ANOTHER Embarrassing Evolution Conundrum - How Symbiosis Defies Darwinism

With symbiosis, I draw another parallel from the fig wasp. There are biblical parallels that denote the meaning of Christ to mankind with the fig tree. All fig trees have an associated fig wasp. This goes beyond the simple expression of symbiosis. Each tree has it's only unique wasp and their are over 900 species. Only one wasp for each tree. A fig tree can easily fail to bear fruit. Draw the parallel from thee fig tree being cursed by Christ. It is said to be juvenile when it misses a season. Israel was a juvenile 2000 years ago. They have now be grafted in with other trees. A fig wasp is also necessary to ensure that it bears fruit. If it is crossed by clippings with other fig trees, it gains the ability to bear its own fruit apart from the fig wasp. We are children of God until we are no longer children.

Interesting but as everyone should already know the universe is a perfect sphere and all living things are connected at some point Symbiosis in fact proves this as well as quantum mechanics proves that Consiousness is the base of all existence.

Here's an embarrassing creationism conundrum.

Parasites. What would god in all of his infinite wisdom create such a useless creature for? Something that lives in a human's intestine for years, serving no purpose other than eventually KILLING the host is proof that there was no intelligent design. Not all species serve a purpose and live in harmony.

Originally posted by Adyta
Here's an embarrassing creationism conundrum.

Parasites. What would god in all of his infinite wisdom create such a useless creature for? Something that lives in a human's intestine for years, serving no purpose other than eventually KILLING the host is proof that there was no intelligent design. Not all species serve a purpose and live in harmony.

What is this parasite you speak of and where is it knowing to be??, i just find it interesting, and would like to read more of it as i never heard of that before O_o .

Originally posted by Adyta
Here's an embarrassing creationism conundrum.

Parasites. What would god in all of his infinite wisdom create such a useless creature for? Something that lives in a human's intestine for years, serving no purpose other than eventually KILLING the host is proof that there was no intelligent design. Not all species serve a purpose and live in harmony.

Can you say that as an absolute? Do you know with absolute understanding if the parasites were not there, what would happen?

Actually you could not be more wrong.

Symbiotic relationships are possibly the pinnacle of evolution. In most cases this results in two organisms coexisting in a mutually beneficial manner where some of the individual requirements of one are met by the other.

Nice try though.

Parasites and symbionts are in the same boat as well. Parasites interact with a completely seperate species in a way which harms the host, and symbionts interact with a completely separate species in a way which benefits both.

There were figs and wasps before fig wasps. There were ants and acacias before ants lived in acacias. There were fungi and there were algae before there were lichens. Evolution does not focus on the individual, it focus on the group. And when two groups work together for mutual advantage, so much the better.

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by Adyta
Here's an embarrassing creationism conundrum.

Parasites. What would god in all of his infinite wisdom create such a useless creature for? Something that lives in a human's intestine for years, serving no purpose other than eventually KILLING the host is proof that there was no intelligent design. Not all species serve a purpose and live in harmony.

Can you say that as an absolute? Do you know with absolute understanding if the parasites were not there, what would happen?

I suppose tapeworms are good for you then? And Malaria, Bot Fly larvae and Ringworm as well?

Originally posted by Mkoll
Parasites and symbionts are in the same boat as well. Parasites interact with a completely seperate species in a way which harms the host, and symbionts interact with a completely separate species in a way which benefits both.

There were figs and wasps before fig wasps. There were ants and acacias before ants lived in acacias. There were fungi and there were algae before there were lichens. Evolution does not focus on the individual, it focus on the group. And when two groups work together for mutual advantage, so much the better.

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by Adyta
Here's an embarrassing creationism conundrum.

Parasites. What would god in all of his infinite wisdom create such a useless creature for? Something that lives in a human's intestine for years, serving no purpose other than eventually KILLING the host is proof that there was no intelligent design. Not all species serve a purpose and live in harmony.

Can you say that as an absolute? Do you know with absolute understanding if the parasites were not there, what would happen?

I suppose tapeworms are good for you then? And Malaria, Bot Fly larvae and Ringworm as well?

edit on 14-1-2012 by Mkoll because: (no reason given)

Are there not bacteria that are actually beneficial and survive is mass quantity in our intestines? Can we say all bacteria is bad? So you pick out the bad ones, let's name some that are harmless
Nonpathogenic Intestinal Parasites

Chilomastix mesnili, Endolimax nana, Entamoeba coli, Entamoeba dispar, Entamoeba hartmanni, Entamoeba polecki, Iodamoeba buetschlii

Hmm, the CDC says they are not all harmful.

reply to post by WarminIndy


None of the things I pointed out are bacteria. Also, beneficial bacteria are symbionts by definition, not parasites.

Originally posted by Mkoll
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

None of the things I pointed out are bacteria. Also, beneficial bacteria are symbionts by definition, not parasites.

I quoted directly from the CDC, it says parasites. Do people even read the links we provide? It seems every time a Christian believer posts a link, using external text quotes from those websites, people refuse to read them.

The link title is....Parasites - Nonpathogenic (Harmless) Intestinal Protozoa

I did not call them parasites, the CDC called them parasites.

Just in our bodies we have hundreds, if not thousands of different types of cells and organisms all working together. Symbiosis is cool because it works and is an important part of the evolutionary process. With all this complexity going on sometimes things do not fully work as new combinations are tried. The ones that do work take hold and have brought us here.

Parasites do occasionally get a hard time, but it is a very subjective debate as to what species are parasites. Are lions parasites to the antelope? Is man a parasite to nature? If parasites are stupid and kill of their resources they end up dead as well. There is give and take going on throughout all of nature, while a mosquito does take some of my blood what is it giving me? Is it making my immune system stronger by getting information about the land of the mosquito?

reply to post by Mkoll

I suppose tapeworms are good for you then?

I know a woman that weighed 400 pounds. She had a tapeworm implanted in her and she lost all that weight and is skinny now. They can be under the right circumstances, although i could never have a parasite implanted in me to lose weight, thats just grossness.

Leeches help people who have had limbs reattached keep blood flowing so the reattached limbs heal and do not rot. Yet another parasite that can be beneficial to it's host.

Originally posted by [davinci]
Actually you could not be more wrong.

Symbiotic relationships are possibly the pinnacle of evolution. In most cases this results in two organisms coexisting in a mutually beneficial manner where some of the individual requirements of one are met by the other.

Nice try though.

edit on 14-1-2012 by [davinci] because: (no reason given)

Not to be too rude but, I doubt you even understand what you are saying. You say the fact that it exists means it must be true. What? Then you say nice try? If I say I exist thererefore I prove that I am the pinnacle of creation, that I have a mutual benifit to the one who created me, does that make it now a fact to you?

Evolution should be a dead science. And should not even still be classified science. It is simply the most illogical concept based purely on assumptions and faith that science has ever come up with. There is no proof that anything can or would become more complex.

Evolution provides no answer for origins and no answer for a number of questions such as the one the OP presented. Life simply does not need to become more complex to survive and the DNA evidence proves that it indeed can’t become more complex.

Where does intelligence come from? When did the male and female relationship evolve? When did emotions evolve? Do you not realize that emotions destroy a species? Why did hate evolve? Why did an animal, us, that destroys its habitation, over consuming everything evolve? Look at all the negative things that men are responsible for.

In an extinction level event it is likely that only the simplest forms of life would adapt. So why would life evolve to a point where it could no longer adapt to such events? I really would like to know what the intelligent answer is from someone who believes in evolution.

I have never found the intelligent answer. The answer I always get is filled with big words that mean very little.

So is cancer beneficial to the host because it helps them lose weight too?

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


The tapeworm helping someone lose weight does NOT mean it is beneficial to the host. Sure, you're skinny again... until you are eventually killed by the parasite. A parasite is a creature that needs the host to survive, but also kills the host, thus killing itself. A clear example of something that does not exist to serve the planet in some way or another (hell, it isn't even really a member of the food chain). A parasite's existence is to serve only itself, and it has EVOLVED in a way that lets it do so.

If every creature on Earth lived in a happy wonderland where everyone lived in harmony, I might be more inclined to believe in creationism. However, like you religious folk always ask for the "missing link" to believe in evolution, I'm going to need an absolutely PERFECT world to believe in creationism.

reply to post by Adyta

So is cancer beneficial to the host because it helps them lose weight too?

i was talking about parasites.

Originally posted by kwakakev
Just in our bodies we have hundreds, if not thousands of different types of cells and organisms all working together. Symbiosis is cool because it works and is an important part of the evolutionary process. With all this complexity going on sometimes things do not fully work as new combinations are tried. The ones that do work take hold and have brought us here.

Parasites do occasionally get a hard time, but it is a very subjective debate as to what species are parasites. Are lions parasites to the antelope? Is man a parasite to nature? If parasites are stupid and kill of their resources they end up dead as well. There is give and take going on throughout all of nature, while a mosquito does take some of my blood what is it giving me? Is it making my immune system stronger by getting information about the land of the mosquito?

The parasite lives as long as the host lives. That could be what the symbiosis means in regard to that. But can the host live without the parasite? Yes, in some cases, but no in other cases. So symbiosis means mutual, and the parasite/host relationship is impossible as symbiosis.

We live because of electro-chemical impulses, that the body manufactures..so that is a mutual concept. The parasite/host relationship is not mutual, the parasite is dependent upon the host.

I'm having a hard time understanding how this is an embarassing conundrum? I can't watch the video because of where I'm at.

Perhaps the OP should realize there is varying forms of symbiosis. Symbiosis can be beneficial, harmful, beneficial/neutral. There is one form where the organisms require the relationship in order to survive and where the relationship increases survival but is not necessary.

All of these forms of symbiosis aid in the evolutionary process. So please, explain the embarassing conundrum.