• knorke3@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    10 months ago

    actually, you’re forgetting about amputees and people born with fewer limbs. it’s likely less than 1.

      • knorke3@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        the question is: is a skeleton that’s missing pieces still “one skeleton”? And if so, at which point does it become not a skeleton? Because i’m reasonably sure you wouldn’t call a severed foot a skeleton even though it is still arguably “one skeleton” that is just missing a lot of pieces.

        • Azzy@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          i think a skeleton is just multiple bones together that are attached. A pile of bones isn’t a skeleton, it’s a pile of bones

            • Azzy@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              If an anthropologist found a 2-million year old intact foot, I think they’d call it a skeleton, sure.

    • dgmib@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      And you’re forgetting that about 1% of the population is pregnant at any given time and has another whole human inside of them.

      • knorke3@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        honestly curious about how those two would end up statistically balancing out.

        • ferret@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          There are not very many amputees compared to pregnant woman, and babies have a lot more bones that are in your typical limb