Talk:Human skeleton

Just to let everyone know - the picture on this page is not exactly great. My mom is a biology teacher. In her classroom, she has an actual human skeleton (very old - 30+ years at least). At next opporunity, I'm going to take a few pictures of it and post one here to replace it. →Raul654 16:43, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rib regeneration

'The lower rib is the only bone in the human body that can regenerate.'

Particularly in the context in which it appears, this implies that if you remove the lower rib it will grow back to its original shape. I've Googled, but the only material I've found to support this claim comes via creationism sites. Discussion here suggests that rib regrowth is rare, and - when it does occur - more along the lines of "random mass of bone" than "good as new".

If somebody has a good source for this claim - mainstream medical textbook or publication in a reputable medical journal would be good - please post it; until then, I don't think this claim should be in the article.

67.162.244.191 16:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The surgical procedure of "rib thoracoplasty" is practiced on a daily basis by surgeons for corrective surgery to "rib humps" left from curvature of the spine by Scoliosis. http://www.scoliosis.org/resources/medicalupdates/ribthoracoplasty.php. The procedure for removal of ribs has been performed as far back as April of 1933 from the information I've gathered off of a quick google search. See http://magazine.wustl.edu/Fall03/EvartsGraham.html for reference. Surgery for resegmenting ribs have been posted in medical journals, but are hard to get access to without subscriptions. For example, a google search turns up information on surgery related to thoracoplasty at the Clinical Orthopedics Journal supported by a professional service of LWW Online which host multiple professional online journals. See here: http://www.lwwonline.com/pt/re/lwwonline/home.htm;jsessionid=D41pcDNN8fh0v79Y9olORRg6JInETMZlHcWjYa9aJ4w9PyiPqNoa!-1536751125!-949856145!9001!-1

The google search http://google7.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Thoracoplasty+rib+regeneration turns up the following seach information; "Thoracoplasty is a viable surgical option for cosmetic correction of rib humps and it ... Usually, rib regeneration occurs 3 to 6 months postoperatively and ..." with the following link: http://www.corronline.com/pt/re/corr/userLogin.htm;jsessionid=D41Iesd28gMdsgeX7NMzhxo4G7fmSv4xHzu2Eu2BRRKpXU2qLwsN!-1536751125!-949856145!9001!-1. Unfortunately, one has to register to get the full information.

Clearly NSF see's this as a natural and fundamental corrective surgery for those suffering from "rib humps" due to scoliosis. It is a recognized and acceptable surgical procedure within the medical community and practiced by approved Doctors in State approved and government sanctioned hospitals. Other interesting articles are found in such online medical journals as OpenMed - http://openmed.nic.in/ where you can find this recount of surgical procedures for the Hoist Method: http://openmed.nic.in/771/01/June54.pdf.

It took under a minute to find info, 5-10 minutes to read and actually more time for me to edit and then post it here. I hope this is enough information to meet your standard for inclusion. I understand your concern. I think it is a fair representation of the facts given that it is common medical practice. Please note that it is not limited to just the lower rib, nor is it magical, but it is common knowledge among those Doctors that must work in the field with spine curvature problems and disease to do corrective surgery to the ribs by removal and rib regeneration. Hope this has been helpful. When I have more time, I'll try to find more medical evidence of rib regeneration, surgical use and procedures.

I have to agree with the previous comment. In my opinion, the paragraph seems to attribute magical powers to the lower rib (maybe because of its mention in the Bible?) It *seems* most of this information came from an anecdote written by Carl Wieland, a creationist. Some of the information is not necessarily incorrect, but in the way it's packaged, it's extremely misleading. For instance, the periosteum lines all bones and does play a role in bone generation and repair. It's not only found in the ribs. Anyway, if anyone objects to the removal of this section because of its "informational" purposes, I can go through the facts.jag123 19:24, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to the Bible, Adam had his lower rib removed to make Eve. This is because the lower rib can actually regenerate if the periosteum is left intact.

The Bible certainly says that, but claiming that it says that because of the regenerative powers of the periosteum needs substantiation. I'm fairly sure the Bible makes no reference to any such powers, nor am I aware of any evidence that its writers/scribes were aware of them either.

Within the periosteum are cells, which can generate new bone. It is especially effective in young people. Thoracic surgeons are well aware of the regenerating ability of lower rib bones. Intercostal muscles attached to the lower rib also provide it with a good supply of blood required for regeneration.

See above comments on rib regrowth. Either provide evidence that (a) this regeneration is likely to produce a functional new rib, or make it clear in the wording that (b) it is not. Combining it with the Bible story strongly implies (a), and that needs substantiation. --Calair 23:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden agenda

There is a myth that men have one less rib than women. This stems from a misunderstood passage found in the Bible which states that Eve was created from one of Adam's rib. However, both men and women have the same number of ribs: 12 pairs or 24 total.

You don't need 20th century science to prove that if a parent lost a leg and then has children, the children would not be affected. Even a caveman could prove that. Infact there was a lot of killing in ancient times, leaving rib cages scattered across the world. It is likely that the majority of Jews, Christians, Muslims (and anyone else who believes in the Old Testament) have never believed in the myth that males have 1 less rib then females. There would have been a few but not the majority.

That myth seems more like bigoted propaganda against Jews, Christians and Muslims. The paragraph is intolerant and should be removed. It gives the impression that all people who believe in the Old Testament, think men have 1 less rib then women and thus their religions are "wrong".

Try going to an Evangelical or Pentacostal Church some time and listen to the Pastor talk about how it's a "scientific fact" that men have one less (or one less pair of) rib(s) than women, and how that proves the Bible is inerrant. Then listen to the resounding "Amen!"s from the audience. People who haven't seen many human skeletons are likely to believe it. We'd like to think no one is that stupid in modern times, or that people in ancient times would've seen enough skeletons. I don't know about people in ancient times, but in modern times, people are that dumb. Just have a look at the Darwin Awards for proof.

And as far as "if a parent lost a leg and then has children, the children would not be affected" goes, one could always just assume the child took after the other parent in leg-count. And in cases where both parents are missing the same body part, it appeared in the offspring anyway as a "gift from the Lord" or whatever. --Corvun 09:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

People are not and never were that stupid. If we include this misleading propagands against the Bible then we must also include defences against it, such as rib regeneration.

The myth exists, and it is a surprisingly common one, particularly among Evangelicals and Pentacostals (who seem content to believe anything, no matter how ludicrous, if it "testifies to the inerrant truth of the holy word of god" or however they choose to phrase it). There are many people out there who honestly believe it. It deserves a mention in the "gender differences" section.

However, there is no justification for your "defense". There is no reason to assume the reason the Bible says Eve was made from Adam's rib is because of this "rib regeneration" that the authors of the Bible likely wouldn't have even known about. Where is your evidence that rib regeneration is the reason for the Biblical myth? Why is Wikipedia under some sort of obligation to defend an erroneous urban legend that persists among the scientifically illiterate? How does it make things more "fair" or "balanced" to defend a myth that has merely been mentioned on the page? If we are to defend the myth, as you wish, then the only fair thing to do would be to attack those defenses in response. Before you know it, the article has become nothing but a talk page.

Wikipedia is not a religious resource, and does not exist to push Christianity down people's throats or defend certain members of it or any other religion who are willing to buy this one-less-rib garbage. If this minority of Christians who believe this myth were not Christians at all but members of some other religion (or no religion at all), the statement would still stand. It doesn't matter who believes the myth -- the fact that this particular myth is being spread through the Christian community is entirely incidental. The reason for the statement is to dispell the myth itself, not to single anyone out on the basis of religion; there is no religious position being taken one way or the other, neither pro-Christian nor anti-Christian. Your attempts to ammend the statement with creationist nonsense or delete it altogether is, on the other hand, clearly motivated by a pro-Christian point of view.

Furthermore, rib regeneration is certainly interesting, but it has nothing to do with gender differences (unlike the one-less-rib myth) and belongs on the rib page -- and even there, there's no reason to imply that it has anything to do with your Bible.

Please bear in mind that one's behavior on Wikipedia has consequences. Continual acts of vandalism can get you banned. I suggest you make your arguments here on the talk page and wait for a consensus to be reached before you further vandalize the article "in defense of the Bible" or whatever your reason is. Your most recent act of vandalism will be reverted. Any further acts will be reported. If you wish to continue contributing to Wikipedia, I suggest you find a way to do so in a more neutral and less religiously- and emotionally-motivated manner. --Corvun 00:18, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an intolerant anti religious defamatory propaganda engine either. Who are you to push atheism down the throats of Muslims, Christians and Jews?

Don't you accuse me of vandalism. You're probably the one who vandalised my paragraph after months of it being hosted without conflict. The reason I added rib regeneration was to show that not all believers of the Old Testament (not just Christians, if Muslims and Jews were as populous in this country as Christians, you would see complaints from them aswell) believe in the 1 less rib nonsense.

The urban legend should be mentioned because it relates to gender differences in the skeleton. However, the current paragraph is intolerant and gives the impression that anyone who believes in Genesis is an idiot. What if we tried it this way:

"There is an urban legend that men have one less rib than women. This stems from a passage found in the Bible which states that Eve was created from one of Adam's rib. However, both men and women have the same number of ribs: 12 pairs or 24 total, only Adam was missing a rib."

Um, yeah.... That's what the current version already said when you made this suggestion. I altered the paragraph to read this way before you made this "suggestion", as the edit history shows. This is getting really strange. I'm not sure whether you're some weirdo with absolutely no grasp on reality or just a good troll, but either way you need to be banned. Wikipedia is not a playground for nuts and trolls. --Corvun 21:47, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Unless I've misread the edit history, it's not *quite* the same as your version, Corvun - it's been modified by the addition of "only Adam was missing a rib". But then, that addition is quite inappropriate, since it's still a matter of debate as to whether Adam even existed. (Even those who believe he existed disagree as to whether he ended up missing a rib, what with the 'rib regrowth' and 'God knew he'd need to use a rib, so he gave Adam one extra' crowds.)

Nowhere does the 'offending' paragraph claim that this is a *common* belief among Christians, merely that *some* people believe it based on a passage of Genesis - which they most certainly do. --Calair 23:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anymore. There aren't even words for how tired of this I've become in the past few days. At one point this person went through this whole portion of the talk page, altering its title and almost every bit of text to make it seem like he/she said things he/she really didn't, and others' words as well. He/she didn't seem to be aware of the existence of the edit history, where we can look up who really said things and when. It also seems kind of odd that he/she tried to "take credit" for someone else's words on Wikipedia. The point of that is beyond my understanding. As stated below, this person's behavior has gone from zealous to extremist to down-right weird.

I agree with you. We've all been as careful as possible here not to imply that "everyone who believes in Genesis is an idiot" as this person claims. Sometimes these anonymous folks make you want to pull your hair out, y'know? --Corvun 01:25, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Okay I agree, if we add "only Adam was missing a rib" that will offend people who don't believe in Adam and the same for the crowds who claim God knew he would take a rib from Adam, so he gave him one extra rib.

The current paragraph "...this stems from...Bible... However...", makes it seem like the Bible is wrong and the "However" makes it seem like the reader is then being told the truth, which the Bible fails to mention.

There is an urban legend that men have one less rib than women. This stems from an assumption that if the man Adam, whom believers of Genesis claim was the father of all humans, had his rib removed, then perhaps his male descendants would all be one rib less than the females. However, no where in the Bible does it say that men have one less rib than women, this is merely an assumption made by some readers. Both men and women have the same number of ribs: 12 pairs or 24 total.

By mentioning that the 1 less rib theory is an assumption by SOME readers, it does not infer the Bible is wrong. The preceding sentences are also neutral for people that don't believe in Genesis. Also note that the current paragraph has not been modified for several days. --Wacko Travo

The reader is being told the facts, women have the same number of ribs as men. Why would someone assume the Bible is wrong? Like you say, the Bible never explicitly states that all future males would be lacking a rib, and since no one found fossils of Adam yet, it can't be proven that he actually wasn't lacking a rib, so I don't see how the paragraph infers the Bible is wrong. There is no need to mention that the 1 less rib theory is an assumption by some readers because it's not a theory, it's a myth. People can believe everything in the Bible, but that doesn't change the fact that men and women have the same number of ribs. The current passage doesn't state or imply that the Bible is wrong, that people are misreading it or that the myth is common. It just states what it is, where it originates, and the facts. If people want to assume a whole bunch of stuff from those three sentences, that's their problem. --jag123 06:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm impressed Wacko. Looks like you're starting to get a feel for what it's like to be a Wikipedian. I like this last suggestion. The exact phrasing seems a little clumsy, and I think it could probably stand to be a bit more concise, but it's definitely not bad.

Now what will probably happen is, someone will make another suggestion as to how the paragraph can be shortened or refined without removing any of its informational content. It can be discussed, and ideally we can all come to a peaceful, sensible resolution that satisfies all parties. Here's my suggestion:

There is a myth that men have one less rib than women. This stems from a passage found in the Bible which states that God removed a rib from Adam to create Eve, which a small number of believers think to be evidenced by the different number of ribs. However, both men and women have the same number of ribs: 12 pairs or 24 total, only Adam was missing a rib."

This way, it is clear that the view is held by only a small number of people, and does not appear to be condemning or supporting any religious position. Other suggestions, anyone? --Corvun 06:58, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, just a couple of nitpicks. I still don't like "only Adam was missing a rib" for reasons already mentioned, and "...think to be evidenced by the different number of ribs" is confusing, making it sound as if there *is* a difference. Addressing those, and adding a bit more detail, what about this?

There is a myth that men have one less rib than women. Genesis 2:21-22 states that God removed a rib from Adam to create Eve, which - in combination with the discredited idea of inheritance of acquired traits - has led a small number of believers to presume such a difference exists. However, examination of skeletons shows that both men and women have the same number of ribs: 12 pairs or 24 total. Further, it is now generally understood that the surgical removal of a man's rib would not be reflected in his descendants.

--Calair 23:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Awesome! "Further, it is now generally understood that the surgical removal of a man's rib would not be reflected in his descendants" seems a bit redundant to me, considering the earlier "discredited idea of inheritance of acquired traits" comment, but otherwise I'd say it looks perfect. A hell of a lot better than my suggestion. --Corvun 01:24, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Not to be a party-pooper, but I highly doubt your suggestions will prevent the usual series of reverts that have been occuring here. The reasons given over the past months weren't enough to prevent the standard paragraph, hence the repetition of the same points on the talk page. Honestly, it's only a matter of time before someone objects to using terms like "discredited" re: inheritance and "generally understood", or that someone removes the entire thing, citing "irrelevant religious statement". Let's not forget that whether or not men and women have the same number of ribs is not really open to debate. Obviously, anyone can mainitain/believe that there are only 2 or 200 ribs, but years of autopsies have failed to find a significant, actual difference. Because of this, there really isn't a need to explain other "significant point of views", not that there are actual numbers on people who actually believe this myth to determine whether or not it's significant. There's really no reason to expound this view any more than necessary (or at all). --jag123 03:27, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I like the last edit suggestion by Calair but agree with Corvun on that last comment. Regardless I think the editing of Calair should be published and let anyone improve on the wording afterward. It is necessary that this change be made and would not be necessary at all if the current paragraph did not make any reference to religion. Because it does, this can be interpretted as offensive by some readers for reasons I already mentioned: The current paragraph "...this stems from...Bible... However...", makes it seem like the Bible is wrong and the "However" makes it seem like the reader is then being told the truth, which the Bible fails to mention. --Wacko Travo

How it is now: "The book Genesis of the Bible tells that Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs. This has led some people to assume..." reads fairly well to me and is uncontroversial / non-inflamatory (how an encyclopedia should be: even an online one). Good to whoever wrote it. --Lxs602

[edit] Rib myth

This is going to make a lot of people hate me, but... I can't see why anyone would think all men have one rib less than women, just because the Bible says Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs. 85.76.152.179 19:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's hard for someone from a 20th-century background to relate to because our ideas of heredity have, well, evolved. But once upon a time, it was commonly believed that traits acquired during a creature's lifetime could be inherited by their offspring. If a blacksmith spends five years hammering away and builds up strong muscles, then has children, those children will have strong arms themselves as a result. This theory of heredity was formally stated by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, but I'm pretty sure the general idea was around well before him.

It's not an unreasonable theory at first glance, and it can be fudged a bit to answer the easy objections ("I lost my middle finger in the mill... why does my son have ten fingers?" "Well, his middle finger is *smaller* than it should be..." or even "Are you sure he's your son?") When the trait is acquired as a result of God's direct intervention, all the more reason to expect it to be inherited. In a society that frowns on dissecting corpses, which many of them did, a catchy myth can easily outpace the truth. --Calair 22:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rib Regeneration Reclarified

lower rib can actually regenerate True, but it's not limited to ribs. Hip bone is a common source for bone grafts. Furthermore, the new growth is called a callus, which can be thought of as the equivalent of scar tissue for bone. This isn't necessarily a good thing either, since the growth can cause pressure in undesired locations.
lower rib can actually regenerate if the periosteum is left intact. Since the periosteum envelops most bone, you can't really remove a rib while leaving the periosteum intact, and you can prove this in your kitchen: Try to remove the white part of a banana while leaving the skin / peel intact. The periosteum isn't "intact", it's just "not entirely removed"
Within the periosteum are cells, which can generate new bone Yes, those are called osteoblasts and/or osteoprogenitor cells and are also found in the periosteum lining the tibia, femur, humerus, etc. Cut those in half and they won't reform to their original size.
It is especially effective in young people Inherently more effective or just more effective because young people also happen to be growing, where bone growth is obviously occuring? More effective than a newborn vs an 80 year old?
Thoracic surgeons are well aware of the regenerating ability of lower rib bones Yes, and they are aware of other sources as well.
- Typically, autogenous bone grafts are taken from the pelvis or iliac crest [1]
- The gold standard for bone graft used for lumbar spine fusion has been bone harvested from the patient’s pelvis [2]
- usually your hip bone or your tibia (shin) bone [3]
- Bone can be harvested from the following sites Iliac crest, Proximal tibia, Distal radius [4]
Intercostal muscles ... provide ... good supply of blood ... for regeneration. The periosteum isn't attached to muscle directly. There is a good supply of blood in the body anywhere it is needed, not just in ribs. Regardless, what about the gluteus maximums (the largest muscle in the body), which is attached to the illiac crest? What about quadriceps, which are attached to the femurs? Those are all larger than intercostal muscles, so if blood supply was directly related to muscle, why is the rib preferred?
Rib regeneration is scientific fact No one is really denying that it can happen. Unfortunately, this is irrelevant of the Bible's Eve origin and not important in Gender Differences. There are no differences between men and women regarding rib count. The Bible story is cute and all, but it doesn't belong here. --jag123 09:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are right, rib regeneration is not important for Gender Differences. It was merely offered to show that not all Bible believers think men have one less rib, just because Adam did. You mentioned regeneration can apply to other bones, not just the rib. Perhaps bone regeneration would be an interesting section within Human Skeleton but outside of Gender Differences? Religious links could then be avoided. I have also offered a suggestion to neutralise the religious defamation/promotion of Gender Differences.

I added this clarification in response to the people/person who continually re-adds the same paragraph over and over again, using the points mentionned above as an explanation for why that stuff belongs there. With this step-by-step explanation, I can't be accused of vandalism (for removing the paragraph) or not discussing my changes on the talk pages. As to your neutral suggestion, since half of the entries added in the past 2 days are not signed, I don't know which one is yours. Bone regeneration is not really that interesting. The tissue dies and there is scarring -- it happens in the heart, liver, on the skin, etc. The only reason there is such an "interest" is because a certain creationist used this (biologically trivial) example to give his views/opinion scientific validity. --jag123 12:46, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea to just ignore the anon. The person you're responding to is the creationist who wanted to delete the mention of the Biblical myth if his rib-regeneration paragraph couldn't be included along with it, complaining it was defamatory toward Christians, Muslems, and Jews. He's the one who's been vandalizing the page without discussing his edits on the talk page. His "suggestion to neutralise" the "religious defamation" was a word-for-word copy of an edit I'd already made. Whether this person is just a troll, or someone with a truly flimsy grasp on reality, I don't know. But his/her behavior has gone from zealous to extremist to down-right weird. --Corvun 22:04, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. I've been watching this page since December and it's the same thing every couple of weeks: Someone adds the biblical reference, someone tones down to mention of the myth, then someone removes it all because it's an irrelevant biblical reference and the cycle starts over. Unfortunately, I think this is one of those things that will continuously be edited back and forth, and engaging the anons in discussion is really pointless; practically anything worthy of argument has already been discussed (not that they are paying attention to the talk page anyway...) --jag123 22:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page Layout

Is it really necessary to have 3 pictures of skeletons? Two of them are very similar, just schematic diagrams, and in addition the picture under the Function section is messing with the layout. I think the second diagram should be removed and the photo put in its place. KHenriksson 07:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] explaination needed

we need to explain how the bones are connected to each other.. its getting confuse--Tearfate 20:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/u/m/Talk%7EHuman_skeleton_74e7.html"

Talk:Human skeleton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Picture replacement

[edit] Rib regeneration

[edit] Hidden agenda

[edit] Rib myth

[edit] Rib Regeneration Reclarified

[edit] Page Layout

[edit] explaination needed

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search