Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
In our world, where there are laws established by science, we can safely say that any law is the sum of two functions, where the first is something that we can reliably confirm, and the second is stachostic in nature, that is, an undetected pattern or randomness.
I can say that scientists have identified the first component for everything that is important. So it is clear from the history of science. The territory of the second component is being reduced and refined as measuring instruments are improved.
In the case of prints, we can safely say that they are there. This is a fact.
But is their pattern so important that our body would have an identical function for each person to form the same pattern for each? I don't think. The pattern of skin formation has been established, and the pattern of the print is just that random component that has not yet been identified.
Therefore, it is unlikely that we can talk about any functional dependence in the evolutionary plan of the print pattern. It is important that it exists, but the pattern itself is not important.
From the point of view of evolution, the population of people with the same fingerprints or without them is extinct. And the one that survived has different fingerprints. This may not be a significant feature, but it probably correlates with other features of the human hand.
I suggest you read an interesting article on the need for papillary lines, those very “prints”:
https://m.gazeta.ru/science/2009/01/30_a_2933238.shtml
It is clear that nature (read evolution), creating such a subtle mechanism, was difficult to take care of its uniformity. Moreover, this would not make any practical sense, and therefore, guided by the presumption “and so it will come down”, nature left the formation of a pattern on the pad of her finger to the Great God of Randomness.
I want to offer:
People don't need fingerprints
People need fingers and they need a tread pattern on their fingers to make their fingers less slippery. The same pattern doesn't make your fingers any less slippery. Random drawing can make your fingers less slippery.