5 digits: primitive or derived?

[daud....@gmail.com]

I have proposed that 5 digits per limb may have been an extremely primitive trait in all life forms, based on the geometric construction of the egg cell / seed, spore etc.

There is a video by PBS Eon about the evolution of digits in vertebrates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6_7Q7uUhmU

[erik simpson]

Five became the standard for terrestrial vertebrates quite early, but certainly not for all "life forms". Many of the transitional
fish-amphibians had more. Acanthostega, for example had eight digits.

[John Harshman]

Most life forms don't even have limbs, much less digits.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-05-16 18:56:55 +0000, daud....@gmail.com said:

> I have proposed that 5 digits per limb may have been an extremely
> primitive trait in all life forms, based on the geometric construction
> of the egg cell / seed, spore etc.

Have you published this in a serious biology journal? Which? When? How
was it received? What qualifications for proposing this do you have?

I know, it's a silly question: the same qualifications that you have
for all the paleoetymology fantasies that you propose at sci.lang.

> There is a video by PBS Eon about the evolution of digits in vertebrates.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6_7Q7uUhmU

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[jillery]

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyly>

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[daud....@gmail.com]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04781-3

[daud....@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 8:26:11 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 12:01:11 PM UTC-7, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > I have proposed that 5 digits per limb may have been an extremely primitive trait in all life forms, based on the geometric construction of the egg cell / seed, spore etc.
> >
> > There is a video by PBS Eon about the evolution of digits in vertebrates.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6_7Q7uUhmU
> Five became the standard for terrestrial vertebrates quite early,

Not really standard, just common.

but certainly not for all "life forms". Many of the transitional
> fish-amphibians had more. Acanthostega, for example had eight digits.

Yes, but those plausibly could have been derived from a pentadactyl ancestor in the midst of transitioning from a marine to terrestrial niche.

Don't confuse my proposal with a belief, I concur with the linked video. I am merely checking if an alternative explanation based on reproductive cell geomorphology might link to digit evolution in some way.

[daud....@gmail.com]

Limbs (extrusive) aren't necessary for digits (extrusive), afaict.
Trees have limbs, some have 5-lobed leaves, some have 5 petal flowers. Just sayin'.

[daud....@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 1:41:12 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-05-16 18:56:55 +0000, daud....@gmail.com said:
>
> > I have proposed that 5 digits per limb may have been an extremely
> > primitive trait in all life forms, based on the geometric construction
> > of the egg cell / seed, spore etc.
> Have you published this in a serious biology journal?

Such journals have limited publication, talk.origins less so.

Which? When? How
> was it received? What qualifications for proposing this do you have?

Curiosity.

> I know, it's a silly question:

No, just irrelevant, like most of your arsey comments.

the same qualifications
You are uniquely qualified to misjudge my qualifications.

that you have
> for all the paleoetymology

What is that? I've never written anything about it.

fantasies that you propose at sci.lang.

I am a scientist researching the biological evolution of the human language.
You are not.
That says it all.

[John Harshman]

So limbs and digits can be anything at all. If there are 5 of them,
they're digits. This is pareidolia, nothing more.

[daud....@gmail.com]

Not by my definition. Digits must be rooted in limbs, but limbs do not necessarily have to extend far beyond the body as they do in humans.

If there are 5 of them,
> they're digits.

If there are 5 of digits of "them", they're pentadactyl.

This is pareidolia, nothing more.

I wouldn't know, I'm not a psychiatrist.

[John Harshman]

On 5/25/22 9:34 PM, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 12:11:06 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/25/22 8:55 PM, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 9:51:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 5/16/22 5:25 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 12:01:11 PM UTC-7, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> I have proposed that 5 digits per limb may have been an extremely primitive trait in all life forms, based on the geometric construction of the egg cell / seed, spore etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a video by PBS Eon about the evolution of digits in vertebrates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6_7Q7uUhmU
>>>>>
>>>>> Five became the standard for terrestrial vertebrates quite early, but certainly not for all "life forms". Many of the transitional
>>>>> fish-amphibians had more. Acanthostega, for example had eight digits.
>>>>>
>>>> Most life forms don't even have limbs, much less digits.
>>>
>>> Limbs (extrusive) aren't necessary for digits (extrusive), afaict.
>>> Trees have limbs, some have 5-lobed leaves, some have 5 petal flowers. Just sayin'.
>>>
>> So limbs and digits can be anything at all.
> Not by my definition. Digits must be rooted in limbs, but limbs do not necessarily have to extend far beyond the body as they do in humans.

So what's a limb? Is the calyx of a flower considered a limb? If so,
anything can be a limb, and any projection from anything can be a digit.

> If there are 5 of them,
>> they're digits.
> If there are 5 of digits of "them", they're pentadactyl.

That's not just circular, it's knotted.

> This is pareidolia, nothing more.
> I wouldn't know, I'm not a psychiatrist.
>

You might consult one.

[Robert Carnegie]

Are you thinking of how Fibonacci sequence numbers
appear in nature?

Each being the two before added together, and the
ratio of each to the next approaching a particular
proportion.

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, ...

Of course, one of our digits is not like the others,
and some people have six on one or both hands,
an extra one.

Or could we argue that the thumb is the extra one...
(I'm expecting the answer to be no.)

[daud....@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 11:31:08 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/25/22 9:34 PM, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 12:11:06 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 5/25/22 8:55 PM, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 9:51:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 5/16/22 5:25 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 12:01:11 PM UTC-7, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> I have proposed that 5 digits per limb may have been an extremely primitive trait in all life forms, based on the geometric construction of the egg cell / seed, spore etc.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There is a video by PBS Eon about the evolution of digits in vertebrates.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6_7Q7uUhmU
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Five became the standard for terrestrial vertebrates quite early, but certainly not for all "life forms". Many of the transitional
> >>>>> fish-amphibians had more. Acanthostega, for example had eight digits.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Most life forms don't even have limbs, much less digits.
> >>>
> >>> Limbs (extrusive) aren't necessary for digits (extrusive), afaict.
> >>> Trees have limbs, some have 5-lobed leaves, some have 5 petal flowers. Just sayin'.
> >>>
> >> So limbs and digits can be anything at all.
> > Not by my definition. Digits must be rooted in limbs, but limbs do not necessarily have to extend far beyond the body as they do in humans.
> So what's a limb?

Limb 1 noun
from Proto-Germanic *limu- (source also of Old Norse limr "limb," lim "small branch of a tree")

Limb 2 noun
from Latin limbus "ornamental border, hem, fringe, edge," a word of uncertain origin.

Is the calyx of a flower considered a limb?

calyx (n.)
"outer part of the perianth of a flower," 1680s, from Latin calyx, from Greek kalyx "seed pod, husk, outer covering" (of a fruit, flower bud, etc.), from stem of kalyptein "to cover, conceal," from PIE root *kel- (1) "to cover, conceal, save." The Latin plural is calyces. Some sources connect the word rather with Greek kylix "drinking cup" (see chalice).

Seems unlikely, but nature does not follow our dictates.

If so,
> anything can be a limb, and any projection from anything can be a digit.

Your claim.

> > If there are 5 of them,
> >> they're digits.

> > If there are 5 digits of "them", they're pentadactyl.

> That's not just circular, it's knotted.

Now corrected.

> > This is pareidolia, nothing more.
> > I wouldn't know, I'm not a psychiatrist.
> >
> You might consult one.

You aren't one either, apparently.

[daud....@gmail.com]

Nature is loaded with patterns and sequences, more are being discovered every day.
My exploration on digits is entirely based on egg cells being spherical and dividing; while comparing this to virus shells, pollen, spores, geodesic spheres & domes and their geomorphological structure.