Why do we have a symmetrical body shape like animals?
Posted 11 December 2002 - 03:00 AM
(A description of evolution as imagined scientifically, based on logic)
Do we not feel that, like animals, we too have a symmetrical body shape? Are we not curious enough to question why the functions of our body and those of the beasts have a lot in common? Then…, what's the cause behind this?
As has always been the case in man's effort to expand his knowledge, which normally begins with his effort to imagine things on the basis of the limited knowledge he has acquired (from the early people), similarly this paper seeks to explain, by way of imagination, the evolutionary processes that took place within living objects.
That the evolutionists should say that man's body had been undergoing a series of evolutionary changes leads us to believe that when life first began to develop humans-to-be must have still been in an extremely simple form. In their further evolution-particularly after they managed to develop the ability to move around-whenever the body moved forward, the contents of the body would also move (shake). This would have been the time when the body started to be symmetrical.
Now, let's look at something that is very common in our life. Let's fill a hollow glass ball with peanuts, soybeans and corns kernels, then tap it on a flat surface and move it forward, as if it is a living being in motion.
After a while, we will find that all the contents of the glass ball combine evenly. Now, if we count the peanuts, soybeans and corn kernels on the right part and the ones on the left part, we will find that the numbers are nearly the same.
It is common knowledge that whatever substances there are in human bodies, all these are derived from what exists in nature. Molecules as substances in our bodies are no exception and have, therefore, to abide by all the laws (customs) in effect in nature. Is it possible for things such as exemplified above to occur in human bodies? Although in this example we moved the hollow glass quickly, and in short jumps (so as to speed up the process of what is supposed to be the process of evolution), this movement is, however, not so different from that of a living being. The body matters might indeed shift just a few Angstroms every time the body moves, and this new position (status) is bequeathed to the offspring, which will then shift a few Angstroms further, etc. etc. After billions of years the body might be able to transform itself into a symmetrical living being as it is now.
If this is still not convincing enough, let's apply some figures for the purpose of verification. Since one Angstrom is equal to one ten-billionth of a meter, a living creature, human being in particular, requires a change span of 10,000,000,000 Angstroms to make a one-meter change in its form. Scientists say that man has existed for approximately 3 ½ billion years, an implication that to achieve a one-meter change from the time he first came into existence until the present time, he needs to change 10,000,000,000 divided by 3,500,000,000, or approximately 3 Angstroms every year. Evidently, however, every time a living creature moves, all parts of its body tend to shift. For example, once it moves its left or right leg forward every part of its body will shift to the left or right. For these parts to get back to their original positions, they have to have total flexibility, which they cannot have. Added to this is the gravitational pull of the earth. It is estimated that with just each movement, not to mention a year's movement, the parts will shift a few Angstroms from its original position.
In the process of evolution, almost all-living beings that can move eventually form a relatively symmetrical body. The left side is symmetrical with the right side. This happens to both humans and animals. It should, however, be noted here that this happens only if the body condition enables such a transformation; otherwise, the separation will not be symmetrical, as is the case with some int
Posted 11 December 2002 - 04:48 AM
Thanks again for publishing your views at Hypography. You are always welcome to do so.
However, it is wise to check the facts before publishing your ideas.
Scientists say that man has existed for approximately 3 ½ billion years
Please show me even one scientist who claims this. To my knowledge current theory is that Homo Sapiens can be traced back about 200,000 years, when it first appears in the African geological records. It reached Europe only some 35,000 years ago. (For a quick source, see this link).
That symmetry in human beings (and in animals and plants) is seen throughout the ecosystem is not a suprise to anyone with even a slight knowledge about efficiency and evolution. We need two eyes for depth vision, we need two arms to hold the nail while we hammer it, we need two legs to walk. But the symmetry is also seen in non-biological entities, from the smallest of things (the Standard Model in particle physics) the the largest of things (the super-structures in the Universe). The reasons planets are spherical is because round shapes naturally form due to gravity (or else we would see planets of many shapes). And so it is with anything in nature. Nothing is singled out as particular, and to claim that human beings is at the top of any trail, evolutionary or not, is a strange view. We have existed for only a fraction of a fraction of the age of the Universe, and a tiny, tiny fraction of the age of the solar system. Our civilizations are only a few thousands of years old. The dinosaurs, however, ruled the Earth for millions of years, probably longer than mankind will be around. The crocodile and the tortoise are examples of animals which have been around for millions of years.
There is no need to invoke the mysteries of time and the sense of existence to place us at the throne of eternity. Dogs sense existence, too. Elephants have excellent memory of things past. Even plants show traits which hint at memory and a sense of "being".
As Carl Sagan always said, "ordinary claims require ordinary proof".
Now, THIS upsets me. If you want to quote people, use true quotes. Carl Sagan never said this, or, if I'm wrong, please show me where he says so.
Apart from this, your desire to tell people to put aside their own ideas, and then invite them to discuss your ideas with you, is at best amusing, at worst offending.