Threesology Research Journal
Why Five Fingers?
(and not just three)
hand (2K)

page 1

(The Study of Threes)
http://threesology.org


While some may interpret the "Five Fingers" question as if it were the irrelevance of a naive (but curious "WHY?" asking) child, much like wondering "how come our fingers stop growing?"; it may not be the question but how we approach it in our attempts to discern whether or not it represents a link to an underlying "code"... whether or not we attached a preferred numerical symbol to it or not or if our primary tool box wields a biologically based adjustable monkey wrench. Thus, indeed, why in the world do we have five fingers and not less or more? Does the "five" represent some fundamental structure occurring in nature and should thus be used as a type of solar system theme around which we fashion a revolving philosophy to serve as a theoretically designed biological metaphor labeled "the missing link", whether or not we are specifically denoting a Creationist, Darwinian or Extra-terrestrial type of biology?


Is our present mindset little different than those of antiquity that looked for premonitory "signs" (or "signs and wonders"), and thus interpreted events (or non-events) according to whatever they were emotionally predisposed towards? Are those of us using numerical referencing simply practicing a modern day form of Augury with which to support some assumed power of intellectually astute divination? Instead of Abracadabra, Shasam or some unintelligible "speaking in tongues" pronouncement, are some researchers using symbols and words such as Ph.D, University position, Authorship, and the like as if they were a sanctified hooded robe, magic wand, or voluminous text with secret incantations handed down from a distant age? In other words, some shadows on our cave walls may be nothing more than shadows instead of the vague outline of some purposefully etched-out ancient "message on a wall", (thus rendering some of our interpretations as being truly "off the wall").


Is the observation of a "five" quantity in human fingers and toes made more important because we also recognize this same enumerated pattern in other life forms and attempt to make our claim more appealing (and authoritative) by saying it is universal? And if there is another enumerated pattern such as the three (three parts to fingers but two with the thumb), thus rendering a three to two ratio (3:2), should we nonetheless incline ourselves to accept a "five" presence as being the more important simply because it is, mathematically speaking, a larger value? ...Whereby we deliberately seek out occurrences of "five" such as describing five appendages (two arms + two legs + one head), five basic senses (sight + hearing + taste + smell + touch) even though most of the senses are centered in one (head) appendage? Should we simply disregard the fact that there is an underlying "body" of threes associated with these senses? Or how about disregarding the senses with respect to the following categories which might alternatively be viewed as different types of waves (or reverberations), though more expansive (inclusive) similarities might be offered:


  1. Chemical sensory
    • Taste
    • Smell
  2. Sound (air pressure)/Light (photon pressure) sensory
    • Hearing
    • Sight
  3. Variegated (thermoreceptors, nociceptors, mechanoreceptors and chemoreceptors) sensory
    • Touch


Let's take a closer look at the five senses:


Sight


  • 3 eyelid muscles: Levator palpebrae superioris ~ Obicularis oculi ~ Corrugator supercili
  • 3 extrinsic straight muscles (eyes): Lateralis rectus - Medialis rectus - Superior rectus
  • 3 parts of the eye: Iris ~ Cornea ~ Pupil
  • 3 orbicular muscle portions: Pars orbitlis ~ Pars palpebralis ~ Pars lacrimalis
  • 3 color blindness types: Protanopia ~ Deuteranopia ~ Tritanopia
  • 3 eyeball tissue layers: Sclera/Cornea ~ Uveal Tract ~ Retina
  • 3 preotic myotomes of the eyes: Oculomotor ~ Trochlear ~ Abducens
  • 3 eyeglass types: Monofocals ~ Bifocals ~ Trifocals



Sound (hearing)




3-Patterned Ear Structure
3 overall divisions: Outer ear ~ Inner ear ~ Middle ear
3 middle ear divisions: Tympanum ~ Epitympanum ~ Mastoid antrum
3 eardrum membranes: Cutaneum ~ Collagen fibers ~ Mucosm
3 semi-circular canals: Used for balance (equilibrium)
3 bones: (ossicular chain) Incus ~ Stapes ~ Malleus
3 main malleus ligaments: Anterior ~ Lateral ~ Superior
3 incus anchorage points: Malleus~ Stapes~ Bony fossa wall
3 cochlea sections: (Scala) Vestibuli ~ Tympani ~ Cochlear duct
3 extrinsic muscles (Auricularis): Anterior~ Superior~ Posterior
3 sound conduction paths: Electrical ~ Mechanical ~ Fluid
or: Bone (solid )~ Air (gas) ~ Fluid (liquid)
3 nerve stimulation paths: Mechanical ~ Chemical ~ Electrical
3 outer hair cell rows
(see images below)
typical in mammals
but some sources give 3, 4, or 5
Neurotrophin-3 (NT-3) is synthesized by inner and outer hair cells of the developing organ of Corti. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) is also synthesized. (Prestin is the motor protein of the outer hair cells.)
3 sound qualities: Pitch ~ Volume (intensity) ~ Tone
3 sound wave propagation processes: Diffraction ~ Transmission ~ Reflection
3 main forms of ossicular chain fixation: Fluid ~ Mechanical ~ Otosclerosis
3 classes of ossicular lever action: Force arm ~ Resistance arm ~ Fulcrum
3 acoustic distortion forms: Frequency ~ Phase ~ Amplitude
3 basic properties of vibrating bodies: Inertia ~ Elasticity ~ Dissipation
3 principal types of deafness: Conduction ~ Nerve ~ Stimulation
3 types of hearing loss: Conductive ~ Sensorineural ~ Mixed
3 (inner ear) organs of balance: Semicircular canals ~ Utricle ~ Saccule
(collectively called the vestibular organ {3-in-1})

hair cell rows

3 to 1 ratio, Stereocilia - organ of corti: These are NOT cilia but more like microvilli. They are remarkable in having precise sizes determined by an as yet unknown mechanism.


The one row of inner hair (IH) cells and the three rows of outer hair (OH) cells are shown. It is also possible to distinguish the surfaces of the inner spiral sulcus cells (SS), the inner phalangeal cells (IPh), the inner pillar (IP) and outer pillar (OP) cells, and the three rows of Deiter's cells (DC), or outer phalangeal cells.






3rows2 (4K)

Stereocilia (St) are arranged in a V or W configuration on the outer hair cells. The stereocilia (St) of the outer row on each cell are the longest, and they are uniform in their length. Those of the inner row are the shortest, and those of the middle row are intermediate in length. The remainder of the hair cell surface is smooth and is called a cuticular plate.



Images and information adapted from:


--- Lecture 12b ---
http://web.mit.edu/7.19/www/lecture12/lecture12b.htm

--- Threes in Language Development page 1 ---
http://www.threesology.org/language-3s-1.php

--- Three to One ratios page a ---
http://www.threesology.org/321-a.php



Taste


3 to 1 ratio types of taste bud groups on papillae: (Papillae are visible with the naked eye, taste buds are not.)
  1. 1 of 3: Circumvallate
  2. 2 of 3: Foliate
  3. 3 of 3: Fungiform
  4. 1 of 1: The non-gustatory filiform

(These structures are involved in detecting the five (known) elements of taste perception: salty, sour, bitter, sweet, and umami, though Ayurveda, an ancient Indian healing science, has its own tradition of basic tastes, comprising sweet, salty, sour, pungent [piquancy or hotness)], bitter & astringent, and the Ancient Chinese and Indians have also commonly regarded Spiciness as a basic taste.)



An underlying 3 to 1 ratio idea coupled to an overlying 3 to 2 ratio: The current (as of 2008) thinking is that sweet, amino acid (umami), and bitter taste converge on a common transduction channel.


tastereceptors (8K)

3 types of taste bud cells:
  • Supporting cells - contain microvilli, appear to secrete substances into lumen of taste bud.
  • Sensory receptor cell - has peg-like extensions projecting into lumen. These contain the sites of sensory transduction.
  • Basal cells - these differentiate into new receptor cells. They are derived from surrounding epithelium. The cells are continuously renewed every 10 days or so.

Source:


--- The physiology of taste by Jim Jacob ---

Taste is brought to the brainstem by 3 different cranial nerves:


  • Facial nerve for the anterior 2/3 of the tongue and soft palate.
  • Glossopharyngeal nerve for the posterior 1/3 of the tongue.
  • Vagus nerve for the small area on the epiglottis.

Sweetness is detected by a variety of G protein coupled receptors coupled to the G protein gustducin found on the taste buds. At least two different variants of the "sweetness receptors" must be activated for the brain to register sweetness. Compounds the brain senses as sweet are thus compounds that can bind with varying bond strength to two different sweetness receptors. These receptors are T1R2+3 (heterodimer) and T1R3 (homodimer), which account for all sweet sensing in humans and animals.


Source:


--- Wikipedia: Taste ---

The complex of G proteins has been named gustducin because of its similarity in structure and action to the transducin that plays such an essential role in rod vision.


Source:


--- The Sense of Taste ---

The pleasant tastes (sweet and umami) are mediated by a family of three T1R receptors that assemble in pairs. Diverse molecules that lead to a sensation of sweet bind to a receptor formed from T1R2 and T1R3 subunits. Cats have a deletion in the gene for T1R2, explaining their non-responsiveness to sweet tastes. Also, mice engineered to express the human T1R2 protein have a human-like response to different sweet tastes. The receptor formed as a complex of T1R1 and T1R3 binds L-glutamate and L-amino acids, resulting the umami taste.


The bitter taste results from binding of diverse molecules to a family of about 30 T2R receptors. Sour tasting itself involves activation of a type of TRP (transient receptor potential) channel. Surprisingly, the molecular mechanisms of salt taste reception are poorly characterized relative to the other tastes.


Source:


--- Physiology of Taste by R. Bowen ---

Mammalian Dental Formula

And inside the mouth we also find:


3 molars, 2 bi-cuspids, 1 cuspid on both sides and both lower/upper jaws
3 tooth parts: Crown ~ Neck ~ Root
3 bud parts: Enamel organ ~ Dental papilla ~ Dental Sac
3 surface divisions of a tooth: Lingual ~ Facial ~ Proximal
There is a Triangular shape to canine tooth roots in cross section
3 main types of malocclusions: Overbite ~ Underbite ~ Crowding
3 (1st, 2nd, 3rd) lower & upper jaw molars
3rd molar is singled out to be called the wisdom tooth.
3 main stages to periodontal (Gum) disease: Gingivitis ~ Periodontitis ~ Loss of bone
3 main kinds of periodontal diseases: Gingivitis ~ Periodontitis ~ Vincent's Infection
3 most common artificial teeth types: Bridges ~ Partial dentures ~ Full dentures

The so called four different types of teeth can be categorized as three:


  1. Incisors
  2. Canines
  3. Pre-molars/Molars

Similarly, we don't say there are six different size categories: Small, Medium, Large, X-large, XX-large, XXX-large, we say there are three customary or "normal" sizes with three X-large sizings. In this example we see a recurrence of the cognitive limit that is evident in the one - two - many words-for-numbers development.


--- One, Two, Many: ---
Evolutionary development of a number concept



Smell


  • 3 muscles of the human nose: Procerus - Nasalis - Depressor septi
  • 3 elevations (Concha) in the olfactory portion of the nose
  • 3 bones in the nose: Inferior Meatus - Middle Meatus - Superior Turbinate

It is of some interest to note the lack of "threes" associated with the sense of smell when compared to the other senses... unless we also note that it frequently overlaps with taste and can be that which triggers other sensory organized memories.




Touch: The colloquial term "touch" is usually replaced with "somatic senses" (somatosensory) to better reflect the variety of mechanisms involved. The (body) system reacts to diverse stimuli using different receptors: thermoreceptors, nociceptors, mechanoreceptors and chemoreceptors.


A somatosensory pathway will typically have three long neurons: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary (or first, second, and third):


  1. The first neuron always has its cell body in the dorsal root ganglion of the spinal nerve (if sensation is in parts of the head or neck not covered by the cervical nerves, it will be the trigeminal nerve ganglia or the ganglia of other sensory cranial nerves).

  2. The second neuron has its cell body either in the spinal cord or in the brainstem. This neuron's ascending axons will cross (decussate) to the opposite side either in the spinal cord or in the brainstem. The axons of many of these neurones terminate in the thalamus (for example the ventral posterior nucleus, VPN), others terminate in the reticular system or the cerebellum.

  3. In the case of touch and certain types of pain, the third neuron has its cell body in the VPN of the thalamus and ends in the postcentral gyrus of the parietal lobe.


The primary somatosensory area in the human cortex (also called primary somatic sensory cortex or SI) is located in the postcentral gyrus of the parietal lobe and makes up four distinct fields or regions known as Brodmann area (3a, 3b,) (1,) and (2). The postcentral gyrus is the location of the primary somatosensory area, the main sensory receptive area for the sense of touch. Any individual neuron has its receptive field on the skin.


H.O.B. note: We can view the foregoing as four distinct fields or as three groups, as I did by using parenthesis.


Source:


--- Wikipedia: Touch ---



Whereas we can focus on the "five" senses in an attempt to underscore an overall point in relation to other information (even if the correlation has occurred in a retrospective serendipitous manner), or we can illustrate, as I have done above, that the "five" might well be viewed as a superficiality like the name of a town, street or pet animal that does little to describe inherent characterizations. And when we do look at inherent characterizations, we can note that there are multiple occurrences of the "three" with respect to the senses of sight and sound, yet increasingly fewer examples with the other senses. The relationship to the brain and position there from may presuppose an indication of maturational development in evolutionary terms, just as we can sometimes see an increased usage of the "three" in religion from older to newer representations.


For example, the New Testament has a more compact and diverse array of "three" examples than does the Old Testament. In a more modern illustration, the Mormon religion's social structuring is filled with a three-patterned organization. Older religions have fewer. (The examples are not meant to advocate a more advanced ideology, as some religious adherents might be disposed to interpret that their religious perspective is closer to God's evolving plan for humanity.)


Is the recognition of the "five" to be given equal weight even if we find underlying patterns exhibiting another number or perhaps a geometric form? Please understand these are the same questions to be posed to those who, like myself, have largely focused on the recurrence of the "three" in a variety of subject areas.


Those searching for an origin to such a fundamental "five" structure might well look to other fundamentals such as can be found in the make-up of atomic particles and organic chemistry, frequently aligned with a discussion about DNA and its double-helix. With respect to the double-helix, most people consider that the entire DNA structure revolves in one direction, when it doesn't revolve at all. (see image below)

Nonetheless, arrows may be used in an illustration to give the impression of a "unitized" one-direction circular movement. Imaginatively, I can visualize both strands turning in opposite directions (like a jump rope being swung in a double-dutch game) with the linked amino acids as children taking turns jumping in to try their hand at jumping both ropes, or the amino acids as the cogs in a combination lock. In other words, there are other ways of picturing the same information.


However, before continuing, let me posit a caveat to the preset pentalogical/threesological exercise:


A Threesological, or in the present case, a Pentalogical research perspective is not for the conventional-minded individual. To be a "counter" like a child skipping to every other (third) "spot" on a tiled floor, or tapping every other (third) fence railing, or skipping rocks on a lake, or gathering Christmas gifts into a pile, etc., is not the disposition retained by everyone into adulthood. Some of us remain childlike in our perceptions of the world to an extent we see it anew from a different perspective than what is conventional... or expected in a given social circumstance. In a sense, I am still collecting rocks, leaves, etc., ("stuff"), and categorizing the collections under different headings, just as I did when I was a child. (A younger brother and I affectionately called our adventuresome exploits "junk hunting".) While some wealthy people collect cars according to some rationale, others collect baseball caps or cards. Myself and others collect "things" from different subject areas with and without a particular numerical value attached.


If it is troublesome for you to think beyond your work routine, exercising regime, or day to day social theme which may or may not be a mimicked re-creation of some television show or movie character's commentary; do yourself a favor and go elsewhere. Those who think as I do find it a ludicrous waste of time to sit around talking about getting intoxicated by way of drugs or drink, discussing sexually oriented ploys, or convincing ourselves that perpetrating one or another type of crime is justifiable, (frequently entitled a "business" or "entrepreneurial" venture).


However, if you are determined to stay the course, set aside your "political correctness" mind-set if you care to read further... And yes, there are varying fashions of politics in the sciences as there are in religion and business; with lots of disparate ideas aspiring towards a centralized assertiveness representing someone's Toe (Theory Of Everything), Gut (Grand Unified Theory), or some other physic's-born, biology-linked three-patterned acronym that is quite at home with the present text-messaging generation who conceal their inability to spell with abbreviations used by way of various reasons that are little more than excuses for being unable to think without momentary lapses in mental continuity due to being over-exposed to 30- 60- or 90-second commercials.


Whereas this site is largely dedicated to the "Threes Phenomena", as a researcher interested in identifying what might be the originating influence, I am obliged to address the recurrence of patterns which may seem, to some detractors, as a primary counter-argument that they are inclined to think will place a coffin lid on the "Threes" subject in order to bury it with a head-stoned epitaph that is akin to some motion-picture perpetrated superstition. However, to the dismay of those proposing a "five" argument, I am here to jump out of the proposed coffin and look them straight in the eye and tell them that a recurrence of the "five" theme is not a Charon-linked contradiction, but is complementary.


I think that the recurrence of one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, etc., patterns might well all be related (beyond the simplistic numerical sense) and what is required is a comprehensive theory which can intersect all these seemingly disparate patterns... if all of them truly exist as inter-active participants and are not merely mis-representations brought on by a poorly structured physiology of perception. From another perspective: The numbers are symbols. They are metaphors aligned in one or more arrangements we sometimes refer to as patterns.


Unfortunately, most of us appear to grasp hold of a single pattern and develop what are at times provided with a mound of information upon which we play a type of "king of the hill". Be it because of a chip on the shoulder, combative playfulness, or in the frame-work of some do-or-die schematic, we place ourselves aloft and dare, double-dare, or triple-dare someone to knock us off. And when there are no takers, we sometimes go on a quest to find a possible contender. However, those who do attempt some comprehensive theory usually commit themselves to a memorization of personalized presumptions presented as facts about human personality, potentiality or predictability, such as in the case of numerology. This is not to say that a Numerologist is not sincere in their beliefs, it's just that some of the beliefs provide a superficial understanding regarding fundamental issues in various subject areas, when we seek out the possibility of intersected parallels beyond mere correlation. We must caution ourselves against adroit imaginativeness.


It goes without saying that not all life forms have (or had) five fingers as a predominant physical "expression", such as the three-toed dinosaurs, even though some past relative may have had five or more appendages we of today refer to as toes or fingers. In discussing the "five" most researchers at one time or another may dispense with the "fingers" label which permits them to include a "quantity" comparison of any life-form's appendages such as the "arms" of a starfish which may be any number from four to twenty or so. Yet, a researcher may singularly focus on describing a starfish with five arms as a means of driving home a point they feel is important.


In our research for some fundamental overview, we use a retro-grade approach when attempting to discern a basic structure or pattern. For example, we note that there is a recurring "4" pattern that we label quadraped. At one end of each of these four appendages we further note a recurring "5" pattern such as toes or fingers. Exceptions to this dominant recurrence might well be referred to as adaptive characteristics brought about by what is referred to as natural selection in a given environment which presents particular pressures or absence thereof. Such an instance is referred to as Evolution.


With respect to Evolution in general and the development of the four limbs out of our aquatic forebearers, some readers may be wondering where (and when) the limb structures arose:


Evolutionarily speaking, the genetic instructions used to construct and position our limbs were being perfected more than half a billion years ago in fishes, not along the sides of the body where the fins that preceded human arms and legs sprouted, but at the midline that runs along the backbone and belly.


This midline -- think of the dorsal, tail and anal fins of a fish - is where the genetic template to produce fins originated, about 100 million years before paired fins evolved and about 200 million years before paired fins evolved into limbs, according to University of Florida genetics researchers. The findings, published online today in the journal Nature, also provide insight into the evolutionary history of genes involved in human birth defects.


"Given that paired fins made their evolutionary debut at a particular location on the sides of the body, intuitively one would think the genetic tools for fin development would be brought together in that place," said developmental biologist Martin Cohn, Ph.D., an associate professor with the UF departments of zoology and anatomy and cell biology and a member of the UF Genetics Institute. "We've discovered that the genetic circuitry for building limbs first appeared in an entirely different place - the midline of the animal."


...By studying the activity of a dozen genes in shark embryos, they determined shark median fin development is associated with the presence of genes such as HoxD, Fgf8 and Tbx18, which are vital in the development of human limbs.


Source

University of Florida (2006, July 26). Scientists Discover Evolutionary Origin Of Fins, Limbs. Science Daily

fish (20K)

Interestingly, not much is spoken of patterns which may have pre-existed the five such as six, seven or eight toes/fingers as in the case of Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, and Tulerpeton. Nor do most people further consider if there may be a discoverable environmental circumstance that caused not only the development of fin and digit quantity, but the event of pairing as well. Because the fossil record may not indicate a widespread occurrence, there is some inclination for a researcher to disincline themselves from including the pattern as a prominent figure in their discussion of the five pattern. When examples may be few and far between, some researchers are extremely cautious about making suggestions that can not be supported by what, in a courtroom setting would be referred to as a preponderance of evidence. The fact that there existed a greater number of digits in some animals prior to the present day predominant five structure describes not only adaptation but some fundamental "larger than five" ordering influence. Just because a particular pattern does not occur widely (as suggested by fossil evidence), does not mean it is an anomaly, termed freak of nature.


Indeed, what sort of "larger than five" environmental influence existed over 300 million years ago? Was there an eight-shaped influence that, by way of environmental pressures, came to influence seven, six and now a five structure? Likewise, is a less-than-five structure presently in the making because environmental pressures are changing?


This is an important point because, if there was a predominant eight pattern which pre-existed a five pattern, was there a predominant lesser (numerically viewed) characteristic which preceded the eight pattern... or does the eight represent a fundamental structure brought about by a fundamental "eight" influence? Additionally, does this mean that the triplet coding systems in DNA/RNA are not fundamental patterns but are adaptive characteristics (modifications) that can, will or are being modified at present? If we adopt our thinking to such a possibility, then the triplet coding in DNA/RNA can be viewed to show not only a triplet coding, but a five and and eight as well, (though other patterns are possible if we use multiplication, division or subtraction and not just addition):


  1. Singular
    • DNA triplet: (Adenosine + Cytosine + Guanine/Uracil)
    • RNA triplet: (Adenosine + Cytosine + Guanine/Thymine)
  2. Dual
    • DNA/RNA quintuplet: (Adenosine + Cytosine + Guanine) + (Uracil) + (Thymine)
  3. Triple
    • DNA/RNA octuplet: (Adenosine + Cytosine + Guanine) + (Adenosine + Cytosine + Guanine) + (Uracil) + (Thymine)

(This is the same mathematical expression being used in the development of computers: From single-core processors to dual-core processors to octo-core processors... and beyond.)


And while we're playing with numbers, the 64 codons setup of DNA and RNA is divisible by eight. (8 X 8 = 64... although other combinations of numbers could be used.)


For a reference to the 64 codons, see:


--- Genetics, Logic, Music page 1 ---

Yet, we come back to the question of whether the triplet codon was brought about progressively (1, 2, 3...), or did it arrive by way of what might be referred to as a cookie cut-out; in other words, as a totality without intermediary scaffoldings?

While it is appropriate to gather information supporting one's idea, it is also of value to note exceptions such as the 8 tentacles of an octopus (octa-pus) or the eight legs of a spider (yet it has not gained popularity of being referred to as an "octo-spider"). Let us also make mention of the fact that the original diminutive horse (Equus caballus) had three toes which fused into a single hoof, though perhaps in greater antiquity there may have appeared some form of a five structure. It should also be noted that the present day horse's hoof arises from a five structure in which the third "toe" (digit) has played the dominant role just as does the middle finger of some humans when they are angered and want to attempt some insult.


Clearly, environmental pressures (or absences) can affect basic patterns to display alternative designs. Our sought for all-in-one universal theory must address seemingly conflicting issues. Additionally, we should be careful in our terminology in that we remain conscious of anthropomorphisms (the attribution of human traits or qualities to non-human objects or life-forms), since the usage of such can invite a predisposition of bending, stretching or twisting the rules of our research procedure into a useless open-ended flexibility like a never-ending taffy pull that ends up on the floor and must be tossed out. In other words, let us not get carried away in thinking that just because we humans display five digits on our hands and feet that such a pattern is "THE" superior number or arrangement.


While it is exciting and quite fun to think we have uncovered a universally applicable secret, a mood that can be frenzically overwhelming like being in love, there is some value to being ignored by others who we may claim as being "unable to see", since it provides us an opportunity for reflection, reconsideration, and re-evaluating issues with our theory. Issues that were set aside because we were caught up in the current of thoughts streaming along a canyon-like vista which seemed to present a larger-than-life comprehension that cohesively tied various ideas into some precious amalgamation... as if having developed a golden idea from thoughts that weighed as heavy as lead on our minds. (Writers of old who used a pencil, can easily entertain the analogy between sought-for-thoughts of gold out of pencil lead.) A picture of Einstein sticking his tongue out can assist in helping to remind us that though we may be viewed as a genius, we don't have to take ourselves so serious and that we deny that we are prone to the foibles of our humanness... like forgetting where we parked our vehicle in a large shopping mall parking lot.


As for the five fingers on a human hand, the typical usage of the word "symmetrical" is not used, unless we associate them with the other hand and use the phrase "mirror-image symmetry". The same goes for the five toes. However, the phrase "radial symmetry" around a central mass (disk or hub) is sometimes used in describing a starfish, even though a starfish can grow more than five "arms". It should be noted that there are rare, but nonetheless exceptions to the five fingers when the medical literature has made note of those with more than five. The same goes with having one head. In a reverse type of ordering, some people are born with the absence of the "normal" (most frequently occurring) quantity, though we generally claim this as an anomaly due to some accident, illness, or undefined causation and rarely consider the possibility that such may be the beginning of a new developmental trend. Whereas the fusion of toes (or if you prefer, fingers) in the horse to produce what we label a hoof is viewed as being normal and natural, if such an event occurred in a newborn human, we might well call it a deformity (or an example of an ancient morphological structure... a fin-like appendage.)


With respect to the Starfish definition of having radial arms connected to a central disk; if we change the word "arms" to "fingers" and the word "radial" to "jutting" or "externally directed" (since there may be unacknowledged internal counter-parts), the human hand can be analogously compared from a different perspective. A more general description permits the adoption of a larger array of examples which includes eight-legged spiders and eight-tentacled octopuses (octopi), though this may at first conflict with a sensibility that is dogged-determined to find supportive referencing for a single value such as one that is identified with a numerical point of reference. We could also add the "rays" of a fish's fin as being comparative. By altering our field of perception, we are momentarily relegating the numerical value of appendages as a secondary (or tertiary) and not primary focus of analysis.


One such alteration is to view the Earth as a central mass and the daily triangular paths of the Sun and Moon as jutting appendages— and then compare this image with the Sun starfish:


earthwa (1K) sunstar4 (37K)

Did the triangular pathways of the Sun and Moon over billions/ millions of years act as a "guiding light" (so-to-speak) not only for the starfish, regardless of how many triangular appendages it has, but influenced other triangular patterns as well such as the single or multiple triangle-structure in water, Egyptian pyramids, burial mounds, V-shaped engine blocks, arrow and spear-heads, etc.? Though such words as "tetra"-hedron (four faces), "icosa"- hedron (twenty faces), and "penta"- gonal (five-side polygon) are used in the following image, the reader should not be dissuaded from seeing singular triangles in variations of multiplicity (or if you prefer, complexity), which are encircling a core. Just because there is an "established" (traditional) usage of a given (numerically-labeled) perspective does not mean another perspective is not relative or less informative.


watermol (18K)

Image Source:


--- Richard Merrick's Harmonically guided Evolution Theory ---



This suggests that the three-molecule arrangement that we call water (H2O), may have been fashioned by that which predated its occurrence on Earth... like a framework in which concrete is poured to provide a given shape/structure. Namely, for example, the day-to-day triangular pathways of the Sun and its dimmer, weaker "twin" called the Moon during a time when the Earth's rotation rate was accelerated... And with the present slowing of the Earth's rotation along with the expansion of the Sun (as well as the Moon receding), the underlying triangular structures may likewise "decide" to follow a similar path... particularly if the molecular structure is malleable (adaptable) to change based on environmental pressures similar to the three forms of water based on exposure to environmental circumstances: Solid (ice)- Liquid (fluid)- Gas (steam). Severe, pre-water conditions of the Early earth may one day present other types of severe, conditions which create a "post-water" molecular configuration.


In one sense we our like comparative anatomists using a frame of analytical reference that is not constricted by an "established" method and manner of consensus. However for some, this is too much generality which can only lead to wide speculation because it suggests the whimsicality of artistic inclinations instead of definable parameters adhered to by a scientifically measurable standard for establishing truth. It should go without saying that science and art frequently enjoy each other's company: One to plant one's feet on the ground while the other to encourage the usage of practicality in designing wings with which to soar above.


Maybe, just maybe, the numerical value of our analysis is an environmentally influenced predisposition that we've adopted in our regime of adaptations and seek physics or/and biologically-driven justification for, by the usage of key-word phrases such as "survival of the fittest". Humans are quite good at establishing a justifiable rationale for thinking in a certain way, even if the so called "evidence" is later found to be a hoax (for fun) or lie (for profit). Nonetheless, others take the information and apply it to their own beliefs.


For example, myself and others have noticed a recurrence of patterns-of-three in a variety of subject areas. We have found examples in Physics and Genetics, which would seem to validate the "three" as having some universality of importance. The same goes with those who garner information regarding the number five. With great elaboration the "five" value is found in molecular structure as well as the genetic code. The first image is an example taken from Richard Merrick's "Harmonically Guided evolution, part 1 (I added the numbers 1 through 5):


DNA1 (15K) DNA2 (17K)

In the second image, I have altered it slightly to reveal the aforementioned reversed flowing arrows of DNA strand direction (even though they don't spin), plus included an alternative perspective of the numerically outlined 5 "tips" of the symmetrical structure as illustrating the solar and lunar triangle paths, (aided by Merrick's usage of a black and white image).


Imaginatively correlating the "5" to the rate (number of times) at which the Sun and Moon would have occurred on a daily basis during the pristine age of biology's development billions-of-years ago when the rotation rate of the Earth would have been accelerated, we might have an idea of how fast the Earth was spinning and hence, slowed down before the rotation rate was recorded in other life forms such as certain corals and shellfish. In/on these life forms are said to be growth-bands that indicate yearly, monthly, and even daily growth indications. Counting the bands of fossilized remains from the Devonian era (approx. 405-345 million years ago), gives some indication that the length of a year was about 400 days in comparison to our present 365. In other words, there were more days because of a faster rotation rate. In some estimates, the length of a day was just under 23 hours whereas at present, it is 23 hrs, 56 min., 4.09 seconds. If we can assume the computation is correct, then our entire hominid line did not begin until the Earth's rotation was in a 23 hour rate of spin... and may not be able to survive when the Earth slows down more, if we are a rotation rate specific species.


See rotation rate discussion beginning on:


--- Are Humans Rotation Rate Specific? ---

Efforts at distinguishing a universal type of relevance to a singular number as if it represents a centrality of Universe-designed importance, may be a modern version of placing the Earth at the center of the Universe. In other words, such ideas could be little more than displaced ego-centricism. While the numbers employed are useful tools for recognizing and organizing many forms of seemingly disparate information, numbers are nonetheless symbols that can be limiting. If the idea attributed to Einstein that "God does not play dice with the Universe" is accurate, then God may also have no need to think in terms of numbers or any symbols conceived of by the human mind. Yet, this is what we are left with, but this does not mean such symbols have to be interpreted in the same way.


For example, the "five" points of a Pentagram can be interpreted to be the result of two over-lapping triangles. Interestingly, the pentagram is sometimes viewed in connection with the Devil or evil and the Starfish is sometimes referred to as the Devil fish. Additionally, the pentagram has a pentagon at the middle that some analysts might interpret to mean that the US (military) Pentagon is in league with the devil even though its five "tentacles" are camouflaged.


Clearly there are differing perspectives which can rally supportive examples to profit individualized assertions claiming dominance based on fundamentals represented by convincing illustrations and interactive philosophies to suit the dispositions of alternative tastes. For example, we can focus on the model of five fingers as indicating a universally repeating anatomical theme, counter- balanced by acknowledging the three bones in each finger, or we can argue that despite the recurrence of five fingers, four appendages or a bilaterally symmetric (two-halved mirror-imaged) body plan, there are three bones, three joints and and an underlying threes-partioning formula being used. This three-patterned partioning formula is also used by Richard Merick in his Harmonic Interference theory as shown in the image below:


Tritorso (46K)

For Threes in Human Anatomy:


--- Threes in Human Anatomy ---

A claim for a prominent "five" presence such as having five "senses" may well be cited as an ego-centricity where we are unjustly applying a majesty to some human attributes collection, even though we exclude denoting some associated other-than- five pattern such as one heart, two eyes, three inner ear bones, etc., occurring with other species that are not listed. Thus, any theory, be it focused on a particular number pattern that is being employed and applied as an all encompassing theme, needs to be all inclusive or admit its inadequacy up front... that is, if the shortcoming is at all recognized.


In discussing a relevancy to the quantity of five as a recurrence in anatomical design, we must ask why such is preferentially chosen and not the wide-spread recurrence of one heart with an underlying two-part mitral valve and three-part tricuspid valve? Yet these distinctions are being overlooked since they relate to a right hemisphere "two" organization of attributes and a left hemisphere "three" organization of attributes. See: --- Triune Brain --- Or instead of focusing on another part such as the eyes, irrespective of quantity, why don't we focus on its function as a receptive organ? Whereas the usage of numbers in terms of comparing quantities is simplistically easy, not so is it with functionality; since counting is more fruitful because it is readily available with much less effort and easily understood for use in the vernacular of everyday conversation.


We can organize percieved information in a variety of ways. For example, we can primarily focus on the "five" fingers and five toes as a universal (and thus being "most" important), or we can focus on the "four" quantity of our appendages (2 arms and 2 legs). Or we can focus on the "three" joints to arms and legs, or the "two" eyes, ears, legs, arms, testicles, etc., or the one head. Clearly, there are instances of different numerical values. So, does one or more of these number patterns represent "THE" most important... and stands as a representative of some "code" we should pay homage to? Is that code the triplet coding system of DNA? Or the three AMP, ADP, ATP (Adenosine Mono-Phosphate, Adenosine Di-Phosphate, Adenosine Tri-Phosphate) nucleotides of energy sourcing?


There are different ways of looking at the same information. Because there are, it behooves us to examine each of them independently as well as together and collectively. Whereas we may represent them as a "stand alone" prominent universal, such a prominence and universality may have an underlying co-dependency with that which may also be presented as a "stand alone" enitity, or as a seemingly intermittantly occurring phenomena like a shooting star we very often take for granted.


So why do we have five fingers? I don't know. I could argue because it is due to some underlying genetic or molecular plan that uses a "five" pattern, but why doesn't that same pattern effect us to have five arms, legs, ears, etc.? How come we don't have five brains? Was there an initial "five" pattern that came to be superseded by another pattern or did the "five" succumb to environmental pressures specific to this planet? We can adopt a theoretical frame-work in which the "five" represents a primary pattern, along with multiples thereof, or look elsewhere while including the "five" in its relation to other patterns... some that are and others that may not be, by present conventions, numerically labeled.





Your Questions, Comments or Additional Information are welcomed:
Herb O. Buckland
herbobuckland@hotmail.com