Would you rather have feet for hands or hands for feet?
Would you rather have feet for hands or hands for feet?
Me personally, I’d rather have hands for feet. Makes me feel primal.
You're viewing a single thread.
Feet. Having hands for feet would be murder on the wrists. I mean ankles.
Ankists or wrankles?
Oi, stop moving the goalposts! The original question was already hard enough :)
You're going to want wrist bones down there. An ankle is intended to support a foot. Ever seen a skeleton?
You'll be quite weak until you've fully trained your new floor slappers, but at least they'll have functional range of movement.
Hypothetically, although I'm still partial to just sticking with the things that evolved to handle ambulatory locomotion, and leave fine environmental manipulation to the upper body.
I guess I'm confused what we're talking about specifically here. Our wrists stack up against the base of the hand, but if you look at a foot bone chart and how an ankle interfaces, it's more of a connection to the talus at a 90⁰ angle. I feel like you're going to need a hybrid joint that preserves the intra-articular surface and the mechanical connection for walking, unless your plan is to mainly exist as a climber.
My apologies. It turns out that the source of your confusion is... My utter lack of reading comprehension. You see, I originally misread the question posed by the post as what essentially amounts to "would you rather have hands or feet... for feet", and after considering the matter, concluded that the extra manipulatory capabilities didn't outweigh the drawbacks to movement, and so answered 'feet', i.e. "I'm good, thanks". You can see how the confusion percolated from there, I'm sure.
All good. Only thing I really wanted was a chance to use the phrase "floor slappers" in a conversation ^^