Atheists: How can you explain symbiotic relationships?

There are many examples of plants and animals which have a ';symbiotic'; relationship (they need each other to survive). How can evolution explain this?Atheists: How can you explain symbiotic relationships?
Symbiosis provides an adaptive advantage.





Edit: for both organisms.





What is so hard about this?Atheists: How can you explain symbiotic relationships?
Better question: How does religion explain it?
I always laugh at questions like this. ';Oh, this aspect of life is so incredibly complex that it MUST have been created.';





But I wonder -- what process created the creator? For surely the creator would have to be so infinitely more complex than these things that are created, yes?





So the basic argument doesn't hold water.
I am not an atheist but I figured I share my thoughts on this.





I do not believe in evolution nor do I believe in creationism.
Not being a biologist, I don't know. Look it up somewhere either in a book or on the internet. Not all atheists are scientists, or can answer scientific questions instantly without looking it up.
Do you really think that science has never considered these ';stumpers'; before?





Don't think you suddenly stumbled upon treasure trove of silver bullets and can single-handedly destroy the most robust theory in science. You can't.
The very fact you asked that question leads me to believe that you know the answer. Are you trolling?





If you really don't know, then read a book!
Do you actually have an interest in evolutionary biology?





Explain the role of the amygdala in mystical experiences.
All of evolutionary development is about symbiosis! Our bodies are essentially super-colonies of interdependent bacterial colonies. Without the bacteria in our intestines, we'd starve. Without specialized cells to transfer oxygen or electrical impulses, we could not breath or think. The fact that some symbiotic relationships involve distinct, complex organisms is only a matter of scale.





Each cell that developed a specialized function could survive at a primitive level. But when they combined, their function was enhance by a division of labor. Each cell no longer had to do everything. Even the components of a basic cell, mitochondria, DNA, the cell membrane, etc., had to develop independently, barely functioning until circumstances allowed them to combine into a basic organic system that could absorb nutrients, convert energy, discard waste and reproduce.





The next stage was for single cell organism to find ways to combine functions in a way that was more efficient than operating separately. In time, the symbiotic structures got more and more complex, as nutrient gathering cells got farther from the propulsion cells and a need for a distribution and communication system developed. Now the process is automated, as genes are turned on and off to facilitate the specialization that makes muscular, skeletal, vascular and nervous systems grow effectively into a coordinated whole. But each of these cells is a cell. The symbiosis is so complete that we think of ourselves as a single being, but we're really sophisticated super-colonies.





Some scientists now believe they've found the function of the appendix. Apparently it is a safe place for intestinal bacteria to survive during a cholera outbreak. Sounds symbiotic to me.
Yeah - who would of thought that an insect would evolve to fill the niche required for the cleaning of the ears out of an Elephant.





Seriously - you think God is responsible for that?? Its a niche that was filled by that particular insect or plant. Just because they could not survive without each other NOW doesnt mean they didnt survive separately at one time in the past.
Plants produce food and oxygen, hence oxygen breathing animals evolved to feed on the abundance of fruit and oxygen, thus producing more CO2 which the plants need to survive.
One Word


Coevolution


its when life coevolves
Why don't you ask this in the science section? Because you post it here it is off topic and I believe you can be reported for it.
Well, me not being a biologist, I can only speculate...most I can say is that they need each other to survive...other than that, I cannot answer you. Now, if you want an answer, go to the Biology section of Y!A, and if you just want your own ';faith'; confirmed because some of us do not have answers (since we're only human, and we don't say, ';God did it!'; to everything we do not understand) then continue to post these sort of questions here. Hope this helps you in some way!
Pretty simple; the ones that didnt go with other animals died out....
If you look into early evolutionary models there are examples of algea and primitive bacteria benefiting eachover, some people would say this even lead to the creation of early cells.





It was so beneficial for some subcellular life to stay in proximity it eventually fused.





This is a pretty good link to some information about subcellular life.


http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/subcellula鈥?/a>


Knowing how much goes on at such a tiny level makes the idea of larger symbiotes seem less impressive.





That is how I think it is possible. I think it is not only possible but may explain how cellular life started.
I don't honestly know, but I suspect it has something to do with the first law of nature. ';The will to survive';.
From Wikipedia:





Creationists have long claimed that obligate symbioses are evidence against evolution, arguing that since neither organism can survive without the other, they must have come into existence at exactly the same time. This simplistic point of view ignores the extreme variety of symbiotic relationships as well the mutability of species over time. Obligate mutualisms could easily evolve from facultative relationships in which neither species is fully committed. These arguments persist despite many examples of facultative symbioses and multiple theoretical and computational models describing how such a relationship would evolve.
Co-evolution.
Are you legitimately afraid to ask this on a science Q%26amp;A board? You obviously don't actually want answers... but then again, few religious people really do...
Social evolution is still evolution. I would say that most of the species alive today have used social mechanisms to help them (as a whole) survive. Symbiosis is not a stretch from here.
Would you really care if I told you? I could explain it but will it change your mind?
When a theist asks atheists about some fine detail of science in the Religion section, we now take it as read that you have no interest in an answer at all. Go and ask this in the biology section if you actually ARE interested. You'll find plenty of atheists there too.
I assume they evolved to have said symbiotic relationships.





As so many others have pointed out, asking this in the religion section makes you appear to have less than sincere motives. Surely you realize that not all atheists are scientists studying the theory of evolution as well as the origins of the universe. I am a writer, and have no real reason to know the biological mechanism that provided certain animals with a symbiotic relationship.
I'm sure the Bible has a perfect explanation on that!


(I'm being sarcastic of course!)
Easily. (point at science texts, and Yahoo's science section)
Someone has been reading too many creationist websites.





It's good to see a creationist acting out their stereotypes.
your a parasite, you attach yourself to yahoo answers and ask stupid questions so you can get athiests and non-believers riled up


thats symbiosis
Ha Ha! Only evolution can explain that!