How can evolution explain body symmetry?

Brad, thank you for refocusing us all on the topic at hand: Entropy, eat your heart out.It seems to me that CrackerJack challenged the evolutionists to give a ToE accounting of bilateral symmetry, and that challenge was admirably met. I don't claim that any Creationist or IDer has conceded that point, but there has certainly been no persuasive rebuttal.Now I am curious about the flip side of CrackerJack's assertion, summarized from his final post in this thread:

quote:

---

The symmetrical life forms we do see are consistent with what an intelligent designer could produce...

---

I would like to ask two questions of Intelligent Design proponents:1) Does symmetry suggest an intelligent designer?2) "could produce" seems so boundary-free as to be meaningless: Do IDers generally embrace that "could produce" test of criteria that support Intelligent Design, or, alternatively, can they justify the stronger "would produce"?

Suppose you suddenly heard a voice saying: "Hello PurpleYouko, here is God, the creator of the universe, your mother was right, the world was created only 5000 years ago." How to deal with such a voice and in addition: don't you agree with me that Iano is a true scientist, because:1) Iano observes that God behaves regularly and he observes a pattern to this phenomenon.2) Iano studies God and tries to figure out how God works3) Iano tries to figure out how God works by coming up with ideas that explain what we see.4) Iano is testing his ideas about God by noting what else we should see if his ideas are correct and then checking if we see those ideas.What I want to say: How to deal with people who feel the existince of a God?

So, Peter, how do you think Evolution can or cannot explain body symmetry?

I would say, "would produce" remands knowledge of a natural purpose vs, any-old-"product" hence 'could' but I did not read the post through. Evolutionists dont TEACH the search for natural purposes in natural history but rather have focused us on leaving any such ecosystem (Eldridge) and documenting natural selection in nature. Artifical selection gets the product that would be produced if the natural purpose on some geography demands causation of educts currently not MANuFACTured.It is certainly easier to depose symmetry for an intelligent desginer (do nothing, say nothing) than it is for measures of varation that per existence are variable(defend a line).

Evolution explains body symmetry, as gravity explains how a stone rolls of a mountain.This message has been edited by Peter van der Hoog, 08-14-2005 07:16 PM

HUUHH? I don't recall him mentioning God at all. What? Are you reading the same thread as me? UUHH? No he doesn't. A least not in his messages to me. No he isn't and what does any of this have to do with the thread anyway? I don't have the faintest idea seeing as how feelings of any kind are not scientifically defensible.
Besides which this is even way off topic for the OT part of the thread and it has absolutely zip to do with body symmetry.

You never feared God’s voice? Iano is a Christian. The existince of God is a reality for him. Yes, 200% sure. Yes, he is. Iano is testing his ideas about God by noting what else we should see if his ideas are correct and then checking if we see those ideas. Read all his messages and you will agree with me. Your reactions have no relation with symmetry, so who is blaming who? At least I am thinking of symmetry, while typing these sentences. Sorry? Anyway, all I said was: How to deal with a person like Iano, who thinks God is a reality. Is that such a difficult remark/question? At least I am thinking of symmetry, while writing this and I did make some relevant remarks, regarding body symmetry. You haven't.

Nope! Never feared the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy either. I don't see this. Iano was suggesting that science in general and evolution in particular is indoctrinated into our children at school. What does this have to do with God? Granted that my responses were off topic but I attempted to correct that by discontinuing my discussion with Iano while he took it to a new thread. As I said before, your questions are even off topic for the OT bit of the thread. I just don't see the connection.

Peter writes:

quote:

---

Anyway, all I said was: How to deal with a person like Iano, who thinks God is a reality. Is that such a difficult remark/question?

---

Peter, I think that would make a wonderful topic: How do we deal with someone who asserts privileged communication with the divine? I suppose the spectrum would run from the person who hears God give instructions to blow people up to the person who hears God give instructions for contemplative solitude or good works.Another way to ask the question: Should we treat any behavior differently because the actor claims divine guidance, or should we act strictly on the basis of the behavior itself?Should someone like you, or Iano, who insists on violating the topic guidelines in a public forum, be given greater leeway because the transgression is claimed to be divinely inspired, or should they just be suspended?How do we discern the mischievous from the mad, the saint from the psychopath?If you propose that topic, I assure you of my participation.

For sure, it would make a wonderful topic but with only you and me, it will be like mum and dad discussing Santa Claus.What we need is:- An atheist, with a scientific approach and no resentment versus religion
- A religious person, with a scientific approach, and no resentment versus atheism.Neither Iano nor PurpleYouko fall within those categories and God knows about you but I still resent the people who tried to force these horrible religious believes onto me.What do you think comes more natural, to be an atheist or to believe in God? Somebody once told me that to believe in God requires a lot of energy. In addition, who do you think lives longer, an atheist or a believer in an afterlife? When a believer suffers tremendous pain but he knows paradise is waiting for him, he would give in, don’t you agree?

Great question but OT here and we're near the witching hour anyway. Why not take the question, "In addition, who do you think lives longer, an atheist or a believer in an afterlife? When a believer suffers tremendous pain but he knows paradise is waiting for him, he would give in, don’t you agree?" to a PNT and see if theres meat for a discussion?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Studies show that the likelihood of major depression among highly religious Pentecostals is three times greater than among persons who said they had no religious preference. Other investigators have also shown that the religious are frequently among the lowest in mental health. The Epidemiology of ReligionYes, there is "meat for a discussion" but is there enough relation with evolution or ID? Perhaps this question has more chance to become a New Topic?

Er... what are these things? Are they similar to F4, TK and R*?This message has been edited by mick, 08-16-2005 07:11 PM

There are some simple answers that I am not seeing. Imagine a human, dog, cat, spider or any other animal with unsymmetrical legs. Running would be quite difficult and inefficient without symmetry. So evolution does tend to support symmetry.If a new trait is generated in a species, and that trait does not cause a disadvantage, it can be propagated and become a part of the species. There is no required that a change be beneficial. I posted a thread on auxotrophy, ( in the proposed threads section that no one has reviewed ) that is applicable.And as was said earlier, the mere fact that no person has demonstrated that evolution supports some concept, is not evidence for some higher power, i.e. GOD.