Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“Please Be My Toothpick You Scrumptious Old Wrasse!”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Synopsis Of The Third Chapter Of Nature’s IQ By Balazs Hornyanszky and Istvan Tasi
ISBN 978-0-9817273-0-1

Mutualism and symbiosis are terms that budding biologists are all too familiar with by the time they begin their university careers. We all learn about the cooperativity that exists amongst many of our world’s creatures and the benefits they can reap from each other’s presence. Goliath groupers that open their mouths to cleaning ‘minions’ such as the blue-streak cleaner wrasse defy deeply held expectations of nature’s ways as do sharks that extend their vicious jaws to pilot fish that then pick out food remnants from between their teeth.

Extraordinary from a predatory perspective is the finding that wrasses and pilot fish are rarely (if ever) eaten by their much larger hosts. Discussions on the evolution of such partnerships leave the non-expert believing that chance mutations could simply turn predator ‘fearers’ into predator ‘lovers’ that naturally bond with their otherwise mortal enemies. Evolutionists weigh in by further supposing that reciprocal mutations led these same enemies to offer VIP treatments to their tasty servants.

Hornyanszky and Tasi nevertheless spare little in their decrial of the evolutionists’ hand-waving ideals. In their own un-minced words “it is nonsensical to suggest that, because of chance mutations, a small fish would suddenly approach a predator without inhibitions with the idea of getting food from its mouth…and that the former predator and prey would then propagate generations of fish that continued this symbiotic relationship” (p.47).

Symbiotic partnerships are of course hot favorites for television naturalists eager to spread their own vision of a world where faunal allegiances are mere products of an overarching process of evolutionary adaptation. No more so than for the Egyptian plover and the voracious Nile crocodile both of which have featured prominently in many a natural history documentary. The plover’s shrieking call, which signals the whereabouts of a potential meal, is an invaluable asset for the Nile crocodile as are the rich, bite-sized pickings on its own skin that supply the plover with its daily food rations.

Other partnerships can be vitally indispensable for the parties concerned. With its own cohort of formic acid-spraying weaver ants, the centaur oakblue caterpillar for example is dutifully protected from its enemies. Without them it would be hopelessly vulnerable. In turn the caterpillar supplies ants with a rich sweet milk, attracting them to its bounty through vibrations and special scents that they can quickly recognize.

Devotees of Pixar’s animated blockbuster Finding Nemo will no doubt tell of the symbiotic lifestyles that unite both the clownfish and the sea anemone. While the anemone’s stinging tentacles are of little consequence to the adult clownfish because of its protective gelatinous coat, the young unprotected fry relies on its instinctive ‘cautious first’ approach to avoid the deadly stings of its newly-found roommate.

And yet the seemingly intractable problem that Hornyanszky and Tasi repeatedly draw attention to in their own consideration of the facts is that of how the integrated cooperativity so visible in such partnerships gradually evolved. How might an ancestral anemone-dwelling clownfish have co-evolved the vitally important cautionary approach of its youth and the equally critical gelatinous covering of its older self? Any ‘half ready’ evolutionary intermediate would have suffered a prompt demise. And how might ancestral weaver ants have evolved a response to the caterpillar’s vibrations and scents as well as the ability to search for its milky secretions? As the authors’ duly note:

“The weaver ants would have no concept of [the caterpillar’s] existence; therefore, they would take no notice of the scent and sound signals emitted by it. And if they had accidentally bumped into each other in the forest, the ants would have ruthlessly torn the novel caterpillar apart. Thus, we can hardly consider their relationship the result of an evolutionary process” (p.53)

A scrumptious wrasse picking inside the mouth of the Goliath grouper is the image that best epitomizes the attack on the Darwinian edifice that Hornyanszky and Tasi lay out in the third chapter of their book. And what a well-orchestrated attack it has turned out to be.

For more information and to order Nature’s IQ go to http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/php/book_show_item.php?id=129

Comments
There is an interesting literature on the evolution of mutualism, a lot of which draws on the proneering work of Hamilton and Trivers. Here are a couple of examples: . Frank SA (1994). Genetics of mutualism: the evolution of altruism between species. J. Theor. Biol. 170: 393-400. http://stevefrank.org/reprints-pdf/94JTB-mutualism.pdf Doebeli M & N Knowlton (1998). The evolution of interspecific mutualisms. PNAS 95(15): 8676-8680 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=21135Dave Wisker
August 5, 2009
August
08
Aug
5
05
2009
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
Nak-(I ain't no materialist)-ashima, You called your "evil materialistic twin" Skippy, would that make your name Skinny, as in the Skinny and Skippy twins? http://www.ussschenectadylst1185.org/media/LastGreatActOfDefiance-1.gif In case you don't know, The picture represents your pathetic arguments against what the evidence actually is.bornagain77
August 5, 2009
August
08
Aug
5
05
2009
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
Ho ho ho ho! [ROTFL! Pounding hands, coughing and tears flowing . . . ]kairosfocus
August 5, 2009
August
08
Aug
5
05
2009
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
The question of fixing the cooperative feature in both populations is a challenging one. If we optimistically assume (to put it lightly) that a grouper and wrasse simultaneously evolve behaviors beneficial to their nature and contrary to their previous behavior, what happens next? That same wrasse visits another grouper, tries out its new behavior, and, the end. No more grouper-cleaning wrasse. Did the grouper's tolerance of the wrasse evolve from some previous behavior? It should be easy to tell - what else do grouper willingly allow to enter their mouths without intending to eat it? Did the groupers' behavior evolve gradually, as everything supposedly does? If the grouper occasionally allowed the wrasse to clean its mouth but usually ate it, how would the wrasse's modification propagate long enough to work out the kinks?ScottAndrews
August 5, 2009
August
08
Aug
5
05
2009
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
Mr Dodgen, I would be careful with your use of the word 'never', or advise that you hold that belief provisionally. A blog entry about clownfish (better for our discussion than just the abstract outside the paywall) shows that, yes, now that sequencing is getting cheap, those activities are being done. In the case of clownfish, it seems they are arguing that the gelatinous coat which allows clownfish to survive the anemone sting was evolved for another purpose and exapted. The rest of the behavioural suite of cautious hiding was also ancestral.Nakashima
August 5, 2009
August
08
Aug
5
05
2009
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
This is yet another example of irreducible complexity, which appears at every level in biology – from the machinery of the cell, to the orchestration of cells to form organs that are in turn orchestrated to cooperate in a functionally integrated way, to the orchestration of creatures at the highest level as elucidated in the OP. In each case, simultaneity of multiple changes is required, or negative survival value clearly ensues. In addition, this article reveals the magical thinking of orthodox Darwinists: If a feature is observed in nature that provides a survival advantage, it can be had just for the asking. The following questions are never asked, much less answered: 1) What random genetic changes would be required to produce the new feature? 2) How many of these changes would require simultaneity in order to produce the new feature, such that a selectable advantage would be acquired? 3) What is the probability that this could occur? 4) If it did occur, would there be a sufficient supply of individuals and reproductive events in the amount of time available to fix the feature in the population through natural selection, given the vagaries of life in the real world (premature death resulting from myriad events and causes). Without answers to these questions, the assertion that “Darwinian mechanisms did it” does not even qualify as pie in the sky.GilDodgen
August 4, 2009
August
08
Aug
4
04
2009
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT
You know, just because one study finds that symbiotic relationships — wait a minute, that's not a study, just some — what's the word? — speculation. It appears to be based on nothing but the writers' personal intuition on the matter at hand. Huh. I'll ask my standard question at this point. Mainstream biology has some neat ideas up its sleeve regarding the origins of mutualism. What's the ID explanation? Is it at least interesting beyond the realm of poofery?Lenoxus
August 4, 2009
August
08
Aug
4
04
2009
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT
Please Be My Toothpick You Scrumptious Old Wrasse!
Evolution is a never ending source of delightfully hilarious metaphors. ahahaha...Mapou
August 4, 2009
August
08
Aug
4
04
2009
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT
I edited the video a bit,, This new link should work: Coral Reef Symbiosis - A Challenge To Evolution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oIZ1nwHPwbornagain77
August 4, 2009
August
08
Aug
4
04
2009
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
Here is another symbiotic relationship right at the base of a very complex food chain Coral Reef Symbiosis - A Challenge To Darwinism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVvhzm9OlBAbornagain77
August 4, 2009
August
08
Aug
4
04
2009
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
The world truly is full of such "house of cards" type relationships that defy the "accident explanations" of atheists. I've been fascinated of late by the symbiotic relationship of honey bees and the flowering plants who are dependent on them for pollination: Evolution vs. The Honey Bee - an Architectural Marvel - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW7CLGQOpfQ As well, The Honey Bee looks exactly the same in the millions of years ago as it does today 45 million years - HoneyBee http://www.fossil-museum.com/fossils/fosilresim.php?Id=1373 Flowering Plant Big Bang: “Flowering plants today comprise around 400,000 species,“To think that the burst that gave rise to almost all of these plants occurred in less than 5 million years is pretty amazing - especially when you consider that flowering plants as a group have been around for at least 130 million years.” Pam Soltis, curator at the Florida Museum of Natural History.bornagain77
August 4, 2009
August
08
Aug
4
04
2009
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply