# 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:** 5
**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, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/81 "2013-06-05T23:49:18Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > 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.’ And modern whales posses vestigial hip bones from that land dwelling ancestor. ---
**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, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/82 "2013-06-05T23:53:15Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > 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.’ Your own POST contradicts itself. If only part of the skull was found, why were they talking about “all the postcranial bones”? ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2013, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/83 "2013-06-05T23:55:04Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > God is great, and can get it right the first time, not via random chance processes over millions/billions of years. Your God is, frankly, stupid. He had to make every ant, sand grain, and star. Most Christians and Jews see that the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution are, for now, pretty good explanations of how things came about, and all their God had to do was take a bunch of energy and add a few simple rules, then sit back and watch how it played out. Which was pretty marvelous on its own, but he had 14 billion years to kill so he couldn’t help fiddling with it. Your God is great. Their God is Awesome. ---
**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, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/84 "2013-06-05T23:56:24Z")
[Evolution of the Horse.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse) [Florida Museum of Natural History](http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/firstCM.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2013, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/85 "2013-06-06T00:09:51Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > You were probably fortunate enough not to have gone to a public school in the U.S. since 1968. Very wrong again. ---
**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 6, 2013, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/86 "2013-06-06T00:10:16Z")
> [@](#): > > God is great, and can get it right the first time Do you have parents? Why? Couldn’t God have created you without needing parents? ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2013, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/87 "2013-06-06T00:52:45Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > On the contrary, that’s what a True Scotsman keeps in his sporran; his symbiote! I thought symbiote was what they stuffed in the haggis. ---
**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 6, 2013, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/88 "2013-06-06T00:59:24Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > I thought symbiote was what they stuffed in the haggis. Nah, that’s the parasite! ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2013, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/89 "2013-06-06T01:42:55Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Science is knowledge gained from observation. Which also includes knowledge _inferred_ from observation via a consistent falsifiable theory. For example, we can’t actually see the nucleus of a carbon atom, but we know that it contains six protons. How do we know there are six if we can’t even see them, much less count them? Well, we can observe results of certain tests on things like wavelengths of X-rays, and use those results plus atomic theory to infer that the carbon nucleus has six protons. Similarly, even if we haven’t directly observed the entire process of evolution of a particular symbiotic relationship, we can use observations of its current state plus fossil forms and related organisms to infer, via the theory of evolution, how it developed. There’s nothing unscientific about that. In fact, what’s profoundly unscientific is your insistence that science tells us nothing about any natural phenomena except those we can observe _directly_. On the contrary, figuring out what our observations tell us _indirectly_ about natural phenomena is the core mission of science. ---
**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 6, 2013, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/90 "2013-06-06T03:38:09Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > The term ‘obligate’ implies necessary for survival. Mutualism does not. What’s your point? [QUOTE=reef shark] I noticed you (and everyone else) still have not cited any obligate symbiotic relationships, despite my several requests. [/QUOTE] You haven’t actually asked us to provide examples of obligate symbiotic relationships. I was the one who first brought up the term, and you didn’t even seem to know what it was when you started the thread. As I’ve already pointed out, facultative symbioses are much more common than obligate ones. I’m not going to do your work for you. Since you know so much about them, how about you give us an example of an obligate symbiotic relationship, and then we can discuss it. And despite my requests, you still haven’t answered several of the questions I’ve asked you before: - Define exactly what you mean by symbiosis. (In your own words. No Wikipedia cites) - Explain how symbiosis differs from mutualism. - Do you accept that non-obligate mutualistic relationships evolved over time? In actual fact, all you are doing is regurgitating talking points from some creationist website or other source, without any real understanding of what any of the words mean. > [@reef shark](#): > > ‘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. 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? I don’t believe you are as ignorant of the methods used by scientists to estimate evolutionary time. They include stratigraphy, radiometric dating, the fossil record, and genetic analyses. But since you don’t believe in science, what’s the point of explaining scientific methods to you? > [@](#): > > [Study: Trees retaliate when fig wasps don't service them | Cornell Chronicle](http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2010/01/figs-kill-wasp-larvae-when-wasps-do-not-pollinate-figs) Interesting study. One of the coauthors is a close friend and colleague of mine. I would however point out that the fig/fig wasp relationship is an example of an obligate mutualism, but is not a symbiosis in the usual meaning of the word. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2013, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/91 "2013-06-06T05:03:15Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > . . . how about you give us an example of an obligate symbiotic relationship, and then we can discuss it. . . . FWIW, I mentioned the fig and fig-wasp symbiosis. In some species of fig, the fruit cannot be pollinated without the wasp. It’s a specific case that has had a lot of work and study done, a rather fascinating example. Stephen Jay Gould wrote on it, more poetically than technically, in one of his essays. It’s particularly useful here because the dependency varies by different species, so we have “snapshots in time” of the process as it changes. But I guess that’s evolution… ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2013, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/92 "2013-06-06T05:35:05Z")
> [@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. Did you observe this beholding? On what evidence do you conclude that it occurred? ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2013, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/93 "2013-06-06T11:15:53Z")
> [@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’. I agree to stick with whats observed. However, selection is the opposite of creation. _ZOOM_ Whoa, did anyone get the number of those goal posts? They nearly took off my head as they flew past. > [@reef\_shark](#): > > Science is knowledge gained from observation. So scientifically speaking, how do we know that obligate symbiotic relationships developed over time, rather than simultaneously? This is a ridiculous false dichotomy. We have certainly never observed two species spring into existence out of thin air, already dependent on each other for survival. So to claim that you are rejecting the evolutionary theory because of a supposed lack of observed evidence is nothing more than basest hypocrisy. ---
**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 6, 2013, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/94 "2013-06-06T14:13:33Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > FWIW, I mentioned the fig and fig-wasp symbiosis. My point was that although it’s an obligate mutualism, it’s not a symbiosis in the sense that a lichen or a coral/zooanthellae relationship is. Also, it’s a service-resource mutualism, rather than a resource-resource mutualism like the latter. **reef shark** keeps using the words symbiosis and mutualism as if they were synonymous, which they are not. He doesn’t really know what they mean. That doesn’t keep him from making assertions about them, though. ---
**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 6, 2013, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/95 "2013-06-06T21:59:56Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > And modern whales posses vestigial hip bones from that land dwelling ancestor. Those two tiny bones are used for reproduction. Snakes have them too. They are not vestigial, nor remnants of legs… ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2013, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/96 "2013-06-06T22:02:35Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Those two tiny bones are used for reproduction. Snakes have them too. They are not vestigial, nor remnants of legs… HOW are they used in reproduction? They’re not even external in whales! ---
**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 6, 2013, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/97 "2013-06-06T22:04:21Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > Your own POST contradicts itself. If only part of the skull was found, why were they talking about “all the postcranial bones”? The post i was replying to cited a website. That referred to part of the skull. The cite i mentioned refers to new findings, it is up to you to determine whthere those findings are legitmate or not, if you care. If theyt are legitmate, they contradict the orginial claim regarding whales. If those new findings are fake, then all we have is part of the skull. You do the math. ---
**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 6, 2013, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/98 "2013-06-06T22:06:00Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > [Evolution of the Horse.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse) > [Florida Museum of Natural History](http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/firstCM.htm) You’re saying a horse evolved from…a horse??? ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2013, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/99 "2013-06-06T22:06:12Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > HOW are they used in reproduction? They’re not even external in whales! He/she keeps repeating this claim, completely unsupported, and thinks that it means something. Not sure what you can do when someone argues that way. ---
**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 6, 2013, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/100 "2013-06-06T22:07:03Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Very wrong again. Sorry, im not wrong. The books dont lie. The burden of proof is on you to show that the public science books dont state the big bang and primordial soup as fact. Good luck. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054.md?page=6)