Talk:Earlobe

1

Vestigial organs? - the page cited [1] seems to suggest the earlobe may be a vestigium of the tragus which some sea animals use to close the ear canal, but it doesn't say it explicitly. Are there any other, clearer references? Good article, otherwise. Adambrowne666 11:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. I misunderstood the source, as well as the definition of vestigial organ (not merely an organ without a known function, but one that had a function which is now lost). I will remove the link. Fishal 16:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible use?

I remember reading about some researchers placing microphones inside ear-shaped moulds to record sounds from different directions. Turns out the shape of the ear modulates the perceived sounds, giving people a very accurate picture of where a sound came from in space (And if you make the same transformations on existing recordings, you can make it seem like the sound is moving in 3-D).

Perhaps they're not for identifying the direction of a sound's source, but for making certain sounds easier to pick out (such as a human voice). This is original research at this point, but might earlobes help with something like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.166.237.55 (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Earlobes Jewish

I heard somewhere that having earlobes means there is some Jewish blood or ancestry. I'm not Jewish and have ear lobes, not that care either way but just thought it interesting to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.243.122 (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As it says in the article - unattached earlobes are a dominant trait, so if one parent has them, then all their children will (roughly speaking). No necessary connection to Jewish ancestry. --NeoNerd 00:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not true that "if one parent has them, all their children will have them." One parent with dominant-appearing earlobes, may actually carry the recessive trait. Let's say dad. If he were to have children with a recessive woman with attached ears, then there would be a 50-50 shot that any given child would get a recessive gene from him. Since the child has to get a recessive gene from mom (that's all she has) the child would receive two recessive genes and have the attached earlobes. Geneticists talk about a person's phenotype, meaning what they look like. It is not the same as their actual genotype, or what genes they have. If we use L for dominant lobes, and l for recessive, a person who is phenotypically dominant can have the genotype LL or Ll. A person with attached lobes is ll. So LL x ll will always give Ll and be phenotypically dominant. Ll x ll will give a 50% chance of having children with recessive ll ears. I'm a recessive, and will try to add a picture of my attached ears later, which I think this article needs. Silverhlz (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That's the opposite, it's having attached earlobes that is said to be from Jewish ancestry.

Anyway, that's not a forum here and not the place to discuss it.

One of each?

I have one attached and one free, so ill assume this makes me some sort of genetic freak? Or when I was younger and had my ears pined back the doctor cut one of my ear lobes off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.179.231 (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

i want to know wheather any other single word or terminology is used for attached earlobe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.97.165.16 (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Earlobes conduct heat

Can earlobes conduct heat? My father taught me to grab my earlobes if I burned my fingers - when you do this the heat appears to cool in your fingers as your earlobes warm. Any science behind this? 80.229.213.154 (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No science about that, and it's not the place to ask science question. Not a forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:482A:65C8:73E9:A71B (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Why are you telling someone that asked a question 6 years ago, that this isn't a forum? 2601:483:100:CB54:A5E6:A1B7:9D69:80FD (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Not a simple genetic dominance relationship

It has been known for some time that free/attached earlobes are not a complete dominance/recessive one gene, two allele situation. The literature is cited and summarized here: [2] Campostoma (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've straightened out this dubious claim for simple dominance. TomHaffie (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Creased earlobes and heart disease

Supposedly, it's not just any ear crease that predicts heart disease, it's a specific kind of crease that runs diagonally from the bottom of the ear opening to the ear's lower tip.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2892/are-earlobe-creases-a-sign-of-heart-disease — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.67.150 (talk) 05:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Earlobes global map

Is there any map with the spreading of free and attached earlobes around the world? :) Bigshotnews 02:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews (talk • contribs)

Correcting Vandalism

I'm going to assume that the "Sam Flannery species" comment is low-grade childish vandalism, and take it out of there. rowley (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Earlobe type be merged in to Earlobe. The content in the Earlobe type article largely duplicates that of Earlobe, and I think it can easily be explained in the context of Earlobe without causing any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Ewulp (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I support it, they should be merged, but you should ask somewhere people read, here it doesn't seem the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:482A:65C8:73E9:A71B (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Not a forum here

Please tell people it's not the place to ask questions or to discuss if they have attached or non attached earlobes. It's a place to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:482A:65C8:73E9:A71B (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually people can discuss things here within reason, as it may lead to something in the article being added or fixed. 2601:483:100:CB54:A5E6:A1B7:9D69:80FD (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)