Assymetrical to symmetrical complexity

[godslanguage]

Symmetry is defined in the context of biology as:

“Symmetry in biology is the balanced distribution of duplicate body parts or shapes. The body plans of most multicellular organisms exhibit some form of symmetry, either radial symmetry or bilateral symmetry or "spherical symmetry". A small minority exhibit no symmetry (are asymmetric). “

From Wiki:

“Symmetry generally conveys two primary meanings. The first is an imprecise sense of harmonious or aesthetically pleasing proportionality and balance;[1][2] such that it reflects beauty or perfection. The second meaning is a precise and well-defined concept of balance or "patterned self-similarity" that can be demonstrated or proved according to the rules of a formal system: by geometry, through physics or otherwise. “

Asymmetry can be defined as an absence of symmetry. Modern technology consists of a vast number of examples of objects with symmetric and asymmetric qualities/properties. These qualities can be defined as operational or geometric. We find that in most cases of geometry, symmetrical objects are pleasing to the eye while the opposite is true of asymmetrical objects. When Wiki states “ aesthetically pleasing to the eye” to me it implies three things: masking complexity or simplifying, exposing key functions and adaptability. Masking complexity is considered a “black box” in many engineering disciplines. Basically, a black box is where you no longer care about whats “under the hood”, instead you look at what I/O it performs without getting into the details about what the MOSFETS logic gates are doing. North bridge and south bridge “chipsets” are a case in point. Programmable micro-controller chips are another. Adaptability comes from simplification, a function of “black boxing”. Simplification is mathematical, and requires intelligence to get it just right. At the highest resolution we find a Ribosome production assembly line from DNA to RNA to Amino Acids to Proteins to us (us being the lowest resolution). In biology, we find that the magnitude of symmetry is way beyond any technology humans have created. This could be that living systems are simply chemically based, however obtaining this symmetry is a daunting task. Consider a motherboard in a computer, the motherboard is usually geometrically a rectangle, if we look closer we find a vast array of chips, resistors, capacitors, buses and all sorts of connectors. As complicated as it looks if we take all this complexity and function into account, to arrange it in such a way as for it to perform the exact same function and for it to be as symmetric as possible is a much greater engineering task. The greater the complexity, the less is likely the ability for anything or anyone to make it symmetric. Symmetry can easily produce asymmetry, while the reverse is not true at all. We find that as designers of complex things, we cheat when it comes to symmetry, we hide a car engine with a big floppy front hood. Sure there are “design” considerations such as service and maintenance. We see virtually no signs of “cheating” in biology. The designer didn't care about the cost involved, just the payout.


Decided to add this to the OP:

Asymmetric to symmetrical design complexity (ASDC) is nothing short of a consequence of what we observe. An embryo, for example, seems to evolve backwards, where the symmetry precedes any asymmetry. In other words, the whole precedes the parts. Logically, this is the best way to make sure that the parts (asymmetric or not) "fit neatly" into the whole, by giving it a whole from the onset rather than like we humans do with cars and computers, which is slapping on a case or hood to hide the underlying components and therby creating the illusion of aesthetically pleasing. We see very little of that in design of biology. We see a process that anticipates certain things from the start instead of the end. Biology, in all its wonders is anything but an illusion of aesthetically pleasing or design.

[Sceptic]

Snowflakes are symmetrical, do they show evidence of design?

[godslanguage]

Snowflakes are symmetrical, do they show evidence of design?

Thats right, but thats not my argument. My argument is that the greater the assymetrical complexity, the lesser the chance that this assymmetrical complexity can form symmetry. Proteins assemble, while they are assymmetrical the eventual outcome by the sum of these assymmetrical constituents is symmetrical. So what comes first, assymmetry or symmetry? Do we start with symmetry (body plans) and work our way down to the assymmetrical proteins, or the reverse? Former seems more plausible than the latter.

[godslanguage]

Snowflakes are symmetrical, do they show evidence of design?

No, snowflakes aren't information processing systems, they form through the laws of physics and chemistry by symmetrical crystalization of water molecules. Look it up.

[Sceptic]

"the greater the assymetrical complexity, the lesser the chance that this assymmetrical complexity can form symmetry."

Um, sorry you've completely lost me.

Can you first define what you mean by "complexity", then "asymmetrical complexity", and finally "symmetrical complexity". None of it makes much sense. It would also be interesting to know what you mean by "simplification is mathematical, and requires intelligence to get it just right."

In any case, mammalian anatomy is not symmetrical, but I'm not sure whether you think that implies a designer must have designed it, or not.

[godslanguage]

"the greater the assymetrical complexity, the lesser the chance that this assymmetrical complexity can form symmetry."

Um, sorry you've completely lost me.

Can you first define what you mean by "complexity", then "asymmetrical complexity", and finally "symmetrical complexity". None of it makes much sense. It would also be interesting to know what you mean by "simplification is mathematical, and requires intelligence to get it just right."

In any case, mammalian anatomy is not symmetrical, but I'm not sure whether you think that implies a designer must have designed it, or not.

I'm using the standard defintion for complexity, asymmetry etc...You can look these up in the dictionary.

The defintions don't make sense?

I guess I'll have to take a more general approach.

The defintion of integration:

to bring together or incorporate (parts) into a whole.

to make up, combine, or complete to produce a whole or a larger unit, as parts do.

The whole represents the sum of the constituents. Each plays a functional and fractional role geometrically. Geometrically they can be represented as either symmetric or asymmetric. We find countless examples in biology of external symmetry with asymmetrical "internal" integration. This is expected of an intelligent designer since we design for practical as well as aesthetic purposes. This does not translate into "a designer always designs for symmetry", rather the evidence "lines up" neatly in the end from an ID perspective since its what we would expect given that this tendency to "complete" designs in this fashion is apparent. So now, simplification is simply integrating these massively complex assymetric properties and functions in such a way to expose and unfold symmetrical and thus aesthetically pleasing designs. Aesthics deals with preference and such, so there is no law that states symmetry is expected over asymmetry. This has nothing to do with beauty or none of that.

I will add more to this. I tend to think about new things obsessively so expect more to come.

[Sceptic]

You seem to have made a number of baseless assertions, followed by a non-sequitur conclusion.

The recurrent laryngeal nerve is a branch of the vagus nerve which innervates the larynx. But, instead of branching off in the neck and travelling directly to the larynx, it follows a long, looping course down the neck into the thorax, before doubling back on itself to ascend back up the neck to the larynx. This circuitous route is why it's called "recurrent".

As well as being perverse and wasteful, this anatomical arrangement makes the nerve much more vulnerable to injury. It's difficult to imagine a competent "designer" designing this route.

http://www.ghorayeb.com/RECURRENT_LARYNGEAL_2.jpg

[jlay]

As well as being perverse and wasteful, this anatomical arrangement makes the nerve much more vulnerable to injury. It's difficult to imagine a competent "designer" designing this route.

These are such ridiculous, agenda filled assertions. These are the same kind of claims about the appendix. Do we have any humans who don't have this perverse and wasteful 'design.' No. This just exposes the anti-god sentiment of so many. Design a better nerve. Be my guest

[Sceptic]

These are such ridiculous, agenda filled assertions. These are the same kind of claims about the appendix. Do we have any humans who don't have this perverse and wasteful 'design.' No. This just exposes the anti-god sentiment of so many. Design a better nerve. Be my guest

Oh dear, I seem to have touched a nerve, so to speak. They are factual assertions. Why design a nerve to be any longer than is strictly necessary? The longer the nerve, the longer it takes impulses to travel along it, and longer nerves are more vulnerable to injury than are shorter ones.

The appendix is another woeful piece of "design". Appendicitis is common and, until recently, often fatal.

If I were to design a better laryngeal nerve, I would run it direct from the Vagus to the larynx.

IIRC, there is a scientific theory which explains the route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in mammals. If only I could remember what that darn theory is called.....

[jlay]

If I were to design a better laryngeal nerve, I would run it direct from the Vagus to the larynx.

Then please do. All you have to do is start with nothing. When you are finished making your nerve from nothing, just let us know.

Could there be an undiscovered reason for the length of this nerve? Yes or no.

Appendicitis is common and, until recently, often fatal.

Diaherah is common. The flu is common. How does that prove design or not? It doesn't.
If a computer gets hacked, does that prove lack of design?

[Sceptic]

Then please do. All you have to do is start with nothing. When you are finished making your nerve from nothing, just let us know.

I already have, I ran the nerve direct, rather than looping it around large arteries in the thorax. This is a "design" exercise, right?

Could there be an undiscovered reason for the length of this nerve? Yes or no.

We already know the reason for the length of this nerve. Why look for another? To answer the question, though, in my opinion, no.

Diaherah is common. The flu is common. How does that prove design or not? It doesn't.
If a computer gets hacked, does that prove lack of design?

You can't "prove" a negative. For example, you can't prove The Tooth Fairy doesn't exist. The appendix is an example of suboptimal "design", though, as is a hackable computer.

[August]

Oh dear, I seem to have touched a nerve, so to speak. They are factual assertions. Why design a nerve to be any longer than is strictly necessary? The longer the nerve, the longer it takes impulses to travel along it, and longer nerves are more vulnerable to injury than are shorter ones.

The appendix is another woeful piece of "design". Appendicitis is common and, until recently, often fatal.

If I were to design a better laryngeal nerve, I would run it direct from the Vagus to the larynx.

IIRC, there is a scientific theory which explains the route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in mammals. If only I could remember what that darn theory is called.....

These are not factual assertions at all, they are value judgments made on what your concept of a proper designer should do.If not, please give us the scientific standard for "perfect design" and your metrics for measuring how this particular case hits or misses that target.

Anyway, you have not shown any evidence that this nerve can be shortened and retain all functionality. This objection is an old one, first raised by Ruse in 1995 and then again by Denton in 1998. In typical evo fashion, they tried to make as if this is simply a single-function nerve bundle that runs from point A to point B. Since then, we have learned that it isn't, it branches off in several places from the vagus into the trachea, heart and mucous membranes, in addition to looping back up to the larynx where it branches off in at least two places.

“As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior.” (Gray's Anatomy, Henry Gray and Henry Carter:)

So unless you can show that by taking a direct route all of the neurological functionality mentioned above will be retained, this is a non-objection.

[zoegirl]

Wow, two posters that we haven't hear from in awhile....glad to hear from you guys!!

[August]

Wow, two posters that we haven't hear from in awhile....glad to hear from you guys!!

Hi Zoe, hope you are doing great. Nice to see you too.

[August]

You can't "prove" a negative.

Wow, you are just a walking stereotype of bad skeptical arguments.