Im still waiting for the millions of years of symbiosis. Maybe we will hear from you next year.
DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUUN!!!
Okay. I hope you’ve brought a book.
Oh wait - you’re waiting for **us **to address it? It was addressed a couple of pages ago. You just didn’t like the answer.
This is easy- relationships quite similar to symbiosis have evolved just in human history. Domesticated animals and plants are a great example- for dogs, some wolves found a new niche on the outskirts of human settlements, subsisting on human trash. Over time, those traits that humans found pleasant and attractive- like friendliness, meekness, affection, loyalty- conferred a survival advantage among these wolves that lived on the outskirts of settlements… it’s likely that humans killed or drove away the wolves that were aggressive and unfriendly, while ignoring or even favoring the friendly, meek ones. Eventually humans adopted some of these wolf pups to a mutual, “symbiotic” advantage, bred for the traits they favored, and they were on the path to modern dogs.
Other symbiotic relationships likely evolved quite similarly, if much more slowly. Let’s take bees (or other pollinators) and flowers. It wasn’t that one evolved first- they evolved together. An early plant relied upon the wind for pollination, or the occasional insect who just happened to land on it and then land on another of the same species. But this was rather inefficient and random. By chance (random mutation), one particular plant evolved a trait that made it more likely insects would land on them- perhaps a bright colored flower, or a bit of tasty nectar. This trait conferred a survival advantage- and the nectar conferred a survival advantage to the insect that consumed it. So the plants, through natural selection, continued to evolve traits that made it more likely that pollinators would land on its reproductive parts, and the insects evolved traits that made it more likely to take advantage of the nectar. Give it millions of years and we have plants that rely on specific insects for pollination, and insects that rely on specific flowers for food.
If you want this answered, post it as an actual question. “Waiting for millions of years of symbiosis” is a meaningless phrase.
Beyond that, you should stop making snide remarks if you want this trainwreck left open. You are merely attempting to goad other posters into being rude to you, not actually engaging in a discussion.
Further, you have demanded, on several occasions, that posters explain things in their own words while routinely posting links to error-ridden and rather stupid Youtube videos instead of explaining things in your own words. If you cannot actually explain something in your own words, you have no business demanding others do so and you probably have no business posting here.
[ /Moderating ]
So, you think symbiotic relationships took LONGER than the usual ‘millions of years’ to happen? And all ‘by chance’? Do you bet on sports, and take 15 team parlays also? How much money are you making ‘by chance’?
I have made no demands. Actually, anyone reading this thread can see the mods ganging up on me, using the typical ad hominem. Here is another classic example. Please tell me, tomndebb, how any symbiotic relationship could ‘evolve’ over millions of years??? Did the termite come first, or the bacteria inside that digests the wood? Did the plants come first, or did the animals necessary for their fertilization and CO2 come along coincidentally? Thanks for your input!
That’s a really interesting question and it’s one that you can solve for yourself if you spend a bit of time imagining how rock arches and balanced rocks can form naturally without help from humans.
Thanks for your honest input. All the best to you and yours.
Where did you get this? I used the phrase “millions of years”, but did not mention anything more. And why does it matter exactly how long it took?
Individual random mutations are ‘by chance’. The process of evolution is not. Natural selection favors those individuals and alleles with advantageous characteristics- and occasionally, random mutations provide an advantage. This has been demonstrated in a laboratory- one strain of E. Coli bacteria evolved the ability (through random mutation) to metabolise citrate.
I just answered this. For termites- they came together (though bacteria in general certainly evolved before insects did). Termites (or their precursors, which were a lot like cockroaches) with the bacteria inside them that allowed them to digest cellulose had an advantage over ones that didn’t, so the ones with the beneficial bacteria survived to reproduce. Plants came before animals- but the ones that needed animals to spread their seeds and pollen evolved that relationship once the animals were around to do it- and the individual mutations would have come by chance (one plant happens to wrap its seeds in something tasty, and its seeds get spread a lot farther than other plants).
As always, let the Holy Bible be your guide:
If you really meant that, you’d listen to the other posters who have kindly explained the same concepts to you over and over.
Name a beneficial mutation, and you might have a point.
I do appreciate honest input. I just dont think I got a lot here. The best argument against Jesus here is ‘randomness’. Take a step back and think about that.
Couldve used some other quotes from you earlier, you know that.
MT 23: 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
Plenty of diseases acquire mutations that give them resistance against antibiotics. Creatures including humans have mutations all the time that let them resist various diseases.
The best argument against Jesus is that he’s dead.
From the post that you quoted and replied to:
In an experiment, a mutation or mutations appeared in the common bacterium E. coli that allowed it to eat a whole new type of food (citrate).
You appear to have confused argument with non sequitur. What are you proposing Jesus affect that is negated by “randomness”?
If that’s the impression you got, you’ve just not been paying attention. ‘Randomness’ isn’t the only factor at play in evolution (if it’s even evolution you’re talking about here)
A quick question, when people say genetic mutations are “random” do they mean random in that the mechanisms for producing them are complex and poorly understood, and hard to predict… or that they are theoretically random like radioactive decay (proven to be impossible to predict when exactly decay will occur)?
If they aren’t theoretically random, then calling them random seems to do evolution a disservice and stopping such terminology would eliminate this entirely silly argument about randomness and chance.