# 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:** 6
**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, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/101 "2013-06-06T22:09:34Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Do you have parents? Why? Couldn’t God have created you without needing parents? You still have not read Genesis 1, have you? Gen 1:28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Regarding natural selection vs macroevolution, see how many times the phrase ‘after his/their kind’ is used. Ten times iirc. ---
**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, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/102 "2013-06-06T22:12:37Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > What’s your point? > > 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. > > 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? > > 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. You dont have to do anything for me. Since you wouldnt provide a cite to back your claims in the GQ thread, and continue to refuse to cite anything here, im not expecting much from you going forward. I already clarified what i was asking for. Obligate symbiotic relationships are NOT the same as mutualistic relationships. One involves necessity for survival, the other does not. To anyone it may concern: please cite observational evidence of how an obligate symbiotic relationship has developed over time. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2013, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/103 "2013-06-06T22:13:29Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > 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. Actually, you are making the assertion and **Marley23** is merely denying it. As you have presented no evidence for your assertion **Marley23** need present no evidence for his denial. If you do have a cite for your assertion I would be interested in reading it. ---
**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, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/104 "2013-06-06T22:13:38Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > _ZOOM_ > > Whoa, did anyone get the number of those goal posts? They nearly took off my head as they flew past. > > 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. I made no such claim, you inferred that based on your sound reasoning, which i commend you for. ---
**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, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/105 "2013-06-06T22:14:48Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > 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… > **[Mixotricha paradoxa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixotricha_paradoxa)** > > Mixotricha paradoxa is a species of protozoan that lives inside the gut of the Australian termite species Mastotermes darwiniensis. > It is composed of five different organisms: three bacterial ectosymbionts live on its surface for locomotion and at least one endosymbiont lives inside to help digest cellulose in wood to produce acetate for its host(s). ‘Mixotricha forms many symbiotic relationships. Like its relatives, including Trichonympha, it lives in the gut of termites and helps them digest cellulose, a major component of the wood they eat. Without Mixotricha, its host termites could not survive.’ ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2013, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/106 "2013-06-06T22:15:02Z")
> [@fumster](#): > > I agree with the OP. It was God who put the malaria protist in the gut of the mosquito. He did it because he loves us. :shrugs: Sounds reasonable to me, except for the God loving us part. Theist humans often think we’re the center of the Theological Scheme because we’re self-important. Many would rather believe in no god than gods that don’t–well–worship _us,_ and many would rather disregard science and history than not believe in gods that worship us. ---
**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, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/107 "2013-06-06T22:15:43Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Sorry, im not wrong. I assure you I did not go to school before 1968. I eagerly await your cite that I did. > [@reef\_shark](#): > > Those two tiny bones are used for reproduction. Snakes have them too. Yes, that’s what Creationists keep saying. Biologists disagree, but who are you gonna believe? ---
**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, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/108 "2013-06-06T22:19:22Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > HOW are they used in reproduction? They’re not even external in whales! They are not visibly external in snakes either until the mating process begins. A few shows of the croc hunter would clear this up for 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 6, 2013, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/109 "2013-06-06T22:21:13Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I assure you I did not go to school before 1968. I eagerly await your cite that I did. > > Yes, that’s what Creationists keep saying. Biologists disagree, but who are you gonna believe? You probably dont think its possible (due to your presuppositions) that some biologists are creationists. ---
**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 6, 2013, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/110 "2013-06-06T22:22:09Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > They are not visibly external in snakes either until the mating process begins. A few shows of the croc hunter would clear this up for you. Snakes are not related to whales in any way. Where’s your cite those bones are used for reproduction? ---
**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, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/111 "2013-06-06T22:26:18Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > You probably dont think its possible (due to your presuppositions) that some biologists are creationists. Credible ones who know what they’re talking about and enjoy broad consensus? No, I don’t. ---
**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, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/112 "2013-06-06T22:28:54Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > 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. No, you’re the one claiming that “public science books” (by which I presume you mean science textbooks used in public schools) **do** state Big Bang and abiogenesis theories as fact, so you’re the one who needs to back that claim up with cites. Here’s a counterexample: an 8th grade science textbook used in Vigo County public schools in Indiana, available [online at this link](http://metadot.vigoco.k12.in.us/metadot/index.pl?id=14807), gives quite a good age-appropriate account of evolution and solar-system astronomy, but never even mentions either the origin of life on earth or the origin of the universe itself. Where’s your example of even one actual public school science textbook that presents either the Big Bang or abiogenesis as fact? ---
**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, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/113 "2013-06-06T22:36:08Z")
The whale bones being used for reproduction thing is a standard creationist lie. I’ve never seen anyone produce the slightest shred of evidence for it being anything more than pulled out of thin air. But hey, since they think that’s how the entire planet arose, I guess that makes sense for them. ---
**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, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/114 "2013-06-06T22:40:03Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Obligate symbiotic relationships are NOT the same as mutualistic relationships. One involves necessity for survival, the other does not. Obligate symbiotic relationships _are_ a subgroup of mutualistic relationships. There is a complete gradation between mutualistic relationships that are facultative on the part of both parties; ones that are obligate on the part of one but facultative on the other; and ones that are obligate for both. Some symbiotic relationships can shift between being mutualistic to being parasitic. There is no conceptual difference between the evolution of facultative mutualistic relationships and obligate ones. Obligate ones obviously went through an earlier facultative stage. So there’s no need to single out obligate ones as requiring some sort of special explanation. The very fact that you are trying to make this distinction shows you don’t have any idea what you are talking about. By the way, how about answering the questions I asked before? ---
**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, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/115 "2013-06-06T22:42:26Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > 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. Let me rephrase- the books are clear. ---
**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, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/116 "2013-06-06T22:50:27Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Obligate symbiotic relationships _are_ a subgroup of mutualistic relationships. There is a complete gradation between mutualistic relationships that are facultative on the part of both parties; ones that are obligate on the part of one but facultative on the other; and ones that are obligate for both. Some symbiotic relationships can shift between being mutualistic to being parasitic. > > There is no conceptual difference between the evolution of facultative mutualistic relationships and obligate ones. Obligate ones obviously went through an earlier facultative stage. So there’s no need to single out obligate ones as requiring some sort of special explanation. The very fact that you are trying to make this distinction shows you don’t have any idea what you are talking about. > > By the way, how about answering the questions I asked before? You might not believe there is a conceptual difference between the evolution of mutualistic relationships and obligate ones, but there is an observed difference. The observations are what i am requesting to be cited, if possible. Smeghead seemed to realize why. BTW, you still have not cited an obligate symbiotic relationship developing over time, as originally requested. First things first, please. ---
**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, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/117 "2013-06-06T22:51:51Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > The whale bones being used for reproduction thing is a standard creationist lie. I’ve never seen anyone produce the slightest shred of evidence for it being anything more than pulled out of thin air. But hey, since they think that’s how the entire planet arose, I guess that makes sense for them. How do you think whales reproduce? Do you happen to have a bunch of videos recording it? Im guessing no. ---
**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, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/118 "2013-06-06T22:54:03Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > No, you’re the one claiming that “public science books” (by which I presume you mean science textbooks used in public schools) **do** state Big Bang and abiogenesis theories as fact, so you’re the one who needs to back that claim up with cites. > > Here’s a counterexample: an 8th grade science textbook used in Vigo County public schools in Indiana, available [online at this link](http://metadot.vigoco.k12.in.us/metadot/index.pl?id=14807), gives quite a good age-appropriate account of evolution and solar-system astronomy, but never even mentions either the origin of life on earth or the origin of the universe itself. > > Where’s your example of even one actual public school science textbook that presents either the Big Bang or abiogenesis as fact? Check Prentice Hall to begin. ---
**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, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/119 "2013-06-06T22:56:52Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > How do you think whales reproduce? Do you happen to have a bunch of videos recording it? Im guessing no. Is this supposed to imply ‘you don’t know how whales breed, so I can say it happens however I like?’ Because that’s what it implies. Anyway it’s not that hard to find YouTube videos of whales breeding. It _is_ hard to find a credible explanation of how these tiny bones have anything to do with whales reproducing. ---
**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, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054/120 "2013-06-06T23:04:03Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Check Prentice Hall to begin. I will get specific editions for you, give me some time. Thanks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/symbiosis-does-not-develop-over-time/660054.md?page=7)