• Burninator05@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    112
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    The mode human body contains enough bones to make an entire skeleton. The average human body doesn’t have enough.

    • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      The additional ~200 bones from fetuses in late stage pregnant woman would be more than the missing bones from amputees etc. OPs statement is accurate.

        • JaymesRS
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          11 months ago

          Skeleton size or proportionality not specified.

        • ohitsbreadley@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          What if we use the little fetus bones to replace some of the smaller adult bones, and take those smaller adult bones to replace some bigger adult bones, and so on until we have a big ol’ femur?

      • doctorcrimson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Actually, OP’s statement is still wrong because there are more bones than 1 entire skeleton on average.

        • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          The statement “the ocean contains enough water to fill a bucket” doesn’t mean the ocean only contains a single bucket of water. “The ocean contains enough water to fill one bucket” might imply that the ocean only contains one bucket of water but OP doesn’t specify a number. This is an interesting conversation on ambiguous semantics in English.

          • doctorcrimson@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            That’s a fair argument, and I suppose the average is somewhat close to one so it isn’t that misleading, but if aliens asked how much water was on your planet’s surface and you told them it was enough to fill a bucket, then you would be the asshole in that analogy.

    • JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      The word average can technically refer to arithmetic mean, median, mode, or range. That’s why you were probably taught them at the same time. That’s also why tests like the ACT tend to have a * at the top that says something along the lines of “Unless otherwise stated, the word average indicates arithmetic mean.”

        • JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Because mean is the most common form of average. But, for example, when referring to salaries, the words median and average are often used interchangeably.

          • BA834024112@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            This isn’t true at all

            Edit: well they may be used interchangebly, but they’re also used incorrectly in that case

        • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          It would have to be a lot considering that a baby has a full set of bones while a missing limb is generally only a few of them.

          • evidences@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Half the bones in a adult human are in the hands and feet. I don’t know if there’s enough missing limbs to offset fetus skeletons but I there’s a whole lot of bones missing in a double amputee.

            • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Babies have up to 270 bones at birth (instead of 206 in an adult), which makes up for at least one double amputee (hands have 27 bones and feet have 26 each).

          • Goatmom@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            Pregnant women as well. Now their human body contains two skeletons, thus raising the average number of bones in a human body by a considerable amount. I would guess there’s probably more pregnant women than there are people missing limbs.

            • Tremble@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              Ok then technically we are all born with an extra set of teeth. That we lose. So a full skeleton contains all the baby teeth as well.

              • Goatmom@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Traditionaly when talking about the skeleton, we refer to the adult skeleton seeing as an adolescent skeleton have more bones that then fuse. I agree that we need to take that into account, but I don’t believe the statement would be referring to an adolescent skeleton.

        • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Plenty of people do. My sister for example had bones in her feet that never fused and had to have an extra removed. I guess that’s pretty common

    • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Different perspective: Even if you miss a limb your body contains the full 100% of the skeleton you can find in a person missing that limb.

      There still complete human beings even if their body has a unique challenge.

      • ohitsbreadley@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        I appreciate what you’re saying here - people come in all shapes and sizes, with different abilities, limb counts, etc. Every one is a human being deserving respect and dignity.

        But OP didn’t say “a complete human being” - it said “a complete human skeleton.”

        If an individual is missing a limb, by birth or by accident, they don’t have a complete skeleton. It’s a plain fact. Doesn’t mean they are any less human.

        • jcg@halubilo.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I guess you could say they’re missing body parts, but not humanity parts (necessarily)

          • ohitsbreadley@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Yeah kind of - I think “a complete body” is neither necessary or sufficient to make one a “human being.”

            For example, there are plenty of murderers, rapists, and pedos with “complete bodies,” that have entirely lost their humanity in commission of their crimes against humanity. (However, I will always argue that this can never be a justification to exact cruelty upon them, as we necessarily lose our humanity in that process).

            And there are so many people with “incomplete” bodies who are amazingly beautiful and strong human beings.

  • Gigan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    No it doesn’t, because some people are missing limbs or ribs or have artificial joints. So the average body would have slightly fewer bones than necessary to make a whole skeleton.

  • MTK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Probably false, the avarage probably has a bit less then needed fo a full skeleton.

      • Agent641@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Its gonna be some stupid number, like 1.0777655678 skeletons per adult, on average. Even considering twins and triplets and quad amputees

  • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Despite all the “AKcHUaLLy” comments this is probably true.

    If the body has 206 bones and the global average is like 205.7, a bone that is even partially complete is still a bone, and it is probably so close to 206 that the missing parts are negligible and distributed across the skeleton anyway. Think about it, how many people do you know that are missing an appendage or a bone by defect? I bet it’s less than 0.5% of everyone you know.

    Take my upvote.

    • Carl@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      I have 2 neighbours is missing a leg, and a family friend missing a finger. I am one of the outliers.

      • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        That is a lot of missing bones. How many people would you estimate that you know though? I went to a small high school and I bet out of 500 total I knew 300 just from school. There are lots of family and coworkers and stuff that drive that number pretty high even if you know some amputees.

    • Venator@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      But it still wouldn’t be an entire human skeleton, as there’s more to a skeleton than just the number of bones.

    • Sidhean@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      You’ve finally done it. You out-akchuallied the pedantic nerds, becoming, yourself, the final gatekeeper of pedantry

      • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        You sure? I think it might be lower considering lost limbs and so. Pregnancies would raise it but pregnancy is temporary while lost limbs tend to be permanent.

        • doctorcrimson@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I think we can assume some number above 0.1% to 1% of humans are pregnant at any given time, based on the number of births last year over a 9 month period divided by the number of people on earth total, but with the assumption that many aren’t carried to full term and end in loss of viability.

          Each of those can have over 300 bones total, later on a lot of those would fuse so to create a full skeleton we should just consider it as 206.

          Amputees numbered 57.7 Million people worldwide in 2017 or 0.8% but the vast majority of these are missing less than a single limb and retain most of their bones.

  • tubaruco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    technically, because noone has a higher amount of bones but many people have less, this is false.