The fingerprintless family

A beneficial evolutionary mutation?


Published: 9 February 2021 (GMT+10)
The Sarker familysabbir
Apu Sarker, thought to have no fingerprints due to Adermatoglyphia

In the modern theory of evolution, mutations in the genome are a key driving force in creating new information. In reality though most mutations are either harmful, or neutral at best. A recent BBC news story has highlighted a family in Bangladesh which have no fingerprints due to a mutation.1 Is this evolution in action or an example of a harmful mutation?

What are fingerprints?

Dermatoglyphs are the ridges of whorls, loops and arches that form on your fingers, palms, soles and toes. Every person’s patterns are unique to them, and do not change no matter how old they become. The ridges on the fingers in particular, fingerprints, have been used to solve criminal investigations, with the first conviction based on fingerprint evidence taking place in 1892 in Argentina.2 More recently fingerprints have been widely used in a range of biometric authentication technologies, such as passports, electronic payments, or even opening/unlocking your phone.3

A rare genetic condition called Adermatoglyphia prevents the development of the ridges, leaving the skin flat. While the condition was first discovered in 2007, it wasn’t until 2011 that a mutation in one gene, SAMRDAD1, was identified as being the cause.4 However:

‘“Nobody knew anything about [the gene]”, said Professor Eli Sprecher, one of the researchers involved – hence the years it took to find it. Plus, the mutation affected a very specific part of the gene, he said, “which apparently had no function, in a gene of no function”.’1

It was only by studying Adermatoglyphia that the gene was discovered to have a specific function relating to the mechanisms that regulate the formation of fingerprints.5

Beneficial or harmful?

While a number of movies may depict criminals removing their fingerprints to try and avoid detection (ignoring other forensic investigative opportunities), the reality of being without finger prints in the modern age makes life rather difficult. The BBC news article interviewed the Sarker family, living in the northern district of Rajshahi, Bangladesh, who appear to have carried the genetic mutation for at least three generations. While only a few decades ago the condition had little effect on their everyday life, this is not the case for them now.

AJHG (open archive)Fingerprintless
A confirmed patient with Adermatoglyphia with an absence of fingerprints

In Bangladesh fingerprints are now required to obtain a National ID card, passport, driver’s licence, etc., and even a SIM card for a mobile phone. Due to having no fingerprints the men have had significant difficulty in obtaining some documents and are completely unable to obtain others. The male members of the family even have to use SIM cards issued in the name of one of their female family members (she does have fingerprints) as they are unable to obtain one themselves. Adermatoglyphia, has also been called the “immigration delay disease” due to people with the condition being delayed in airports as custom officers were not able to obtain any fingerprints.

While the condition does present real difficulties in societies in which fingerprints are essential to participating in everyday life, it also has physiological disadvantages. It is known to reduce the number of sweat glands in the hand, making perspiration more difficult. Additionally, in three of the families documented to have Adermatoglyphia, “additional features such as congenital facial milia [small cysts under the skin], skin blisters, and fissures associated with heat or trauma were reported.”4

Wrong direction!

Such an example does nothing to help the evolutionary story which requires that a random DNA mutation causes new and useful information/structures to arise de novo. Rather, it serves as yet another example of a downhill loss of function, which, as society relies more and more on biometric authentication technologies, makes life all the more difficult for those with the condition. Our DNA was written by the Master Designer and is an incredibly complex, four dimensional biochemical computer operating system. However genetic entropy has been acting upon all life since the Fall, when God responded to human rebellion in the Garden of Eden by implementing the Curse (Genesis 3).

Our daily aches, pains, tragedies, and ultimately our deaths, are reminders that our bodies will one day break down and give up completely. However, God has offered us eternal life, through Jesus Christ, who conquered sin and death through His death and resurrection, so that all those who repent and believe in Him can be saved. This is good news to all people.

References and notes

  1. Sabbir, M., The family with no fingerprints, bbc.co.co.uk, 26 December 2020. Return to text.
  2. Wills, M., Fingerprints and crime, daily.jstor.org, 8 June 2018. Return to text.
  3. Fingerprint authentication is now used on many Android devices and iPhones (termed Touch ID). Return to text.
  4. Nousbeck, J., and seven others, A mutation in a skin-specific isoform of SMARCAD1 causes Autosomal-Dominant Adermatoglyphia, AJHG 89(2):302-307, 12 August 2011. Return to text.
  5. Stomberg, J., Adermatoglyphia: The genetic disorder of people born without fingerprints, smithsonianmag.com, 14 January 2014. Return to text.

Helpful Resources

Does Evolution Explain Everything About Life?
by Philip Bell & 10 Ph.D. scientists
US $10.00
Soft Cover
Genetic Entropy
by Dr John Sanford
US $20.00
Soft Cover

Readers’ comments

James M.
So it's NOT evolution, but due to a mutation?

Another way you could say it is that it is a perfect example of what evolution actually produces because it is a detrimental change.

Couldn't we say that evolution is basically the process of degenerating into less fit organisms through the build up of genetic mutations in the genome?
Philip Bell
Neodarwinists assert that mutations results in altered proteins de novo, which prove beneficial in some way, so are fixed in a population through natural selection. However, as numerous articles on creation.com demonstrate, mutations invariably are informationally 'downhill' changes. And even those mutations which seem invisible to selection, nevertheless increase 'genetic entropy'. So, yes, mutations are degenerative. Certainly, as this article demonstrated, Adermatoglyphia leads to disadvantages for someone living in modern society, albeit that it that it doesn't make a person less fit in the usual Darwinian sense. We wouldn't say, however, that "it is a perfect example of what evolution actually produces"; although I think I know what you're driving at, your construction would unwittingly lend credence to evolution's validity, when it is not biologically viable.
Geoff C. W.
Can the evolutionists explain why a useless feature (in their opinion) first appeared and then persisted?
Philip Robinson
That's a good question, but I don't know of any evolutionists who say that fingerprints (or dermatoglyphs) are a useless feature. While there is still some debate on all of their functions, they have been shown to aid in the amplification of tactile information, and provide a greater surface area for the top layer of our skin increasing the number of sweat glands making perspiration easier (further consequences of their loss are in the article). The bigger question is how did this feature arise in the first place? And the second follow on question is does it loss help the evolutionary fairy tales in showing how mutations may aide in causing new and useful information/structures to arise de novo? The article hopefully answers both, and points out that humanity is on a downward trajectory ever since the Fall of our original parents - Adam and Eve. The only hope of our restoration resides in Jesus.
Ed H.
This poses a mystery for me in that only recently I read an article - which, as I recall, was from your CMI as a source - wherein it was stated that fingerprints were the result of physical influences on the developing child which took place while in the womb (i.e. - not genetically predetermined). I know I did not imagine this claim because, when I read the article it was a notion totally foreign to anything which I had previously heard. Can you shed some light on this assertion and any previous articles by CMI regarding fingerprints? I appreciate and value your efforts in the defense of proper Biblical understanding of the world in which we live. Thanks!
Philip Bell
I cannot locate the article to which you refer on creation.com. Nevertheless, it is indeed true that the baby's time in its mother's womb is involved in fingerprint formation.

That is not to say that fingerprints are not under genetic control, but the question is, to what degree? Scientific research suggests that multiple genes are involved; i.e. it is complex. Recent research points to similarities in siblings' prints and shows that dominant fingerprint patterns are passed on generationally; yet more evidence for a genetic cause. Having said that, identical twins don't have identical fingerprints, so clearly there is more to it.

Numerous features of our appearance (phenotype) depend on a combination of our genetic makeup (genotype) and the environmental milieu, both prenatally and from birth onwards. We are familiar with the long-standing 'nature vs nurture' debate (in thinking why people are as they are) and even with statements like, 'you are what you eat'! There's truth even in the latter :). And yes, the milieu of the womb has a role to play in fingerprint formation. According the the respected Mayo Clinic in the US, roughly 23 weeks into pregnancy, ridges "form in the palms of the hands and soles of the feet that will later create the foundation for fingerprints and footprints" (https://www.mayoclinic.org/about-mayo-clinic); that is, the loops, whorls and arches. Some authorities say that the moulding of fingerprints begins as early as the second trimester of gestation (i.e. quite a bit earlier). In any case, while fingerprints do form because of genetics (hence a mutation can lead to Adermatoglyphia, as in the present article), uterine influences are also involved; which is why identical twins do not have identical print patterns.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.