Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How did Evolution produce Symmetry?
defenderofthefaith
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 73 (69817)
11-29-2003 1:42 AM


Let's try a hypothetical situation. Say you're diving at sea and you discover a carved marble statue. Would you say it was intelligently designed?

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by NosyNed, posted 11-29-2003 1:43 AM defenderofthefaith has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 47 of 73 (69818)
11-29-2003 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by defenderofthefaith
11-29-2003 1:42 AM


Probably, what does that have to do with anything?
How would you decide it is intelligently designed, if you would?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by defenderofthefaith, posted 11-29-2003 1:42 AM defenderofthefaith has not replied

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 73 (69824)
11-29-2003 2:03 AM


An important question is how bilateral symmetry is "implemented"; what developmental-genetic mechamisms cause the two sides to develop in sync? Are there some feedback mechanisms that keep one side from getting too far ahead of the other? It might be interesting to find out if there is some simple reaction-diffusion mechanism that can help maintain such symmetry, as there is for spots and stripes and other color patterns.
An interesting symmetry-generating mechanism was recently discovered; there is an article about it in a recent Nature magazine. It's about how plants grow and what effects produce the positioning of their leaves on their stems.
A new leaf is induced by the growth hormone auxin acting on the side of the growing stem tip; this auxin comes from further back in the stem. However, existing leaves soak up auxin, producing auxin shadows in front of them, forcing the next leaves to be offset from their angle in the stem.
CBMG
NCBI
Nature - Not Found
Nature Press Release for 20 November Issue
[This message has been edited by lpetrich, 11-29-2003]

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5151 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 49 of 73 (72187)
12-10-2003 8:21 PM


Ok..I'm new here so take it easy on me for a while...But here is my opinion on the whole symmetry thing.. Let's just say (hypathetically speaking) that someone was born with a short arm. Was that an advantage? Probably not so therefore the traits wouldn't be passed on to the offspring. But if a fish was born with one fin and one of its offspring had 2 and swam faster and better, then it would be seen as an advantage so the traits of the two finned fish will be passed on to the offspring and then the one finners will eventually be weeded out...That's my opinion and theory... Oh and there is a really good program on sexual selection and sexual characteristics by the Discovery Channel.. Can't remember the name but it's quite informing and interesting..I'll get back to you all on the name of it ASAP.

  
NoBody
Guest


Message 50 of 73 (72773)
12-13-2003 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by sidelined
10-22-2003 5:35 AM


nevermind, please bump post.
[This message has been edited by NoBody, 12-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by sidelined, posted 10-22-2003 5:35 AM sidelined has not replied

     
world
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 73 (72787)
12-13-2003 11:13 PM


symmetry? whats the big deal?
snowflakes
...and if this isn't enough, there 31 other classes of symmetry that are used to classify crystals. Please see
http://members.aol.com/jmichaelh/part2.html
The science is pretty solid on the crystal formation thing. It results from the physical and chemical properties of the crystallizing minerals.
No one has been successful in using crystals to prove God, but they are pretty cool.

  
Human Being
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 73 (72894)
12-14-2003 11:11 PM


Information Theory
Hello. I am new here, but I'm no "newbie". So make no assumptions about me. That said, I would like to preface my comments by stating that a couple people in this thread are arrogance personified, and also delusional about that fact. I think it's obvious who those people are.
What puzzles me is why the concept of Information Theory has not been addressed regarding the "puzzle" of symmetry. It seems painfully obvious to me that one HUGE advantage to symmetry is a decrease in the information necessary to "describe" any highly symmetric entity. While this affects matter both animate and inanimate, it is far more critical to the former. Perhaps amounting to less than a 50% decrease in some life forms, perhaps more than a 50% decrease in others, these "savings" must have an immense impact on the "lifetime" energy consumption of said life forms. Don't underestimate the potential requirements of DNA replication.
For those so inclined to accept "open-minded" theorization, I highly suggest Dan Winter's website and specifically his works on recursion. If someone wants to waste their time "debunking" Dan Winter, by all means waste your time.
http://www.soulinvitation.com/predictions/index.html
I know that other people in this discussion will greatly appreciate the angle that I am introducing. Consider the real costs of DNA as the number of genes increase. The "description" that begets a human being has been highly refined over time, regardless of one's preferred theory to explain said refinement. It seems quite logical to assume that life is the synergy of complication and simplification.
I will enjoy responding to any commentary, though I don't promise everyone a response.
[This message has been edited by Human Being, 12-14-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2003 11:38 PM Human Being has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 53 of 73 (72899)
12-14-2003 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Human Being
12-14-2003 11:11 PM


Symmetry Savings
You know, HB, that is an interesting idea.
However, I would start off doubting it is actually what is going on for a couple of reasons:
The human genome (unlike a bacteria's) seems loaded with more than it "really" needs. If this is true then the savings due to symmetry might be overwhelmed by that.
I suspect that the values in symmetry as a survival feature are more important than any savings in DNA management that there might be. My guess would be that if having an asymmetric form was advantageous it would be used and the extra DNA would be carried.
However, I sure don't have anyway of proving any of that. My guess is that we don't know enough to figure all that out.
If someone wants to waste their time "debunking" Dan Winter, by all means waste your time. I know that other people in this discussion will greatly appreciate the angle that I am introducing.
I'll make another quick guess here. It would, as you say, be a waste of time. I won't bother. It does however belong in another thread as it isn't on topic here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Human Being, posted 12-14-2003 11:11 PM Human Being has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Human Being, posted 12-15-2003 12:15 AM NosyNed has replied

  
Human Being
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 73 (72900)
12-15-2003 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by NosyNed
12-14-2003 11:38 PM


Re: Symmetry Savings
Thank you Ned. I apologize to all for the preemptive rebuttal regarding Dan Winter. My desire to avoid a negative tangent arising from his inclusion in my point inspired the tactic. I also wanted to stress how important I feel recursion is towards life. Recursion is the foundation of both self-similarity and symmetry, and the golden ratio can be seen as a tautology resulting from the manifestation of existence that is life.
The human genome (unlike a bacteria's) seems loaded with more than it "really" needs. If this is true then the savings due to symmetry might be overwhelmed by that.
I am speaking as a layman here, but I suspect that there are "meta-genes" within our DNA which describe aspects of human life that we have no awareness of. Our knowledge of our own form of life, while seemingly vast, is more likely quite sparse. I do concede I am making an assumption that "symmetry savings" have great relevance towards survival. I am much more comfortable with this assumption than other assumptions I'm reading about in this thread.
I suspect that the values in symmetry as a survival feature are more important than any savings in DNA management that there might be. My guess would be that if having an asymmetric form was advantageous it would be used and the extra DNA would be carried.
I firmly believe that "DNA management" IS a survival feature. DNA replication is fundamental to life. Thus, it seems intuitive to me that optimization of this aspect of the life cycle is critical to life's continued advancement. And life has been advancing for billions of years. Indeed, while symmetry strikes me as vastly helpful, of course it does not preclude asymmetry.
My last point seems like a restatement of others' previously made points. Provided that symmetry does result in the savings I theorize, it is equally intuitive that life forms who directly choose mates based on fitness indicators would see symmetry increasingly favorably. Such a life form "understands" on an "instinctual" level that symmetry is a boon to fitness and advantageous to enhance within one's offspring.
------------------
HB=CHIMP+TIME

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2003 11:38 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by NosyNed, posted 12-15-2003 1:13 AM Human Being has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 55 of 73 (72904)
12-15-2003 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Human Being
12-15-2003 12:15 AM


Re: Symmetry Savings
I am speaking as a layman here, but I suspect that there are "meta-genes" within our DNA which describe aspects of human life that we have no awareness of. Our knowledge of our own form of life, while seemingly vast, is more likely quite sparse. I do concede I am making an assumption that "symmetry savings" have great relevance towards survival. I am much more comfortable with this assumption than other assumptions I'm reading about in this thread.
We certainly do not know all that much yet, our knowledge is indeed sparse. However, you are proposing things wich we have "no awareness of". Until we have some awareness of them they are wild specultion with no reason for it and nothing further to say about it.
Making an assumption isn't very helpful without some idea of how to test it.
And you might want to specify "other assumptions". Are there some which are as little evidenced as yours?
My last point seems like a restatement of others' previously made points. Provided that symmetry does result in the savings I theorize, it is equally intuitive that life forms who directly choose mates based on fitness indicators would see symmetry increasingly favorably. Such a life form "understands" on an "instinctual" level that symmetry is a boon to fitness and advantageous to enhance within one's offspring.
Symmetry as a boon --You're not the first to suggest this. Have you read "The Red Queen" by Ridley?
Things which are "intuitive" may be right, they are also very often wrong. That is no more than a starting point for the very knowledgable whose intuition might be more to the point than the less knowledgable.
------------------
Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Human Being, posted 12-15-2003 12:15 AM Human Being has not replied

  
Human Being
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 73 (72908)
12-15-2003 2:06 AM


Information Theory
I am the first in this thread to suggest Information Theory as a crucial piece of the symmetry puzzle. I don't want a cookie, but I do want people to consider the crux of my thoughts a bit more than you have. Some of your responses to what I said come off as general-purpose debunkery. That's okay. My conjecture is clearly making you think, albeit in a "Devil's Advocate" way.
Of course if I wanted to spend hours and hours, I could compose a much more thorough post regarding my speculation. My intent, however, was only to introduce myself and a few brief points. I posted because I felt an important part of the discussion was being overlooked. I will leave all with my food for thought. I hope others do more than chew once and spit it out. Perhaps later I will make dessert.
------------------
HB=CHIMP+TIME

  
ChildOfGod2516
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 73 (73056)
12-15-2003 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by rokit
10-22-2003 5:20 AM


If it's part of natural selection, then why is it that no one has found any fossils that have more legs on one side or more eye sockets on one side, or something like that? Wouldn't there at least be fossils? Isn't it more likely that we'd find at least some fossils that were not very symmetrical than it is that all the symmetrical fossils that have been found were found.
An example of this is sticking a 'U' shaped magnet in a container of paper clips, nails, and safety pins, is it more likely that you will get the same number of each object on each side or that there will be a different number of each on each side.
Even though it IS possible that the first time you take the magnet out the sides will be symmetrical, how likely is it that every single step of evolution created a perfectly symmetrical creature the FIRST time? In the example of the magnet, how many times out of ten would you get the same number of each object on each side? Not many, so how many of the steps of evolution, where there are more possible outcomes, would end up perfectly symmetrical? Most likely not many.
In other words,
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FOSSILS THAT AREN'T SYMMETRICAL?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by rokit, posted 10-22-2003 5:20 AM rokit has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Abshalom, posted 12-15-2003 5:26 PM ChildOfGod2516 has replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 73 (73057)
12-15-2003 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by ChildOfGod2516
12-15-2003 5:22 PM


Quote: "If it's part of natural selection, then why is it that no one has found any fossils that have more legs on one side or more eye sockets on one side, or something like that? Wouldn't there at least be fossils? Isn't it more likely that we'd find at least some fossils that were not very symmetrical than it is that all the symmetrical fossils that have been found were found." CoD-2516
Does it have to be a fossil, or will the several species of flatfish like flounder suffice?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ChildOfGod2516, posted 12-15-2003 5:22 PM ChildOfGod2516 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Human Being, posted 12-15-2003 5:44 PM Abshalom has replied
 Message 61 by ChildOfGod2516, posted 12-15-2003 6:00 PM Abshalom has replied

  
Human Being
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 73 (73063)
12-15-2003 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Abshalom
12-15-2003 5:26 PM


Flatfish
How would flatfish "champions" reconcile their favored species' evolutionary path of asymmetry with that of Information Theory? Your positions on other points have been established. Does I.T. preclude their asymmetry? If so, explain how. Tell me, what do *you* think??
------------------
HB=CHIMP+TIME

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Abshalom, posted 12-15-2003 5:26 PM Abshalom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Abshalom, posted 12-15-2003 5:54 PM Human Being has not replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 73 (73068)
12-15-2003 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Human Being
12-15-2003 5:44 PM


Re: Flatfish
Q: "How would flatfish "champions" reconcile their favored species' evolutionary path of asymmetry with that of Information Theory?"
A: To survive by filling a niche.
S: "Your positions on other points have been established."
Q: Are you talkin' to me?
Q: "Does I.T. preclude their asymmetry?"
A: No.
Q: "Tell me, what do *you* think??"
A: I think I.T. is just another way of expressing the economy of nature.
Now, tell me how a Sassafrass tree with its three distinctly and differently shaped leaves fits into *your* theory of I.T.?
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-15-2003]
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-15-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Human Being, posted 12-15-2003 5:44 PM Human Being has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024