3 ms·
"symmetrical structures are stronger" - citation needed. Stronger under what condition? For the same amount of material? For the same amount of information nee
by jameshart 5y ago
"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 5y agoMobile Cambrian seabed dwellers with asymmetrical legs probably didn't last very long.
- jameshart 5y agoAmong 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.
- darkerside 5y agoI don't understand. Crabs walk sideways but they are basically symmetrical aren't they?
- jameshart 5y agoFiddler and hermit crabs, plus many lobsters, have distinctly asymmetric claws, with one specialized for crushing and another for manipulation or cutting.
- darkerside 5y agoNotable for the exception to their otherwise symmetrical bodies, no?
- jameshart 5y agoYes, that’s what asymmetry is.
- darkerside 5y agoYou pointed at crabs and lobsters as proof of the frequency of asymmetry by citing two of the hundreds of species having two of their eight appendages being asymmetrical. I would suggest this might be confirmation bias in action.