Oolon Colluphid

Guessing here Ergaster, but I think the point is not whether toes are important, but rather that small sticky-out appendages at the ends of feet are extremely vulnerable. If they were all enclosed, ie if the muscles, tendons etc simply extended to the ends of our feet, they would be more protected. The foot could still have all the flexibility required for walking. Think slippers, rather than shoes.

Oolon

Baidarka

Mageth

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Y'know, I've got hair on my arms, hands and even fingers. Not to mention around my nipples (I'm not a very hairy-chested guy). I'll be damned if I've found a use for it, though.
Further, when I get scared, it prickles and stands up. It hasn't frightened away a damn thing yet. Not quite enough there to make me look big and intimidating, I guess.



I think that Mageth has come up with ultimate evidence vestigial behavior left over from our hairy ancestors.
Years ago I had a little screech owl. When the family dog would walk into the room the owl would puff out it's feathers, grow to twice it's size and put on a show of fierceness.
We've all seen angry cat's arch their backs and puff out their fur.
It is well known that our hair stands out (remember Buckwheat) when we are frightened.
Since we don't have enough fur to make ourselves "look big and intimidating" why do we do it?

Baidarka

About fear of snakes. I am not normally afraid of snakes. I have caught and handled them but when I came face to face with a big black snake unexpectedly I jumped backwards before I even knew that I had seen a snake! The snake reacted the same way.
I think that we are hard wired with certain fears.

Oolon Colluphid

We used to have a pet chinchilla. Wild chinchillas are mainly predated on by birds of prey and snakes. Despite ours being umpteenth generation captive-bred, it would still flee in fright at sudden overhead shadows or sight of the moving vacuum cleaner cable.

Looked like a hard-wired fear response to me.

Since such basic, useful responses can be hard-wired, I don’t see why we too shouldn’t have some.

Heights is another obvious one for a (formerly) arboreal creature. Apparently ground-bound creatures, eg guinea pigs, hamsters, have no innate fear of heights, which is why they’ll readily plummet off of table-tops. Human babies, conversely, will refuse to crawl to their mummies over a clear glass-covered drop, no matter what the encouragement.

If we were designed as terrestrial bipeds, why should we fear heights? By which I mean, not rationally realise the danger, but have an innate fear -- to the extent of get sweaty palms on behalf of someone on TV? Come to that, why do our children delight so in climbing trees and climbing-frames?

Oolon

Ergaster

Well...no...from a funmctional aspect, I just don't see it. Sorry.

Juat call me nitpicky. Although, of course, I appreciate and completely agree with the larger context of the discussion.

Oolon Colluphid

Fair enough, your knowledge of anatomy is rather superior to mine . So tell me, would there be a functional disadvantage if the gubbins that stops before the final phalanges didn’t, but instead enclosed what are presently toes? If slippers doesn’t work for you, try socks . Being enclosed, what are now toes would not be snaggable on stumps, stones (or furniture ); they would be less likely to get doubled under and broken. Another analogy: dog and cat feet have toes, but they’re tightly packed in the paw, not protruding as less-than-decorative decorative crenellations.

Basically, if our feet are so great as they are, why are foot coverings such a ubiquitous invention? Did god, for once, have enough foresight to realise we’d invent them?

Cheers, Oolon

Ergaster

</strong>

Your anatomical terminology is throwing me off, here. "Gubbins"?

"Socks" I can understand.

I guess there are two competing contexts here that I'm trying to keep straight: the issue of "vestigial" which started it all (and which toes are emphatically not), and the issue of "how to design a better human". which it seems to have turned into.

From what I can tell, we do require a measure of independence in our toes in order to walk, although the last couple of toes probably contribute least. We absolutely require the first toe to be independent, and its anatomy demonstrates this. So perhaps as a compromise I can recommend those socks that the Japanese wear in their sandals, that enclose the four lateral toes but leave the big toe outside.


[qb]

Well...I'm unconvinced that personal clumsiness is much of an argument...one might as well ask why the ulnar nerve is in such a stupid place to allow us to bash it against furniture (your "funny bone").


[qb]

As it turns out, human toes are actually quite close-packed compared to those of primates. We must always remember that we *are* primates, and we are thus bound by the evolutionary constraints that primate-hood has foisted on us. There is simply a limit on the kind of evolutionary adaptation that we can achieve. As it turns out, compared to most other mammals, primates are extremely generalized and in many aspects of body plan, rather primitive. Felines and canids (as well as ungulates) are *highly* specialized. They locomote on their tiptoes--the terminal phalanges of the foot, because of the often cursorial nature of their locomotion (note that bears, who do not do much flat-out running, walk flat-footed. I wonder if they complain about stubbing their five toes against rocks... )

However, compared to other primates, human feet are extremely specialized: they possess permanently close-packed tarsals and metacarpals that form longitudinal and transverse arches, they are reinforced by very tough and springy ligaments that store and release energy with each step, and the big toe has been permanently rotated inward against the others (probably because an adducted big toe for bipeds really would be a liability). I think natural selection has done rather well, considering what it had to start with.

I also wonder about developmental constraints (this is an area that I know less about, but it might be worth investigating): we are superbly manually dextrous, so of course anything that compromises finger development would probably be selected against. I wonder whether the developmental processes that drive finger formation also drive toe formation by default: in other words, are these processes coupled, or the same process?

*Sole* coverings, maybe (as in sandals), but I have a funny feeling that *shoes* are an invention of people who preferred not to tramp through snow, ice, freezing water, or mud in their bare feet. I doubt very much that shoes are nearly as ubiquitous (throughout the world today and through hsitory) as you think.

Boro Nut

It certainly is. We learned not to trust them in the garden of Eden when they convinced our ancestorsd to commit a sin for which Our Lord Jesus had to give his own life to save me and the blah.. blah... blah.

ishalon

excellent posting; but where are the sensible christians to logically answer the questions?

....


sorry, i don't know what just came over me

RufusAtticus

See ergaster's posts.