Talk:Single transverse palmar crease

Removed content
I removed the following unsourced statements from the article by 24.125.49.251 as they refer to living people: --apers0n 06:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Famous people with simian/transverse creases: Tony Blair (two hands - do a google IMAGE search for 'tony blair waves' to see his), three out of the last four Japanese Prime Ministers, Thom Yorke of Radiohead, John Steinbeck, Henry Miller, Seji Osawa, Nikita Kruschev, Rasputin


 * Excuse me, but the last time i checked, Nikita Krrischev, John Steinbeck, Rasputin, and Henry Miller were dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.90.33 (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Preferred term?
Isn't single transverse palmar crease preferred to the rather pejorative term simian crease? I tend to do a poor job gauging whether a term is objectionable or not, so correct me if I'm wrong. But if I'm right, the redirect should go in the other direction. Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's pejorative; I heard the term "simian crease" straight from the pediatrician's mouth, and I would expect that they'd be most up-to-date on the preferred terms. 198.99.123.63 16:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because a physician uses it doesn't mean it's not pejorative. Lots of docs use pejorative terms out of ignorance, force of habit, historical sake, etc. For example, "cretinism" (which originally meant "Christ-like", but has since acquired status as a pejorative term because of its use in everday speech) gets thrown about pretty freely by many practitioners. I've heard "retard" used far too often by physicians as well. The point is you can't necessarily count on docs to avoid pejoratives altogether. Maybe "simian crease" doesn't fall into that category (like I said I'm often a poor judge of such things), but I get mildly offended by it and can imagine that for example parents of children with Down syndrome would potentially be offended if they thought their children were being compared to an inferior species. (I recognize that humans are simians, but "simian" conjures up an image of monkeys and non-human apes.) Just throwing that out there. --David Iberri (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You don’t know what ‘pejorative’ means. If ‘simian crease’ had been created to insult people, or had evolved into a term intended to insult people, then it would be pejorative.  It is not.  The term you are looking for is ‘politically incorrect’.
 * Right you are. Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I’m quite glad I stumbled across this article. I now have a name for the shape of the crease in my hands!  :-)   — Chameleon 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Photograph
It would very much help the clarity of this article, to include a photograph, either of a the single transverse palmar crease alone or placed in comparison to a double creased hand. 128.192.196.200 04:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC) I was thinking the same thing ... dougmc 19:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was going to add my own picture, but I see there's already an image on the server. I don't know why it wasn't added originally.  If there's some problem, remove it, and I'll put an original image. Phildonnia 01:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Photos of children's hands with this are all over the Internet. How about including an adult hand? Here's mine that I just took. I won't put it in the article for now because the two images together would overpower the text, so I'll leave it here for your scrutiny. -WurdBendur (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice photo. I've added it to the gallery section, which is a common section in articles that have more images than is appropriate for the text. --David Iberri (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I hadn't thought of that. I could also take one of my left hand, which has normal creases, for comparison. -WurdBendur (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be genetic as well
My father, my sister and I have it (in different hands though). Though I've never really looked into that genetic option, that may be a thing worth research and worth noting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.15.22 (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How can three people have this in different hands? How many hands does each of you have??  — Chameleon 02:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Cons?
Are there any drawbacks having this peculiar crease? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.99.207 (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this trait really a "condition"??
The article states the association of syndromes with this genetic trait without any statistics, nor what percentage of the whole population has this trait. Furthermore the use of "condition" instead of trait or variance seems pejorative. ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.75.31 (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Manipulation of the RNA-DNA structure
Consider me a 66yr. old student of life and what I have learned in these 66 years is more than I can write in the short space allowed but hopefully you'll get the jist of my points (I hope) if I can put into words what I believe all humans need to know. I have been practising the Science of Self Realization for the last 33 years and I have come to an understanding from OUR INNer Source, the Source of all Life and here is what I have come to realize about our wanting to change or manipulate the genetic code so that no one will have to suffer, and no one will go through what we all see as "suffering".

The genetic code is the record of the history of the life experiencing the form they now have now ie. what eternal record that life force has; it is carrying that with it because of the activities it has carried out in previous life forms. By changing the "historic" record of the life form; we believe we will make the life form better.

Nature has a set of laws most of humanity is unaware of. A lot of what we experience is because of our consciousness. That is to say; what we constantly think about leads us to our destination. What acts we carry out have repercussions. If I try to bring harm to another life form the next life form I take I will have to suffer, from that same life form I caused suffering to in the next form I take. Those I associate with and effect I am indebted to so to speak. Because of the acts of 2 people I have this body. I was once inside my fathers body. I got to be in my fathers body by my father ingesting grains, also life forms. Within the seed of all life forms be they cucumbers, oaks, giraffes, or humans there is a force, it is an eternal force that is in fact the origin of all life. I call the force the "Life Force" for the sake of explaining our makeup. So ethereal a substance this force yet so powerful to have brought all life into existence. Proof that the life force is having the characteristics of eternalness is the fact that every seed when brought to fruition has the ability to produce many many many seeds, replicating themselves endlessly.

Getting back however to the point: Manipulating the genetic code. If in fact that genetic code is determining what quality of body the recipient has, and if the reason for the code to be what it is is the past involvement the life force has already had with the same energy we all use in this world. If we try to keep that life force from having to endure what was put there for a reason, We might well be prepared to take the suffering ourselves if that suffering is in fact brought on by the life force itself. "But," we say, "the child in the womb is innocent". Every evil person on earth that has ever lived has been an "innocent" child in the womb of its mother. I have yet to see a child diagnosed with "Down Syndrome" commit a crime. THere is some kind of protection put there that they might not have if they were "Normal". No don't get me wrong I don't want anyone to have Down's Syndrome. There is also another angle to this whole question about creating a "super race". If the consciousness of the father "empowers" his gametes why not try changing the consciousness of society at large so we can all be healthy, happy, prosperous, people. But herein lies the key.

Consciousness is the force that "empowers" the gametes inside the father. By the fathers consciousness he empowers the "like minded" gametes to gain the upper hand in the race for fertilization. That is the father who is "associating" with the "seeds" inside him is giving strength to the qualities of the gametes in him with the same. We all (men) carry "good" and "bad" gametes but good or bad in our eyes one way or another they are going to take other births. There are countless amount of "life forces" (every seed) waiting for the opportunity to manifest as "life" and they all continue on an endless cycle: birth, old age, disease, death, birth, etc.. Each life form determined exactly according to the last time it was life. Rather than unnaturally trying to impose your values of how life should or shouldn't look; lets get to the cause of the gametes inferiority to begin with: the consciousness of the father.

Why I would suggest that (changing the father's consciousness) as better is, #1 you don't change the laws of nature. #2 The RNA/DNA HAS RNA/DNA. That is, the qualities are reproduceable with their qualities (as a history) intact. Once a gene is cut into pieces, with those pieces replicating themselves with themselves (How cells keep producing other cells) if they are used to duplicate in another form of life you are going to see growths of tumor cells multiplying many times as shown by research done by Scientists in the European Union who found after 90 days test animals grew tumors 1/3 their body weight. That being the case I would argue if in only 90 days they saw tumors what will be the effect in 90 generations? After the code has been changed all the future offspring can be affected. Trying to change their DNA is like saying part of your life didn't happen. But everything that has gone on in your life is recorded in your genes. There is a more ethereal recording of our history going on that we know very little about. My suggestion however to anyone in the science of gene manipulation Please consider the implication to the future generations you will change and not be able to change back to "normal".

Please consider the possibility of what I am saying. The whole food chain could be at risk, what then? THis "science" of manipulation of genes is something that should be approached with extreme caution. The repercussions should be understood before anyone thinks they have a solution to making anything better they should learn how to undue what they have done incase the end result is not as planned as in the case of "super bees" and other such manipulation of species. None of this is good for us. If the fathers mind at the time of conception empowers the "desireable" gametes the gamete with those characteristics is more likely to fertilize the egg (embryo).

On sexual endeavors during pregnancy it should be noted that medicinal texts of the Ayurveda (an ancient Science of Medicine) advise against intercourse during pregnancy because it can cause down syndrome. Here again we have to realize the newly invited guest in the womb of the mother for the time being is sharing the mothers body. It can be assumed that everything the mother eats, drinks, breathes, hears, feels, the baby shares that with the mother. Once in the mother the mothers consciousness is going to help shape patterns in the embryonic "consciousness". When the mother is put under too much stress the baby also in the body of the mother has hormone changes going on inside, some due to personal association with others. Physically the child would be put in a place where chemical reactions from foods can harm the childs digestion, skin, etc. smoking, drinking alcohol, taking drugs, etc. all put a damper on the childs healthy development and should be avoided during pregnancy if at all possible. All of us would be better parents if we were given proper beginning from both mother and father. Unfortunately some medical practitioners will tell you the contrary and they are backed by the A.M.A. It is commonly believed by the medical society that intercourse during pregnancy is perfectly normal. Because of the texts of the Ayurveda I suspect in a good amount of Down Syndrome cases the mother and father may very well have indulged in intercourse.

Think about it this way; once the child is born are you going to invite the child into your bedroom while you're having intercourse? What to speak of putting them between you and your spouse. Respect the need of the child before your own insignificant desires and you will find your respect for your child's proper development will carry your child a long way.

If consciousness is responsible for the outcome of the child what then should be that consciousness at the time of conception? That is what we need to work on. Not cutting and pasting DNA. The history is in the DNA. Leave it alone or it will get you, your karma. "Your karma's going to get you"...George Harrison. With all seriousness any professional engaged in the science of genetics I hope you consider the unchangeable outcome of your experiment with life because life is keeping track of all we do.. its in there in the DNA. Dont change it or you change your own outcome too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B296:B6B0:756B:200E:CFDD:D21E (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)