How can evolution explain body symmetry?

Oh, come on. Look, let's not be ridiculous, ok? Who do you think creationists are talking about when they say "intelligent designer?" That's a code-word for "God." My comment seems perfectly reasonable to me. Perhaps if you dispute it, that's a position you should support with argumentation, not simply name-calling. But I guess that's not your style, now is it?

Nonsense. We observe that it is astronomically more likely that a given organism is the offspring of another (or two others) rather than the result of spontaneous generation; thus, we know that the greater likelyhood is that all organisms are the decendants of another, except for the one organism for which this would be impossible.Therefore we easily conclude that common descent is the most likely explanation, because spontaneous generation of life doesn't seem to happen often enough.

What a twisted form of logic you display. You admit abiogenesis is more or less a statistical impossibility, but cling to it, but separate it by definition from evolution so you can argue evolution with explaining how evolution started, and then you claim that it is less likely with God helping, that abiogenesis or special creation or theistic evolution could occur.astonishing

Where did I say it was an impossibility? Show me.

We are not symmetrical internally, it was already said in the forum. But are we symmetrical externally? No, not really.- We are assymetrical vertically: that reflects one fundamental assymetry of the world surrounding us, gravity pulls in only one direction.- We are assymetrical front-to-back: we are constrained by gravity, and by other factors, such as the necessity to move. There are many ways of locomotion, ours happen to be this way, efficient movement forward with some limited capability for backward locomotion.- We are symmetrical side-to-side: the vertical assymetry is a consequence of the environment, and the front-to-back assymetry works well, there is no need for equally efficient locomotion in forward and backwards, thus this assymetric shape is actually efficient. Now, what about lateral assymetry? Once you are moving forward, two spatial axis are already set - the vertical, by gravity, and the front-back, by the forward movement itself. The third axis (sideways) presents no assymetry: the world calls for our attention on both the right and left sides equally. Therefore, with respect to the interactions with the world, sideways symmetry is an advantage: assymetrical individuals would be easy preys on one side. A person with one substantially shorter leg would have problems moving as fast as a laterally symmetrical individual (and when running away from a lion, the symmetrical one will probably live longer and eventually reproduce!)Sideways symmetry is required only externally, due to the factors explained above. Internally, not much symmetry is really necessary (other than that required for the external functionality).Notice that such layout doesn't strictly need to be produced by intelligent design, but it is understandable as a consequence of evolutionary pressure, survival-of-the-fittest, a very earthly explanation.Finally, allow me a very short digression here. At first glance, evolution is unsatisfying, as we would rather be the consequence of a very special design from God. And maybe we are, but on a much more subtle level. Evidence of intelligent design is not necessary available for us even if it exists, since any formal system that is "powerful enough" contains true statements that cannot be proven through any derivation within the formal system itself (for a truly remarkable discussion on this subject, see "Godel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter). Operating only within the rules of the formal system, one cannot always reach the level of understanding that is available to one who works on a higher level, "outside the system". Which means that God might be completely beyond our reach, and this time "by intelligent design".On a more practical note: by "working outside the system" I don't mean making unscientific explanations, as opposed to scientific theories (which would be "working inside the system"). Merely existing in this universe means that we automatically operate within this formal system, and "working outside the system" is just impossible. If there is a meta-universe, it is inaccessible.

We're glad you're here but I notice you have about four registrations. How about letting us know which one you prefer and we'll get things straightened out for you.

---

The harder problem is for evolutionists to keep on explaining symmetry rather than the amorphic alternative.The title of the thread was "How can evolution explain body symmetry?".Simon Levin once told me to think about EVOLUTION as Jacob did, that it creates"" much like a tinkerer in a junk yard. The odd thing is that he suggested this to me because he was unable to fathom the determinations I was suggesting to him from Salthe's book "Evolving Hierarchic Structures" while I was trying to express how cross-level phenomenona might be dimensionally related. So... concluding that bodily, the externals suggest asymmetry rather than symmetry is trivially an easy position TO BE IN. Any old junk yard dog is not that bad at making a leroy no matter what the color is.Why are not we radially symmetric like a jelly fish?I know of no evidence that shows that the environment acts equally on the left and right sides. This seems to be at best your intuition. Why can not the relation of symmetry and asymetry you suggest be the result of the different pressures of atmosphere vs. the unevenness of the ground in the same formal symmetry of the jelly fish.It seems to me that simple removal of various levels of organization in the Gladyshev law (proteins in the eyes, cells that dont duplicate etc) not subject to renewal could* equate radial and bilateral symmetry.The reason that the equation is difficult for evolutionists seems to me to be due to Kant's insistance that left and right sides SHOW the existence of GOD, but until the monohierarichies are clearly delimted chemically, it seems premature to rule out the FURTHER approach to the unconditioned that ID might additionally suggest is combinational among all relations of symmetry and asymmetry (whether explained by chance or necessity) in a acutal case rather than this that is possible.(Jar if you are wating for confirmation from Random123 on which of the 4 registrations is active I will not continue this posting sequence at this time).************************

quote:

---

THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS AND EVOLUTION OF LIVING SYSTEMS

​

Georgi P. Gladyshev*
International Academy of Creative Endeavors
San Diego, USA — Moscow, Russia
N. N. Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences

​

Note that the internal medium and many fragments of nondividing cells are nevertheless renewed due to metabolism.
The use of expression (2) actually means that, in the given case, the law of temporal hierarchies assumes the following form:

​

<< << << << << . (3)

​

Here, ( ) is the mean lifetime of molecules (chemical substance) involved in metabolism in the body, ( ) is the mean lifetime of all intermolecular (supramolecular) structures of tissues renewed during individual growth and development, is the mean lifetime of individual organisms in a population, and is the mean population lifetime. I have deliberately excluded the lifetimes of cells and some other complex supramolecular structures from the series of strong inequalities (3) for the reasons indicated above. However, this series certainly represents a general law of nature consistent with reality and reflecting the existence of temporal hierarchies in living systems.

---

Georgi was kind enough to have sent this to me last week.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 07-01-2005 01:20 AM

"amorphic"? No idea what you are talking about, Brad McFall.

Hi guys was just browsing around and thought I would drop in, interesting forums you have here......evolution cannot be used to explain bodily symmetry for one simple reason...In the evolution theory, all things in nature are supposed to be in balance...equal spacing of matter...so it really isn't a fair question that evolution can answer because we know all matter in the universe is not in balance and or equally spaced...trying to use evolution theory as a unit of measure to weigh an argument against or for, is like trying to measure in centimeters with an imperial ruler.I see lots of talk about evolution here but alot of people are unfairly tagging all kinds of naturally occuring things "Variations" (Development) and are assimilating it with the term evolution, the fact is, there really is ony one recognized form of evolution and that is Micro-evolution.Here's the 6 common definitions so that it can be cleared:1)Cosmic Evolution: The origin of space, time and matter.2)Chemical Evolution: Origin of higher elements from Hydrogen; If the "Big Bang" produced H2, how did all the other elements form from Hydrogen and Helium?....so evolution definition #1 has not been observed and or been proven.3)Stellar & Planetary Evolution: No human has ever witnessed the "birth" of a star. There are assumptions being made that we are witnessing what could possibly be the pre-quil to the birth of a star but again falls into the "well it takes millions and millions of years for the birth of a star to happen so we won't see one in our lifetime".4) Organic Evolution: There is absolutely no evidence to support organic evolution whatsoever.5)Macro Evolution: Changing from one "kind" to another not a change of species.6) Micro Evolution: Variations within "kinds" only this one has been observed and should be re-defined as "Macro Variation" not evolution.That is pretty much the definitions for evolution but unfortunately because those who study and believe in evolution have witnessed Micro Evolution they try to say that Micro Evolution proves all the other 5 definitions.So basically from reviewing the discussions, clearly evolutionists are still trying to attach the first 5 definitions to the 6th definition, attempting to establish them as fact, when in fact even the 6th definition is not true evolution it's "Variation" within the species or better defined as "D-E-V-E-L-O-P-M-E-N-T"Development, which again, provides no substantiated evidence for evolution, no matter how you break it down with genetics, that elusive "Missing Link" continuously rears it's ugly head...apes and man for example have 2% of the genes that cannot be linked so scientifically it doesn't exist until the 2% has been proven to make it 100% fact, other than that, it is in error until proven otherwise.Christianity came first, gave birth to science and unfortunately the theory of evolution, but fortunately, the same science is also paving the way back, not to common ancestry but to a common "Designer" and the more evolution uses science to dig for the facts the more it just keeps pushing towards "Intelligent Design".All cars are manufactured with the same materials but were all designed by the same group of designers...humans, so they have uniquely similar traits to one another, if God created all living things then yes everthing would have been created with quite similar biological and chemical compositions but ultimately each and every car being different but yet still an automobile.One thing is for sure the terminology and definitions for evolution are being severely played with by the evolutionist community. Attempting to keep calling theories fact, when every theory still has it's missing link is just not scientific whatsoever.This message has been edited by MrSmee, 07-03-2005 10:51 AM

That which is called the Theory of Evolution is about how life forms evolved on earth. That's all it's about. It's also not about how life began in the first place.You seem to be using the term "evolution" is a very general sense.

Hello, MrSmee. Cool name, a Peter Pan fan?Most of your post is off-topic, but a discussion of these things would be useful. Perhaps you can find some ongoing threads where some of these points would be more relevant? You could start a new thread, too, but there's too much, I think, in your post for a single topic -- people here prefer that threads more or less focus on a single subject, or at least a very narrow range of topics.Anyway, there is one quote that does stand out:

quote:

---

All cars are manufactured with the same materials but were all designed by the same group of designers...humans, so they have uniquely similar traits to one another, if God created all living things then yes everthing would have been created with quite similar biological and chemical compositions but ultimately each and every car being different but yet still an automobile.

---

Since the heirarchical classification of life is something I find fascinating, I will risk the displeasure of the moderators by commenting on this off-topic.It is true that different cars show some similar characteristics; however, by using different characteristics (number of doors, number of cylinders, carburator or feul injection) one can construct very different "family trees". However, when it comes to the Linnean classification, it appears that essentially the same trees always come about no matter which characteristics one uses to classify them. Unlike any classification scheme for cars, the heirarchical classification scheme does seem to indicate that there is some more profound organizing scheme that nature is using -- certainly more than some "common designer" is willy-nilly using common designs in randomly chosen species.Here is a link that discusses the concept of nested heirarchies a little more. Douglas Theobald's entire essay here is my favorite web page; I highly recommend reading the entire thing.Anyway, further discussion on this, if you are interested, should be in another thread.Edited to try to add a subtitle.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 03-Jul-2005 03:21 PM

You need to know: these "definitions" aren't in the least common; they're just something Kent Hovind came up with. The only people who use these are the people who come over here from Hovind's websites, etc.You don't have to take my word for it. Present this to the biology department of your local university and see how widespread this is among the people who actually do work in evolution. If you find anybody who's heard of this stuff outside of Kent Hovind websites, I'll be very surprised.But, look. There's no such thing as kinds. Or rather, all organisms are in one big kind, so there is no difference between 5 and 6 on your list. Uh, no, we're the ones who came up with the definitions, and they haven't changed since. It's you guys who are playing the word games, like you did in this post.

Niche constructors concluded to a neutral directum kinematics relative to relative frequency differences. Neutral evolution could also detail amorphic structuring (random lumps on a prior differentiation) but conceptually the notion is retainable by reading both MacArthur and Hutchinson on the niche (Population Biology and Evolution Edited by Richard C. Lewontin 1968 Syracuse University Press pp 159-177 The Theory of the Niche by R. MacArthur & 177-187 When are Species Necessary? by G.E. Hutchinson )This would be hereditary transmission of mutable information a la Waddington op. cit. page 37.

quote:

---

It is essential that biologists should be as careful and precise as possible in formulating an adequate and profound theory of evolution, since it is now widely recognized that this is the most central theory in the whole of biology. In the first quarter of this century the most influential biologists considered that the basic characteristics of life is to be sought in the metabolic activites of living things. A biological system, they pointed out, is one which takes in relatively simple substances from its surroundings and elaborates these into more complex substances. It appears to operate in a manner directly opposed to the second law of thermodynamics. Later it was realized that these apparent contradictions of fundamental physical law are only temporary, and indeed, occur only in parts of the total system and not in the complete system which comprises both the living organism and its environment. The search for a fundamental theory of biology then shifted towards genetics. A living system began to be regarded as basically one in which there is hereditary transmission of mutable information.

---

Thus something illegal as to matter may not be in form.The amorphic form, say like a lump of mashed potatoes or a clump of clouds, one that has not intrinsic symmetry, is cognized in multidimensional space connecting taxanomic and niche space. Now without reducint this framework to essentials, one must remand MacArthur’s , People who insist that all such terms be operational will reject niche just as they must reject phenotype and genotype as involving an infinite number of measurements; but some statements about differences between niches are perfectly testable, which is all that mattersp160-1.Hutchinson wrote,One/you has/have to conceive the intitial conditions such as to force the boundaries FARTHER than in T.The discipline of macrothermodyanmiocs has appeared to me to return just such a geometry lest my analysis is faulty. That is ever present indeed but unlikely.The unit might however exist symmetrically and still go unsynthesized to my comments on Carnap on EVC.

quote:

---

ABSTRACT
The classical formulations of the second law of thermodynamics are presented. Some mistakes in the understanding the physical meaning of this general law of nature are noted. It is asserted that many misunderstandings of the second law of thermodynamics are related to terminological confusion and the underestimation (the disregard) of the theory developed by J.W. Gibbs and other founders of "true thermodynamics," which is impossible to disprove. To a certain approximation, R.Clausius and J.W. Gibbs' thermodynamics is applied to describing the evolution of living systems. This is possible due to the law of temporal hierarchies and the premise that the functions of state of living systems have real physical meaning at practically all hierarchical levels and at every moment of time. Making no pretensions to perfection, the author offers some advice to researchers dealing with thermodynamics. The author believes that, when considering thermodynamic problems, "ambiguous" terms and definitions should be clarified preliminarily in order to preclude possible misunderstandings. It is also advisable to refer to the classical works (including textbooks and encyclopedias) that the authors of publications have used. This will allow the correctness of the results reported to be estimated at least preliminarily.
Keywords: Second law, thermodynamics, chemical thermodynamics, entropy, Gibbs function, Gibbs energy, full differential, law of temporal hierarchies, evolution, living systems, quasi-closed systems.

​

" the true and only goal of science is
to reveal unity rather than mechanisms"

​

Henri Poincar

---

quote:

---

. Owing to efficient publicity, these colleagues were convinced by hardly comprehensible (in physical terms) formulas and doubtful argumentation. In my opinion, the supporters of Prigogine's theory were, in a sense, deceived. Although Prigogine's theory proved an impasse, it still has its followers. Nevertheless, no numerical data obtained from either experiment or observations have confirmed the theory even at the qualitative level [20, 22].

---

quote:

---

THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS AND EVOLUTION OF LIVING SYSTEMS

​

Georgi P. Gladyshev*

---

These are from the same reference as in the post you last responded to. Further linkage availble on request.

The New YorkerI think the analogy the author uses to describe a direct route to an irreducibly complex system is quite humorous. Our first random mutation built us a simple 600$ Garmin and a 12 billion dollar satellite system. The next random mutation will build us a computer that can drive our vehicle for us. After all, "no one would be surprised" by that. Now if the molecules all came together in the right fashion, and this new mutation appeared by itself (hey, he made the analogy), I might be surprised, but the author is right, I certainly wasn't surprised to see this. Ask yourself why? Why does it seem LOGICAL to link a location finding device to a location changing device? I would argue it's because you're intelligent. Of course, I'm not smart enough to do it myself, but I certainly conceived of the idea long before this author published his article. H. Allen Orr seems completely unphased by the fact that his first example of a direct path to an irreducibly complex system involves quite a bit of guiding intellect. He goes from saying "We add new parts like global-positioning systems to cars not because they’re necessary but because they’re nice" to saying "It’s important to see that this process is thoroughly Darwinian" three sentences later. I'm sorry but that's total crap (and only takes like 10 seconds to read). Our adding of anything at all to almost any other thing in industry is almost NEVER Darwinian. It is DESIGNED, quite painstakingly I might add, to make more money.Perhaps it's curious to you that he didn't use an example from nature, you know, since they're obviously everywhere. Instead we get a double cop out in the next analogy (also not from nature). We're not sure why, but we know this "bustling urban street" evolved incrementally (I think partly because that's the point of the analogy and because we'll eliminate "Urban Planners" later, in case you know what those are or have a tyrannical one running your city... like I do). Now firstly, although we know it evolved store by store, each store has so affected the other, that we lost a large part of the evidence as to which came first. Oh, and secondly, it's not irreducibly complex. Remove one shop, and the other shops don't cease to function.It's not like I can't conceive of what he's trying to describe, but it's hard to ignore the elements of intelligence and design he chose to include as his analogies. You can't convince me intelligent design is "junk science" if you rely upon it for your analogies to work. At best you would have junk analogies.

quote:

---

Our adding of anything at all to almost any other thing in industry is almost NEVER Darwinian. It is DESIGNED, quite painstakingly I might add, to make more money.

---

This is a complete misunderstanding of how design really works in human culture. Human design is a process of trial and error, and passing on successful approaches to students. In this respect it is exactly analogous not to divine creation, but to natural selection. Each time something is thought that might work, it relies either on past experience, that is, trial and error, or some leap, large or small, that is not guaranteed to be successful until it is tried out. Individually we learn by personal experience; corporately we learn by the experience of many.