[HN Gopher] Life's preference for symmetry is like 'a new law of... ___________________________________________________________________ Life's preference for symmetry is like 'a new law of nature' Author : mhb Score : 26 points Date : 2022-04-02 20:40 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com) | forgotmypw17 wrote: | In sexual selection, a type of evolutionary selection driven by | mate choice rather than raw survival fitness, yes, that piece of | Darwin's writing which was suppressed by Victorian ideology for | about 100 years until being rediscovered in the 1960s, symmetry | is an easy show of control over the physical enviroment. | | By making more than one of identical somethings, you're showing | that it was not through chance or accident that you developed | this piece, but through deliberate growth and control, and you | can prove it, because you've made two or more of them, and the | viewer can easily check them against each other. | systemvoltage wrote: | A deeper way to think about this is that any phenomenon that | pumps out entropy from the system by injecting work + heat | tends to stand up like a sore thumb in the rather dull | sponteneaty of nature. I don't mean entropy in the naive sense | (order vs disorder), but as dispersal of energy (third law). | Not sure what the cause of such locality is - perhaps we can | call that intelligence? | antattack wrote: | "Why does symmetry reign supreme? Biologists aren't sure -- | there's no reason based in natural selection for symmetry's | prevalence in such varied forms of life and their building | blocks." | | Of course there is a natural selection reason - symmetrical | structures are stronger. | jlawson wrote: | They're also info-compressed. You can re-use the same DNA for | both sides. This means you have less meaningful information to | maintain against random mutation pressure over time. | | Symmetry is also challenging to maintain and very visible; any | malformation is obvious. This is useful in showing health and | genetic fitness to mates. | | Many tasks are also inherently symmetrical, like locomotion. | Evolving the two legs totally separately would be very error- | prone and you'd never quite get it right. Having them both just | be copies of the same structure is much cleaner and always | efficiently completes the task. | | Same for things like binocular vision, having ears that hear | equally and so can easily echolocate, etc. | jameshart wrote: | "symmetrical structures are stronger" - citation needed. | | Stronger under what condition? For the same amount of material? | For the same amount of information needed to describe how to | build the structure? | | Do we see evidence of structures which don't require strength | being more likely to evolve to be asymmetric? | | Or do you just mean 'stronger' in a survival-of-the-fittest | sense - symmetrical structures are fitter? | | It's not at all obvious to me that this should be the case. | Indeed, some very strong natural structures like shells are not | symmetric at all. | TheOtherHobbes wrote: | Mobile Cambrian seabed dwellers with asymmetrical legs | probably didn't last very long. | jameshart wrote: | Among the most successful seabed-dwelling form factors are | crabs and lobsters, which frequently have distinctively | asymmetrical legs, and gaits. | | Crabs are such a successful shape, crustaceans have evolved | into it five separate times. | Barrin92 wrote: | I'm surprised that this is characterized as such a novel idea in | the article because I'm almost certain I've had this discussion | ages ago on HN here. I think it was someone asking "why the hell | are there spirals everywhere" and multiple people pretty quickly | pointed out that self-repeating, symmetric, and fractal patterns | are simply a very easy, 'low-information' ways to build larger | structures. | zitterbewegung wrote: | A preprint of the information that was derived to make the | above article has been available for a year. | | https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.454038v2 | jazzyjackson wrote: | a mind-rewiring video by numberphile concerning the golden | ratio [0] made sense of all the spiral overlay art: | | yes, plants use it because it is an optimal solution for | minimizing overlap when sprouting leaves during growth, | maximizing spatial coverage | | but also, as a number that is least able to be approximated by | rational, erm, ratios - it is a pattern that most closely | approximates random patterns. So more than any other spiral, a | fibonacci spiral has the highest likelihood of overlapping | random points in 2D space... (and fibonacci series converges on | the golden ratio because they are equivelent expressions of the | continued fraction 1+(1/(1+(1/(1+(1/(1+(1/... | | [0] https://youtu.be/sj8Sg8qnjOg | Aerroon wrote: | > _' low-information' ways to build larger structures._ | | And I assume that these low-information ways are more likely to | emerge by random chance, because you have to get fewer bits | right? | amelius wrote: | The problem with spirals, though, is that they are not | symmetric. They are either left-turning or right-turning, not | both. | TuringTest wrote: | They are not symmetric, but they are self-repeating. You can | grow a spiral from a very simple set of rules on its lower | level substrate. | TheOtherHobbes wrote: | They're not geometrically symmetric, but they are symmetric | in the more general sense of applying an invariant | transformation. | stardenburden wrote: | https://archive.is/CVYlp | jw1224 wrote: | The universe appears to be fractal-like in nature, so I would | speculate these biological symmetries are a reflection of the | symmetries we find in the laws of physics, too. | | ScienceClic is an extremely underrated YouTube channel producing | incredible visualisations for scientific theories. They manage to | cover some very advanced concepts, in an easily accessible way. | | Their video on "The Symmetries of the Universe" was eye-opening, | and somewhat mindblowing in the context of the bigger picture: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF_uHfSoOGA& | wrnr wrote: | Nature uses symmetrie when it is useful, but if it isn't it | doesn't. Many such examples, L-sucrose vs R-sucrose, male- | female differences. The same in physics and mathematics, Higgs | mechanism is dependent on symmetry breaking of the weak force, | and in mathematics the very nature of symmetry (group theory) | has all sort of random exceptions of the pariah group of the | sporadic simple groups. | jazzyjackson wrote: | Personally I consider any "random" abberations to be symptoms | of the hairy dog theorom: you cant comb all the hair to lie | flat, somewhere on the spherical dog, you're going to get a | cowlick, it is unavoidable | | in the meantime, chirality is simply mirror symmetry : | curious part to me, is how mirror symmetry works out as one | half being the "inside out" version of the other, turn a left | handed glove inside out and it will fit the right hand. Maybe | points to 4th dimensional stuffs, I never could grok how to | turn a sphere inside out without pinching | DennisP wrote: | The article kinda says the opposite: that even when symmetry | gives the organism no particular advantage, it still tends to | get used because it's easier to code in the DNA. | | That doesn't mean there will be no counterexamples ever. | Sometimes asymmetry gives an advantage so it's worth the | extra coding. | hcrisp wrote: | The article mentions the human heart is asymmetrical, which was | an exception I thought of immediately. And actually there are | many more internal organs that are too (maybe more than are | not?), such as: - lungs (the right has 3 lobes, | the left only 2) - stomach - pancreas - | instestines - gall bladder - liver | | I once heard of someone that went to the ER for appendicitis and | when they imaged him, some of his internal organs were left-right | reversed! | beefman wrote: | Paper: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2113883119 | | Preprint: | https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.454038v2 ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-02 23:00 UTC)