• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Why is symmetry such a dominent characteristic throughout the evolution of life?

R

ryan

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Messages
4,668
Location
In a McDonalds in the q space
Basic Beliefs
a little of everything
There seems to be almost every physical form of life imaginable, but yet they all share this common feature. I can't even begin to wonder why this is. But I don't know very much about biology, so I shouldn't be too frustrated.
 
ryan said:
There seems to be almost every physical form of life imaginable, but yet they all share this common feature. I can't even begin to wonder why this is. But I don't know very much about biology, so I shouldn't be too frustrated.
Click to expand...
It it the best design for movement.

Trees are not symmetrical.
 
untermensche said:
ryan said:
There seems to be almost every physical form of life imaginable, but yet they all share this common feature. I can't even begin to wonder why this is. But I don't know very much about biology, so I shouldn't be too frustrated.
Click to expand...
It it the best design for movement.

Trees are not symmetrical.
Click to expand...

The liver, heart, spleen, pancreas, etc. are not symemtrical either. Apparently there is no advantage for symmetry internally, supporting the idea that is an advantage externally only.
 
Snail organs are arranged to put the vital stuff inside the shell, not bilaterally symmetrical.
What's odd is slugs have the same arrangment, vital organs placed for the protection of a shell they've lost.
 
Artemus said:
untermensche said:
It it the best design for movement.

Trees are not symmetrical.
Click to expand...
The liver, heart, spleen, pancreas, etc. are not symemtrical either. Apparently there is no advantage for symmetry internally, supporting the idea that is an advantage externally only.
Click to expand...
I mean movement of the whole animal.

Look at our vehicles. Symmetrical.

Bilateral symmetry is a design that makes movement efficient.
 
untermensche said:
ryan said:
There seems to be almost every physical form of life imaginable, but yet they all share this common feature. I can't even begin to wonder why this is. But I don't know very much about biology, so I shouldn't be too frustrated.
Click to expand...
It it the best design for movement.

Trees are not symmetrical.
Click to expand...

Thanks, it's better than anything I could come up with.
 
untermensche said:
Artemus said:
The liver, heart, spleen, pancreas, etc. are not symemtrical either. Apparently there is no advantage for symmetry internally, supporting the idea that is an advantage externally only.
Click to expand...
I mean movement of the whole animal.

Look at our vehicles. Symmetrical.

Bilateral symmetry is a design that makes movement efficient.
Click to expand...

I was agreeing with you. External symmetry for movement, but internally there is no advantage (provided that the mass is distributed symmetrically).
 
Artemus said:
untermensche said:
I mean movement of the whole animal.

Look at our vehicles. Symmetrical.

Bilateral symmetry is a design that makes movement efficient.
Click to expand...

I was agreeing with you. External symmetry for movement, but internally there is no advantage (provided that the mass is distributed symmetrically).
Click to expand...
I wasn't sure. I thought maybe you were thinking of movement of another kind. But I agree with everything you say.
 
Symmetry is both "easy" and efficient. What's easier than "... and then do the same on the other side"?
 
Malintent said:
Symmetry is both "easy" and efficient. What's easier than "... and then do the same on the other side"?
Click to expand...
That's true but the other side isn't the same. It is a mirror image like our right hand is a mirror image of the left, not the same. This makes a big difference such as humans use amino acids but can't use their mirror image. I forget if it is the right-handed or left-handed amino acids that we can matabliize.
 
skepticalbip said:
Malintent said:
Symmetry is both "easy" and efficient. What's easier than "... and then do the same on the other side"?
Click to expand...
That's true but the other side isn't the same. It is a mirror image like our right hand is a mirror image of the left, not the same. This makes a big difference such as humans use amino acids but can't use their mirror image. I forget if it is the right-handed or left-handed amino acids that we can matabliize.
Click to expand...

yes, true... (it is lefthanded, by the way).

-1/x is the "formula" for "mirror image", I think. pretty simple, still.
 
The vast majority of life is not symmetrical. Bacteria and plants are obvious examples.

This entire thread is based on a bias towards Metazoans (and in particular, Bilateria*), that apparently rests only on the OPs personal membership of that particular Kingdom.

The short answer to the OP question is "It isn't".

The long answer is that non-symmetrical Eukaryotes are more common, both in terms of numbers and of biomass, than symmetrical Eukaryotes; and that Prokaryotes, few of which are symmetrical, outmass and outnumber Eukaryotes; so the real question is what has the OP got against, for example, bacteria? I mean, granted, you wouldn't want your daughter to marry a bacterium, but they are most certainly alive. And are rarely symmetrical.






*The Radiata are characteristically symmetrical, but radially, not bilaterally. Even including them, the symmetrical Metazoans are a small minority of 'life'.
 
bilby said:
The vast majority of life is not symmetrical. Bacteria and plants are obvious examples.

This entire thread is based on a bias towards Metazoans (and in particular, Bilateria*), that apparently rests only on the OPs personal membership of that particular Kingdom.

The short answer to the OP question is "It isn't".

The long answer is that non-symmetrical Eukaryotes are more common, both in terms of numbers and of biomass, than symmetrical Eukaryotes; and that Prokaryotes, few of which are symmetrical, outmass and outnumber Eukaryotes; so the real question is what has the OP got against, for example, bacteria? I mean, granted, you wouldn't want your daughter to marry a bacterium, but they are most certainly alive. And are rarely symmetrical.
Click to expand...
The OP should say "macroscopic animals". For them, bilateral symmetry is a dominant trait.
 
Malintent said:
skepticalbip said:
That's true but the other side isn't the same. It is a mirror image like our right hand is a mirror image of the left, not the same. This makes a big difference such as humans use amino acids but can't use their mirror image. I forget if it is the right-handed or left-handed amino acids that we can matabliize.
Click to expand...

yes, true... (it is lefthanded, by the way).

-1/x is the "formula" for "mirror image", I think. pretty simple, still.
Click to expand...
You’re right. Genes seem to be fairly cleaver and thrifty and it would take much less coding to reverse the “blueprint” for the other side than to make another blueprint. Though, being thrifty, they likely don’t do the math but just have the blueprint on transparency. One side built to the blueprint from the front. The other side built to the blueprint looking through the transparency.
;)
 
I am so glad that the very basic life forms have learned that love balanced by hate is stupidity, and love balanced by wisdom is me.

A clue, minus u. Alik Sakharov= Al Is Kharakov. My middle name is Al. Do not follow my post with conflict.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom