Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Well, my comment was partly in jest (though I do think it's by no means clear that 5 is a local optimum, thus it's quite possible that 4 or 6 would be better, and twice either would give us a better base for counting), but I'm amazed that there's actual scientific discussion of the issue. I wish to quote the most pertinent part of the article though:

> Is there really any good evidence that five, rather than, say, four or six, digits was biomechanically preferable for the common ancestor of modern tetrapods? The answer has to be "No,"




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: