary theory, as it isn't genetic ( at least not totally)"

irrelevant to evolutionary theory?? If we did develop over time from a common ancestor to the apes and monkies, they should have fingerprints that are closely associated to human fingerprints.

why is it that the koala bear has the most similar fingerprints to humans? how can this be explained in light of evolutionary theory.

The koala fingerprints on that link look totally different from the humans and chimpanzees, which look kinda similar

 

[AirPo]

"its irrelevant to evolutionary theory, as it isn't genetic ( at least not totally)"

irrelevant to evolutionary theory?? If we did develop over time from a common ancestor to the apes and monkies, they should have fingerprints that are closely associated to human fingerprints.

Are you implying that they don't?

why is it that the koala bear has the most similar fingerprints to humans? how can this be explained in light of evolutionary theory.

Common ancestry.

 

[Philosoft]

irrelevant to evolutionary theory?? If we did develop over time from a common ancestor to the apes and monkies, they should have fingerprints that are closely associated to human fingerprints.

They are, as your link below demonstrates.

why is it that the koala bear has the most similar fingerprints to humans? how can this be explained in light of evolutionary theory.


"The Koala has fingerprints that are so similar to the human fingerprint that it is almost impossible to tell them apart because of the pattern, shape and size of the ridges. Under the microscope, the ridges look exactly the same. The width of the ridge, the shape, general size and pattern is the same. The main difference is that the entire human palm and fingers are covered with ridges while the koala only has ridges on its fingertips and some parts of the palm."
http://www.alumni.ca/~fren4j0/animal_fingerprints.htm

It doesn't say they are "the most similar."

What sort of intuitive difficulty is this supposed to entail for evolutionary theory anyhow?

 

[ServantofTheOne]

"The koala fingerprints on that link look totally different from the humans and chimpanzees, which look kinda similar"

"The fingerprints of koala bears are virtually indistinguishable from those of humans, so much so that they could be confused at a crime scene."
http://www.freakyanimals.com/facts002.shtml

" Common ancestry."
what do you call this so called ancestor of half human half marsupial.

"The fingertips are also in contact with other parts of the fetus and the uterus, and their position in relation to uterus and the fetal body changes as the fetus moves on its own and in response to positional changes of the mother. Thus the microenvironment of the growing cells on the fingertip is in flux, and is always slightly different from hand to hand and finger to finger. It is this microenvironment that determines the fine detail of the fingerprint structure. While the differences in the microenvironment between fingers are small and subtle, their effect is amplified by the differentiating cells and produces the macroscopic differences that enable the fingerprints of twins to be differentiated."

Is this fact or conjecture? has this observation been a result of experimentation?

 

[ServantofTheOne]

"It doesn't say they are "the most similar." "

"According to a forensic biologist at the University of Adelaide, koala fingerprints have patterns which are surprisingly like those of humans, with loops, whorls, and arches. Maciej Henneberg says that although it is unlikely that koala prints will be found at the scene of a crime, police should be aware of the possibility of confusion; their chief suspect may turn out to be cute, furry, and partial to gum leaves.

The real puzzle for evolutionists is that human fingerprint patterns are much closer to those of koalas than to those of chimpanzees, which they think are our closest relatives. This means, says Henneberg, that ‘we have two lineage's independently developing the same trait’." New Scientist, p. 12,
December 7, 1996.

 

[Philosoft]

"The fingerprints of koala bears are virtually indistinguishable from those of humans, so much so that they could be confused at a crime scene."
http://www.freakyanimals.com/facts002.shtml

Okay. Again, what's the allegedly obvious problem here?

" Common ancestry."
what do you call this so called ancestor of half human half marsupial.

Invalid question. Marsupial ancestry goes back 100 million years or so, far before the emergence of anything resembling a primate. Also, this betrays a lack of fundamental understanding of evolutionary theory. Even a rudimentary understanding should indicate how preposterous such questions are.

"

The fingertips are also in contact with other parts of the fetus and the uterus, and their position in relation to uterus and the fetal body changes as the fetus moves on its own and in response to positional changes of the mother. Thus the microenvironment of the growing cells on the fingertip is in flux, and is always slightly different from hand to hand and finger to finger. It is this microenvironment that determines the fine detail of the fingerprint structure. While the differences in the microenvironment between fingers are small and subtle, their effect is amplified by the differentiating cells and produces the macroscopic differences that enable the fingerprints of twins to be differentiated."

Is this fact or conjecture? has this observation been a result of experimentation?

Provide a link for the source, then maybe we can tell you.

 

[AirPo]

what do you call this so called ancestor of half human half marsupial.

Try this thread.
http://www.christianforums.com/t754157

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don't really think that there should be a "half human half marsupial" ancestor.