Honest question: do parasites evolve, if their hosts do?

[Kylie]

I finally worked out the direction this thread should - it was suggested that I was making progress: but I couldn't see how (now I do).

It seems we have established that parasites evolve with their hosts; the question is "Can parasites predict the Evolution their host will make?"

My position is, "they should be able to, based on reference to past adaptations, current environment, and known selection pressures"?

Once again, that is not how evolution works.

The parasites only know what conditions they face right here and right now. There isn't a parasite species in the world that can tell how evolution has led its host to evolve into what it is now, and there isn't a parasite species alive that can make predictions about how evolution might happen in the future.

Your ideas about evolution are just plain wrong.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I would like to think a Creationist can learn from an Evolutionist, but it may come down to an expectation that a Creationist find his own Evolution - why should an Evolutionist put up with Creationists? I am willing to be a parasite, but the odds have to stack up - the odds have to be in favour of 'evolving' (more powerfully, more emphatically) with the current Host, if not another?

See, with this I thought you were using parasites-and-hosts as a metaphor of something more existential, with creationism as parasite and evolutionary science as host—thus, "It may come down to an expectation that a creationist find his own evolution," and, "I am willing to be a parasite," and so on. And I was going to say, "Keep your creation and evolution separate. The former is theology, the latter is science. Don't confuse or conflate them—but go ahead and affirm them both as true (evolutionary creationism)."

 

[Gottservant]

Once again, that is not how evolution works.

The parasites only know what conditions they face right here and right now. There isn't a parasite species in the world that can tell how evolution has led its host to evolve into what it is now, and there isn't a parasite species alive that can make predictions about how evolution might happen in the future.

Your ideas about evolution are just plain wrong.

See, with this I thought you were using parasites-and-hosts as a metaphor of something more existential, with creationism as parasite and evolutionary science as host—thus, "It may come down to an expectation that a creationist find his own evolution," and, "I am willing to be a parasite," and so on. And I was going to say, "Keep your creation and evolution separate. The former is theology, the latter is science. Don't confuse or conflate them—but go ahead and affirm them both as true (evolutionary creationism)."

I think I can take these two posts with one reply; the difference between you two is that one wants Evolution to embrace its role as "host" (DialecticSkeptic) and the other wants to define Evolution as a restraint from needless adaptation (Kylie). If both were true, I could be both evolved and know what I was evolving into - that would be great! It just remains to work out what the cost-benefit analysis is, in terms of how I add what I believe about Evolution to what I know Jesus has already said.

The difficulty is that Jesus was very exclusive, in what He considered commitment; it is impossible for me to believe my Evolution would ever be greater than Jesus' for example ("a servant is not greater than his master" gospels, from memory); on the other hand, Jesus said there will be opportunities to be Evolved that others will pass up, for example ('who is my neighbour?' "It is he who takes care of his neighbour" parable of the Good Samaritan, gospels, from memory).

I'm not trying to shock a response any more, I just want to know where I stood, more or less, when I outlined for myself "Evolution" as a change of belief of some kind. I mean, did I lose Evolution, when I failed to believe it; or did I confuse people who believe in Jesus already, when I failed to see the connection between Evolution and "going the extra mile" (as Jesus taught, gospels, from memory)? You can see I am not antagonizing retribution in a particularly Evolutionarily defined way, I'm just evidencing ignorance, which Jesus said would be punished, but less punished than if I knew what it was I was being punished for (gospels, paraphrase).

 

[Kylie]

I think I can take these two posts with one reply; the difference between you two is that one wants Evolution to embrace its role as "host" (DialecticSkeptic) and the other wants to define Evolution as a restraint from needless adaptation (Kylie). If both were true, I could be both evolved and know what I was evolving into - that would be great! It just remains to work out what the cost-benefit analysis is, in terms of how I add what I believe about Evolution to what I know Jesus has already said.

The difficulty is that Jesus was very exclusive, in what He considered commitment; it is impossible for me to believe my Evolution would ever be greater than Jesus' for example ("a servant is not greater than his master" gospels, from memory); on the other hand, Jesus said there will be opportunities to be Evolved that others will pass up, for example ('who is my neighbour?' "It is he who takes care of his neighbour" parable of the Good Samaritan, gospels, from memory).

I'm not trying to shock a response any more, I just want to know where I stood, more or less, when I outlined for myself "Evolution" as a change of belief of some kind. I mean, did I lose Evolution, when I failed to believe it; or did I confuse people who believe in Jesus already, when I failed to see the connection between Evolution and "going the extra mile" (as Jesus taught, gospels, from memory)? You can see I am not antagonizing retribution in a particularly Evolutionarily defined way, I'm just evidencing ignorance, which Jesus said would be punished, but less punished than if I knew what it was I was being punished for (gospels, paraphrase).

This makes absolutely no sense at all.

You do not understand evolution. Stop trying to figure it out for yourself.

 

[Shemjaza]

I finally worked out the direction this thread should take - it was suggested that I was making progress: but I couldn't see how (now I do).

It seems we have established that parasites evolve with their hosts; the question is "Can parasites predict the Evolution their host will make?"

My position is, "they should be able to, based on reference to past adaptations, current environment, and known selection pressures"?

The confusion is you are once again applying three of your mistakes to evolution.

Firstly you are applying agency and choice to the process of evolution. It is an unconscious process that occurs over generations.

Secondly you are applying evolution to linked individuals rather than species. The evolution of a species of parasites is linked to the evolution of a species of hosts

Thirdly you are implying that memory is passed on over generations. This is not supported by evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can parasites predict the Evolution their host will make?

No.

Parasites cannot force-fit data into computers and force the computers to eventually (after many tries) to give them the information they are seeking.

They cannot connect dots on paper, and they cannot draw blue lines to hide missing links.

In short, they're just cooties doing what cooties do best: forming a symbiotic relationship with their hosts and enjoying the ride.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I think I can take these two posts with one reply; the difference between you two is that one wants Evolution to embrace its role as "host" (DialecticSkeptic) and the other wants to define Evolution as a restraint from needless adaptation (Kylie). If both were true, I could be both evolved and know what I was evolving into - that would be great! It just remains to work out what the cost-benefit analysis is, in terms of how I add what I believe about Evolution to what I know Jesus has already said.

The difficulty is that Jesus was very exclusive, in what He considered commitment; it is impossible for me to believe my Evolution would ever be greater than Jesus' for example ("a servant is not greater than his master" gospels, from memory); on the other hand, Jesus said there will be opportunities to be Evolved that others will pass up, for example ('who is my neighbour?' "It is he who takes care of his neighbour" parable of the Good Samaritan, gospels, from memory).

I'm not trying to shock a response any more, I just want to know where I stood, more or less, when I outlined for myself "Evolution" as a change of belief of some kind. I mean, did I lose Evolution, when I failed to believe it; or did I confuse people who believe in Jesus already, when I failed to see the connection between Evolution and "going the extra mile" (as Jesus taught, gospels, from memory)? You can see I am not antagonizing retribution in a particularly Evolutionarily defined way, I'm just evidencing ignorance, which Jesus said would be punished, but less punished than if I knew what it was I was being punished for (gospels, paraphrase).

I don't know what your views are—"Messianic" is a fairly broad term—but I think the Bible answers this directly (albeit cryptically) when it says that we await a savior from heaven "who will transform these humble bodies of ours into the likeness of his glorious body" (Phil 3:20-21; cf. Matt 17:2). "We are already God's children, but he has not yet shown us what we will be like when Christ appears. Yet we do know that we will be like him, for we will see him as he really is" (1 John 3:2; esp. 1 Cor 15:35-57). We'll never be greater, obviously, but we will be like him with transformed bodies. We know that we're evolving into something glorious.

 

[Gottservant]

What I don't get, is that you are basically saying "one host, can evolve with other hosts, but not evolve while parasites are trying to keep up"?

It smacks of hubris, honestly.

Either the parasite catches up with the host (individually), or the population of hosts leaves the parasite behind (collectively)?

 

[Kylie]

What I don't get, is that you are basically saying "one host, can evolve with other hosts, but not evolve while parasites are trying to keep up"?

It smacks of hubris, honestly.

Either the parasite catches up with the host (individually), or the population of hosts leaves the parasite behind (collectively)?

No one has said that. You do not understand evolution.

Host species are constantly evolving because the parasites that infect them are a selective pressure. The hosts are evolving ways of fighting the parasites. Likewise, the parasites are evolving ways to beat the defenses that the hosts are evolving. It's an evolutionary arms race.

 

[Gottservant]

No one has said that. You do not understand evolution.

Host species are constantly evolving because the parasites that infect them are a selective pressure. The hosts are evolving ways of fighting the parasites. Likewise, the parasites are evolving ways to beat the defenses that the hosts are evolving. It's an evolutionary arms race.

Oh, so if you are 'constantly' evolving because you constantly have selection pressures, you can do it on your own, but if you are without a selection pressure helping you, only the population is able to respond to the selection pressure? The selection pressure for the population is just there to do with mating selection or something?

"Arms race"... arms race... there is a chance the parasite will predict the host's evolution? Too? Knowing what the host is responding to?

 

[Gottservant]

Do you agree with this choice, though?

Either the parasite catches up with the host (individually), or the population of hosts leaves the parasite behind (collectively)?

There is a chance that the parasite will get more hosts, if it can predict their evolution, too, is that incentive like a selection pressure?

 

[Shemjaza]

Oh, so if you are 'constantly' evolving because you constantly have selection pressures, you can do it on your own, but if you are without a selection pressure helping you, only the population is able to respond to the selection pressure? The selection pressure for the population is just there to do with mating selection or something?

"Arms race"... arms race... there is a chance the parasite will predict the host's evolution? Too? Knowing what the host is responding to?

You are not constantly evolving because individuals do not evolve.

 

[Shemjaza]

Do you agree with this choice, though?

Either the parasite catches up with the host (individually), or the population of hosts leaves the parasite behind (collectively)?

There is a chance that the parasite will get more hosts, if it can predict their evolution, too, is that incentive like a selection pressure?

This doesn't make sense because individual parasites do not evolve and evolution is not a choice.

 

[Kylie]

Oh, so if you are 'constantly' evolving because you constantly have selection pressures, you can do it on your own, but if you are without a selection pressure helping you, only the population is able to respond to the selection pressure? The selection pressure for the population is just there to do with mating selection or something?

"Arms race"... arms race... there is a chance the parasite will predict the host's evolution? Too? Knowing what the host is responding to?

No, a million times no.

That is nothing at all like evolution. You literally do not understand evolution. Stop trying to make evolution be what you think it should be.

 

[Gottservant]

No, a million times no.

That is nothing at all like evolution. You literally do not understand evolution. Stop trying to make evolution be what you think it should be.

It seems like an obvious connection to me, you live with a host, you grow to know what it prefers (instinctually or otherwise)?

 

[Gottservant]

You are not constantly evolving because individuals do not evolve.

But the pressure is there?

You are ignoring selection pressure to respond to or be like Evolution, how?

 

[Kylie]

It seems like an obvious connection to me, you live with a host, you grow to know what it prefers (instinctually or otherwise)?

It's very clumsily phrased, but yes. However, this only works over many generations. As has been stated to you many times, individuals do not evolve. If an individual parasitic creature can survive against the defenses that the host uses to try to kill it, then the parasite will reproduce. If it can not survive, then it will not reproduce.

 

[Shemjaza]

But the pressure is there?

You are ignoring selection pressure to respond to or be like Evolution, how?

Regardless of selection pressure, the individual does not evolve.

The selection pressure helps or hurts the individuals survival chances... so the species evolves, but not a single individual ever does and ever can.

 

[Gottservant]

It's very clumsily phrased, but yes. However, this only works over many generations. As has been stated to you many times, individuals do not evolve. If an individual parasitic creature can survive against the defenses that the host uses to try to kill it, then the parasite will reproduce. If it can not survive, then it will not reproduce.

[my bold]

"The parasite will reproduce" because there is a population of the parasite, to reproduce with?

That's the crucial point for you? That there be parasites molded by the same selection pressure? Pressures?

This is important, because it shows that a selection pressure can have a greater effect on a population, than its mutations?

 

[Gottservant]

Regardless of selection pressure, the individual does not evolve.

The selection pressure helps or hurts the individuals survival chances... so the species evolves, but not a single individual ever does and ever can.

But there may be "positive" selection pressures/one's that favour more achievable mutations, across a population (that can then keep the 'postivity' of the selection pressures "going"?)?

The point being, there may be a greater chance to respond to Evolution, across a better distribution of chaotic forces?