# Symbiosis does not develop over time **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 3, 2013, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054 "2013-06-03T18:29:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2013, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/61 "2013-06-05T00:13:32Z")
I’m gonna DVR that. I’m gonna hate myself for it, but I’m going to do it anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2013, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/62 "2013-06-05T00:18:08Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What are you doing? Don’t you see that the SyFy Channel always takes notes? Now the same outfit that is giving us _Sharknado_\* will come now with Sparkling Biters From the Sea! > > - > > [I wish I was making that up.](http://screencrush.com/sharknado/) _\_ :eek: ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2013, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/63 "2013-06-05T01:01:18Z")
I think people are getting overly excited by our motto to “fight ignorance”. Maybe we should change it to “reform ignorance”. Reef shark may be coming from a background of creationism, but his basic question is reasonable. It’s not immediately obvious how a symbiotic relationship would make the transition to obligate. I know we have developed fairly good explanations and examples for the seemingly mysterious eye, has there been any focus on the obligate transition? Maybe someone could give an example? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2013, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/64 "2013-06-05T03:18:12Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > . . . Maybe someone could give an example? A lot of work has been done on the coevolution of figs and fig-wasps. A quick Google turns up tons of reading material. It’s a process that can be seen in various phases of completion in different species of figs. Snapshots in time, as it were. (But, as I pointed out, above, some creationists reject snapshots in time. They insist on seeing a cat evolve into a dog, right while we watch. They are not engaged in the same kind of observational deduction that the rest of us are. Maybe **reef shark** isn’t one of those, however, so, yes, the benefit of the doubt ought to be a default position.) ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2013, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/65 "2013-06-05T11:02:13Z")
Well, he seems to have disappeared again. Perhaps he’ll show up in another year and a half to carry on the conversation for a few more days. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2013, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/66 "2013-06-05T11:10:02Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > I think people are getting overly excited by our motto to “fight ignorance”. Maybe we should change it to “reform ignorance”. Reef shark may be coming from a background of creationism, but his basic question is reasonable. It’s not immediately obvious how a symbiotic relationship would make the transition to obligate. I know we have developed fairly good explanations and examples for the seemingly mysterious eye, has there been any focus on the obligate transition? Maybe someone could give an example? That’s a reasonable position to take, based solely on this thread. However, if you have read reef’s previous thread, you would understand the sheer pointlessness of attempting to engage him rationally. I agree it’s worth answering the question for the sake of others who may stumble across this thread in the future, but as to the rest, I refer you to the “Illuminati vs. Jesus” thread that I’m too lazy to search for. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2013, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/67 "2013-06-05T11:52:06Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > _\_ but as to the rest, I refer you to the “Illuminati vs. Jesus” thread that I’m too lazy to search for. [Still on the first page](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=658167) actually. That thread title is still worth a snicker. It’s always been _“Illuminati vs. Jesus: Cage match!”_ in the back of my head. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2013, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/68 "2013-06-05T14:58:26Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > It’s not immediately obvious how a symbiotic relationship would make the transition to obligate. It’s not really that difficult to understand. As I indicated above, most organisms which have an obligate mutualistic relationship have close relatives which have similar mutualisms which are not obligate. The fungi that form lichens have closely related species that can live without an algal partner (and these belong to many different groups of fungi, showing the relationship has evolved independently many times). The algal partners generally can be found living both as part of lichens, and on their own, so the relationship is not obligate on their part. Likewise in the relationship between corals and their zooxanthellae there are a range of interactions between free-living and near-obligate. (In this case both organisms are capable of living for at least a short time independently, but do better when they are together.) (I should mention that there are obligate mutualisms, like that between fig wasps and figs, or yucca moths and yuccas, that are technically not symbiotic. Likewise, the original definition of symbiosis included all kinds of relationships in which two organisms live in close association, including commensalism and parasitism. However, nowadays it tends to imply a mutualistic relationship.) If anyone has serious questions about mutualism or symbiosis, I’d be happy to answer them in GQ. I only sent the OP over here because it was obvious he had no interest in the question itself, but only wanted to play gotcha games on a subject he knew nothing about (and didn’t care to learn either). There’s really nothing to be done with someone who suggests that the fossil record provides evidence in favor of a universal flood. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2013, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/69 "2013-06-05T18:43:23Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Thank you for the cite, but how do we know that those relationshops developed over time? I’m not sure what the point is of trying to prove that symbiosis could or could not have occurred over time to support or demolish evolution. _Evolution itself has been observed over time._ Actually observed. By humans! Many times. So if you accept “observation of something occurring,” you’ve been won over; if you don’t there’s no point in trying to persuade you. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2013, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/70 "2013-06-05T22:48:02Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > It’s not really that difficult to understand. As I indicated above, most organisms which have an obligate mutualistic relationship have close relatives which have similar mutualisms which are not obligate. The fungi that form lichens have closely related species that can live without an algal partner (and these belong to many different groups of fungi, showing the relationship has evolved independently many times). The algal partners generally can be found living both as part of lichens, and on their own, so the relationship is not obligate on their part. > > Likewise in the relationship between corals and their zooxanthellae there are a range of interactions between free-living and near-obligate. (In this case both organisms are capable of living for at least a short time independently, but do better when they are together.) > > (I should mention that there are obligate mutualisms, like that between fig wasps and figs, or yucca moths and yuccas, that are technically not symbiotic. Likewise, the original definition of symbiosis included all kinds of relationships in which two organisms live in close association, including commensalism and parasitism. However, nowadays it tends to imply a mutualistic relationship.) > > If anyone has serious questions about mutualism or symbiosis, I’d be happy to answer them in GQ. I only sent the OP over here because it was obvious he had no interest in the question itself, but only wanted to play gotcha games on a subject he knew nothing about (and didn’t care to learn either). There’s really nothing to be done with someone who suggests that the fossil record provides evidence in favor of a universal flood. The term ‘obligate’ implies necessary for survival. Mutualism does not. > **[Study: Trees retaliate when fig wasps don't service them | Cornell Chronicle](https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2010/01/figs-kill-wasp-larvae-when-wasps-do-not-pollinate-figs)** > > When a species in a mutually beneficial relationship fails to hold up its end of the bargain, sanctions may be necessary to maintain the relationship, a Cornell study of figs and wasps finds. ‘Coevolution’ over 80 million years seems to be the standard explanation (from evolution-supporters) regarding this. This just begs the question of how they know anything is 80 million years old in the first place. I noticed you (and everyone else) still have not cited any obligate symbiotic relationships, despite my several requests. One poster tried to define ‘science’. Science is knowledge gained from observation. So scientifically speaking, how do we know that obligate symbiotic relationships developed over time, rather than simultaneously? ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2013, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/71 "2013-06-05T22:49:34Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > I’m not sure what the point is of trying to prove that symbiosis could or could not have occurred over time to support or demolish evolution. _Evolution itself has been observed over time._ > > Actually observed. By humans! Many times. > > So if you accept “observation of something occurring,” you’ve been won over; if you don’t there’s no point in trying to persuade you. You are confusing natural selection with other non-observed events like the big bang and abiogenesis, which are both necessary for the general idea of ‘evolution’. I agree to stick with whats observed. However, selection is the opposite of creation. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2013, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/72 "2013-06-05T22:52:16Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > You are confusing natural selection with other non-observed events like the big bang and abiogenesis, which are both necessary for the general idea of ‘evolution’. None of this is right, but why get the facts straight now? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2013, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/73 "2013-06-05T22:59:36Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > You are confusing natural selection with other non-observed events like the big bang … . When we point our radio telescopes at the sky we see a dense cloud of superheated plasma behind all the stars and galaxies in every direction. How is that not “observing the big bang”? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2013, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/74 "2013-06-05T23:02:09Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > However, selection is the opposite of creation. Huh. I thought _destruction_ was the opposite of creation. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2013, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/75 "2013-06-05T23:15:12Z")
**reef shark** , this is a serious question, so please try not to be offended. Why is your faith so weak? If God is as great as He’s reputed to be, then He’s more than capable of using elegant mechanisms like evolution to create the diversity of living things. And plenty of people have faith that holds up just fine with acceptance of the fact of evolution. But you’ve instead decided that your faith is too weak to coexist with evolution, and in the process declared that God is a liar. Why? ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2013, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/76 "2013-06-05T23:21:31Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > None of this is right, but why get the facts straight now? You were probably fortunate enough not to have gone to a public school in the U.S. since 1968. Any of those science books will set you straight on what is being taught as evolution. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2013, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/77 "2013-06-05T23:22:44Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > **reef shark** , this is a serious question, so please try not to be offended. > > Why is your faith so weak? > > If God is as great as He’s reputed to be, then He’s more than capable of using elegant mechanisms like evolution to create the diversity of living things. And plenty of people have faith that holds up just fine with acceptance of the fact of evolution. But you’ve instead decided that your faith is too weak to coexist with evolution, and in the process declared that God is a liar. Why? God is great, and can get it right the first time, not via random chance processes over millions/billions of years. Gen 1:31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. ---
**Author:** ![trabajabamos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/47e85d/32.png) [@trabajabamos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabajabamos)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2013, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/78 "2013-06-05T23:27:00Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Science is knowledge gained from observation. This is a poor (and apparently, largely self-serving) definition for Science. …Also, the important thing to remember about science is that [it works.](http://xkcd.com/54/) ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2013, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/79 "2013-06-05T23:35:12Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > \*\*God is great, and can get it right the first time, not via random chance processes over millions/billions of years. > \*\* > Gen 1:31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. [Transitional forms.](http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2013, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/80 "2013-06-05T23:40:49Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > [Transitional forms.](http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml) Only part of the skull was found, the rest of the skeleton was reconstructed. Thewissen, J.G.M., Williams, E.M, Roe, L.J. and Hussain, S.T., Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls, Nature 413(6853):277–281, 20 September 2001 'All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and … indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground.’ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054.md?page=5)