Parallel traits question.

[Sanoy]

Got a few questions for those that know more about this stuff than me. If you are giving an answer to this OP please @ me, or quote some bit of it so I get notified and it doesn't get lost in the side discussions. (it's not a strict thread so side discussions are fine)

What is the name for the evolutionary method that causes dual parallel traits (IE bilateral symmetry, thanks pitabread) rather than individual traits like a tail? For example,
Nostrils
Ears
Eyes,
Fins/wings/legs.

There might be different methods for certain things, for example plain ol natural selection would be fine for nostrils, but it's probably going to require a unique system to go from no limbs to parallel limbs. IE limbs that don't turn you around in a circle. It might even require multiple systems because a simple addition of an eye might be a detriment if not accompanied by a cognitive system to combine visual stimuli into a coherent visual system. Whats the name of the evolutionary system, or systems, that is generally responsible for these parallel dual systems?

Thanks in advance.

 

[pitabread]

What you are referring to is called bilateral symmetry.

 

[Speedwell]

Which evolved in simple creatures something like 500 million years ago and has been passed down since then.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Which evolved in simple creatures something like 500 million years ago and has been passed down since then.

Sponges, Cnidarians, and Echinoderms do not have bilateral symmetry. Cnidarians have radial symmetry. Echinoderms have a five lobed radial symmetry.

 

[GusKlenke]

The system you're looking for is called Intelligent Design.

 

[Speedwell]

The system you're looking for is called Intelligent Design.

Intelligent design is not a system, it's merely an unfalsifiable assertion.

 

[pitabread]

The system you're looking for is called Intelligent Design.

Incorrect. Intelligent Design sits as a failed hypothesis/political movement that currently doesn't offer any explanatory power for anything.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Here we go.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Intelligent design is not a system, it's merely an unfalsifiable assertion.

It's a valid observation regardless of scientific merit; if it quacks like a duck...

 

[Speedwell]

Here we go.

Oh, don't grump--maybe the ID people will actually come up with something this time.

 

[Speedwell]

It's a valid observation regardless of scientific merit; if it quacks like a duck...

It might be a duck. Confirming it empirically is another matter.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Oh, don't grump--maybe the ID people will actually come up with something this time.

Not grumping, jes' sayin'.

 

[pitabread]

It's a valid observation regardless of scientific merit; if it quacks like a duck...

Not based on what ID proponents have put forth. ID proponents have yet to devise a verifiable method to detect biological design.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It might be a duck. Confirming it empirically is another matter.

You mean prove it to someone else.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not based on what ID proponents have put forth. ID proponents have yet to devise a verifiable method to detect biological design.

I would have termed it purposeful design. "Intelligent" suggests that we fully understand God's mind and purpose for it.

 

[Speedwell]

I would have termed it purposeful design. "Intelligent" suggests that we fully understand God's mind and purpose for it.

Perhaps "intentional" is a better term. As far as "design" (taken to mean complex functionality) goes, the biosphere considered as an interacting system of stochastic processes has enough information processing capacity to easily account for it.

 

[pitabread]

I would have termed it purposeful design. "Intelligent" suggests that we fully understand God's mind and purpose for it.

I don't care what you call it, it doesn't change the fact that IDists have yet to come up with a verifiable method to detect design in biological organisms.

 

[Sanoy]

Does ID include or exclude Theistic evolution?

 

[Speedwell]

Does ID include or exclude Theistic evolution?

I believe it excludes it, to the extent that (based on my experiences in chatrooms like this) IDists seem extremely hostile to theistic evolutionists.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Perhaps "intentional" is a better term. As far as "design" (taken to mean complex functionality) goes, the biosphere considered as an interacting system of stochastic processes has enough information processing capacity to easily account for it.

Intentional. I like it.