99.7% of humans have an above average number of limbs : discuss

Explanation: uhmmm?

Tetrapod [wiki]

Tetrapods (Greek τετραποδηδόν tetrӑpodēdón, "on all fours"); (Greek τετραπόδηs tetrӑpódēs, correspondent to Latin quadruped, "four-footed") are vertebrate animals having four limbs. Amphibians, sauropsids and mammals are tetrapods. The ancestors of snakes, glass lizards and other limbless amphibians and sauropsids are tetrapods. The earliest tetrapods evolved from the lobe-finned fishes in the Devonian. They are now a dominant part of the terrestrial fauna, representing all known larger land animals. Some groups have even returned to an aquatic existence, including the largest animal known, the blue whale.

Polydactyly in early tetrapods [wiki]

Polydactyly in early tetrapod should here be understood as having more than five digits to the finger or foot, a condition that was the natural state of affairs in the very first four-footed vertebrates. The polydactyly in these largely aquatic animals is not to be confused with polydactyly in the medical sense, i.e., it was not an anomaly in the sense it was not a condition of having more than the typical number of digits for a given taxon. Rather, it appears to be a result of the early evolution from a limb with a fin rather than digits.

Personal Disclosure: Seems to OL that having four limbs has been a natural state of affairs for millions of years.I hope this helps!

It's not really that tricky...

Let's say you have 100 people. Of those 100, 97 have all 4 limbs and the remaining 3 are missing one (3 limbs).

You'd have a total number of limbs of (97*4)+(3*3) = 397. So... 397 limbs split among 100 people makes an average of 397/100 = 3.97 limbs per person.

Of the original 100, 97 have more than the average (97/100 = 97%).

Originally posted by abecedarian

Originally posted by The1Prettiest1One
...
The average number of limbs being lower than what the majority of the population posseses is not at all surprising (to me)....

The op's claim was 99.7% have above average, not lower than average.

Exactly, the average is lower than what 99.7% of the population posses, which means 99.7% have four limbs (as I understand the term "limb"), but the average is less than four limbs because enough have three or fewer limbs to offset the effect of some having five or more limbs.

Average number of limbs = Number of limbs on all humans / Number of humans < 4
99.7% is the proportion with four or more limbs

Contrived example with five people (# of limbs on each):

4, 4, 4, 2, 5

Average = (4+4+4+2+5) / 5 = 3.8 limbs / person
4 out of 5 have more than 3.8 limbs so in this case 80% have more than the average number of limbs.

reply to post by ignorant_ape




Hey look... I've never had any complaints and I may refer to it as my "Third Leg" but I don't think it really counts... does it?

Originally posted by The1Prettiest1One

Originally posted by abecedarian

Originally posted by The1Prettiest1One
...
The average number of limbs being lower than what the majority of the population posseses is not at all surprising (to me)....

The op's claim was 99.7% have above average, not lower than average.

Exactly, the average is lower than what 99.7% of the population posses, which means 99.7% have four limbs (as I understand the term "limb"), but the average is less than four limbs because enough have three or fewer limbs to offset the effect of some having five or more limbs.

Average number of limbs = Number of limbs on all humans / Number of humans < 4
99.7% is the proportion with four or more limbs

Contrived example with five people (# of limbs on each):

4, 4, 4, 2, 5

Average = (4+4+4+2+5) / 5 = 3.8 limbs / person
4 out of 5 have 4 or more limbs so in this case 80% have more than the average number of limbs.

I guess since the OP chose to not respond to a single question in this thread....we might as well listen to you channel him....

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by ignorant_ape

 

Hey look... I've never had any complaints and I may refer to it as my "Third Leg" but I don't think it really counts... does it?

Does that mean you have 3 shoes for each set in your closet.....:Bet that's a funny walk you have....lol:

Originally posted by Destinyone
I guess since the OP chose to not respond to a single question in this thread....we might as well listen to you channel him....

Who's "we"? Are you always this confrontational?

Oh, and I made a small correction to my wording, after you quoted apparently.

Originally posted by The1Prettiest1One

Originally posted by Destinyone
I guess since the OP chose to not respond to a single question in this thread....we might as well listen to you channel him....

Who's "we"? Are you always this confrontational?

Oh, and I made a small correction.

edit on 2/3/2012 by The1Prettiest1One because: (no reason given)

No, I'm not. I'm still waiting for the OP of this thread to answer a few questions. I'm not really interested in your fuzzy math. Sorry if I don't choose to sit in your class room.

Originally posted by TurkeyTots
It's not really that tricky...

Let's say you have 100 people. Of those 100, 97 have all 4 limbs and the remaining 3 are missing one (3 limbs).

You'd have a total number of limbs of (97*4)+(3*3) = 397. So... 397 limbs split among 100 people makes an average of 397/100 = 3.97 limbs per person.

Of the original 100, 97 have more than the average (97/100 = 97%).

However, as one cannot have "3.97" limbs, it would be rounded to 4, thus 97 would have the statistical average and 3 would be below average.

Originally posted by Destinyone
Does that mean you have 3 shoes for each set in your closet.....:Bet that's a funny walk you have....lol:

If you keep turning his crank, a dude with a foam head pops out of his zipper, pokes you in the eye and serves you a big, greasy hamburger.

Originally posted by DestinyoneI guess since the OP chose to not respond to a single question in this thread....we might as well listen to you channel him....

oh dear - i have " ignored " my thread for 1 hour - i asked you to discuss it -

Originally posted by The1Prettiest1One
If you keep turning his crank, a dude with a foam head pops out of his zipper, pokes you in the eye and serves you a big, greasy hamburger.

All of that just sounded so wrong to me


I have a filthy mind though...

:shk:

Originally posted by abecedarian
However, as one cannot have "3.97" limbs, it would be rounded to 4, thus 97 would have the statistical average and 3 would be below average.

No, it wouldn't be rounded. The average doesn't have to actually exist in the population as a category.

reply to post by DAZ21


how many limbs do you have ?

reply to post by beezzer


as i am refereing to humans , the avarege number of limbs is the average number of humsn limbs

Originally posted by The1Prettiest1One

Originally posted by abecedarian
However, as one cannot have "3.97" limbs, it would be rounded to 4, thus 97 would have the statistical average and 3 would be below average.

No, it wouldn't be rounded. The average doesn't have to actually exist in the population as a category.

To be a useful number, it must be rounded. It's like saying the average family has 2.5 children based on one family baving 3 and the other having 2. It's not possible to have 1/2 of a child as it either is a child or not and therefore a whole number.

A partial limb would be considered a limb, not a fractional equivalent.

Originally posted by The1Prettiest1One

Originally posted by abecedarian
However, as one cannot have "3.97" limbs, it would be rounded to 4, thus 97 would have the statistical average and 3 would be below average.

No, it wouldn't be rounded. The average doesn't have to actually exist in the population as a category.

Correct... There's no rule about rounding an average. If you took the mode (the most common number), you could say that 97 have the "normal" number of limbs and 3 have fewer than the "normal" number.

To use a different example, if I have $100 and you have $0, the average is $50, even though neither of us actually has exactly $50.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by beezzer

 

as i am refereing to humans , the avarege number of limbs is the average number of humsn limbs

Which is?

The average human has one fallopian tube. Please discuss.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

Originally posted by DestinyoneI guess since the OP chose to not respond to a single question in this thread....we might as well listen to you channel him....

oh dear - i have " ignored " my thread for 1 hour - i asked you to discuss it -

That's all fine and well...asking us to discuss it. The problem for me being, you didn't leave enough data to discuss.