How can evolution explain body symmetry?

Do you mean by "evolutional progress goes the other way around" that one has had(sic!) single cells made colonial (say volvox etc) being radial into some kind of invertebrate with two sides??


This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-04-2005 07:08 PM

That depends on if the anus is NOT in pentagonal symmetry. The two illustrations in the upper right
are larval evidences to what you suggest. I was able to get pretty far a field as this page demonstrates with this group on that anus basis, especially in viewing the apparent sea squirt bilaterality as a pentagonal anal relation. On your understanding one must reject Agassiz's "I doubt whether there is a naturalist now living who could object to an arrangement in which, to determine the respective standing of Radiata, Polyps would be placed lowest, Acalephs next, and Echinoderms highest; a similar arrangement of Mollusks would bring Acephala lowest, Gastropoda next, and Cephalopoda highest; Articulata would appear in the following order: Worms, Crustacea, and Insects, and Vertebrata, whith the Fishes lowest, next Reptiles and Birds, and Mammilia highest. I have purposely avoided every allusion to controverted points." AN ESSAY ON CLASSIFICATION

This bilateral symmetry is an artifact of the original system that the body emerged from : [an attractor] Not all body plans that emerged from these attractors held to this symmetry. During the embryonic stage some developed asymmetrical body plans resulting from one intake aperture becoming dominant over another; ie{gastropods} See vesica attractor.http://EvC Forum: Gaia egg invalidates Darwinian macro-evolution. the vesica attractor -->EvC Forum: Gaia egg invalidates Darwinian macro-evolution. the vesica attractorThis message has been edited by metatron, 04-15-2005 07:32 PMThis message has been edited by metatron, 04-15-2005 07:34 PM

I think a perversion with choice is preferable theoretically unless you were willing to say something determinative about the wave-particle duality such as(the interference of bukyballs being different than neutrons and different than electrons) any duality is a result of failed use of math in the attractor that is defined by selfsimilarity of ordertypes in a quantum DISentanglemnet... but that statment of mine makes the general error. There are three things here- a body, what the body is made of, and what the body's environs are not just two slits in the universe. Bodies dont emerge. They exist.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-15-2005 07:40 PM

and that's what this link to your PNT is doing.Any further attempts to bypass the approval process will result in sanctions.

---

Interesting would be to investigate if blind animals, like moles, show less symmetry, then other animals. Sexual selection on symmetry, for a blind animal, must be a difficult task.

There are more ways to find out if a potential mate is symmetrical than just by sight.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

There are more ways to find out if a potential mate is symmetrical than just by sight

Please tell me, I am really curious.

Well, when a man and a woman love each other very much...

brad, have you ever considered submitting some of this stuff to a major art competition? I strongly suspect you would win!added in edit:your personal image, below your name, is a bit like the artwork of dave mckean, for example.Best wishes,MickThis message has been edited by mick, 04-30-2005 08:55 PMThis message has been edited by mick, 04-30-2005 08:57 PM

You mean by feeling eachother? How disgusting and how inaccurate.

Disgusting? In what way? Never mind. Did it occur to you that I was making a joke?

Yes, sure. But did it occur to you that I was making a joke?Anyway, a serious reply I don't have to expect here. Smelling or feeling symmetry is out of the question. Moles are as symmetrical as other vertebrates, so sexual selection is not the main selection force for symmetry.

nice idea for a research project though, peter. You need to find a bunch of closely-related species, some of whom are blind and some of whom can see. You might be able to find these in insectivora or rodentia.next you measure morphological asymmetry, fluctuating asymmetry or what have you, in each species. Complete your analysis with a phylogenetic test of the prediction that fluctuating assymmetry tends tends to increase when a lineage loses the ability to see.publish if you get a phylogenetic correlation, add to the filing cabinet if you don't.

There is nothing strikingly unusual about my pics except that they are not worked up for publishing. It is only because I REALIZED in the early 80s this faliure of best biology theoretically considered and put in print in 1998 by Ian Stewart (below) (Life's Other Secrect The New Mathematics of the Living World) and thus perhaps I had a head start on the generation of computer trained biologists do now have.The Cornell DEGREE was only offering me a future position that is now known to have failed. It would have been a mistake to have taken the best path in the past. I have simply tried to think about symmetry differently than Thanks for the comment anyway. I guess biologists must have Assumed SYMMETRY on this failed basis. This is still better than watching sports however