The Cleaner fish lives in a certain variety of brightly colored coral that is attractive to the barracuda. The barracuda swim over to this coral and hover with their mouths open while the CleanerFish swims into his mouth and feeds on the bacteria that are on the barracuda's teeth. The barracuda allows this to happen and doesn't eat the cleaner fish. Without this activity, the teeth of the Barracuda would rot out and kill it and the Cleaner Fish wouldn't survive.
Splain how the barracuda "evolved" this behavior of alowing fish to swim in thier mouths and not eating them.
OR, how the Cleaner Fish learned to swim in the mouths of larger fish, knowing they wouldn't be eaten.
Or, how the barracuda learned which type of coral to hover near.
All of these traits had to mutate in these organisms at the same time or this phenomena would bot be happening today. Swimming into the mouth of a larger fish is not what is termed "survival of the fittest". Allowing fish to swim in your mouth without eating them is not "survival of the fittest". This is a great example of intellegent design and refutes the evolutionary theory.
Even if these events were to have mutated silmultaniously, these mutations would have had to breed offspring with the same mutations and they would have had to interact only within the the mutated relationships...for instance, if the mutated Cleaner Fish treid his teeth-cleaning stunt in a non-mutated barracuda, he'd be lunch...end of that evolution! Can't happen. Didn't happen.
Evolution is a theory, not fact. And those that hold to it fail to realize that their belief that it is fact is based upon thier faith...faith that there isn't a Creator God. If there is a God, then they aren't Him and are under His reign. This is the core issue with most (not all) evolutionists...submission.
God loves you. His burden is easy and light. Turn to Him and be saved.
...it's lightning...gotta go for now...
baa
In the wild, cleaner shrimp make their living by picking parasites and necrotic tissue off fish. The shrimp typically rest upside down under ledges with their white antennae sticking out to advertise their cleaning services. Fish solicit cleaning by taking a particular posture near the shrimp that indicates the fish is not a threat. The shrimp swim out and climb all over the fish, picking it over for edible morsels, and even reaching into the gills or climbing into the mouths of large fish.
To get to your fore-ordained conclusion, you leap to a couple of assumptions: 1) there's no benefit if the shrimp aren't doing the teeth, and 2) there's no way for the fish to live without the shrimp. You build a wall of impossibility around the existing situation and claim it could not have evolved.
The shrimp's service is beneficial, yes, but not essential. Many fish, not just barracudas, use the cleaner shrimp. It confers an advantage to the fish where available (ie, where there are cleaner shrimp). But there are fish including barracudas in many places without cleaner shrimp. The service is not essential.
Note too that the shrimp don't just work inside the fishes mouths. They work all over the body. Thus, the problem is no different than having birds cleaning parasites from hippos or crocodiles. You don't have to have full-blown trust up front. It's enough if a hungry critter takes a chance and snatches a meal from the hide of a nearby predator and the predator experiences relief from that maddening irritation. That will get things going.
But let's step back and look at what you attempted in another way. You claimed not to know of a single transitonal species save a questionable feathered dinosaur. That's pretty sad. Challenged on that, you revert to a bit of badly-memorized stump-the-dummies minutiae, demolished in a single web search.
Cheering for the gaps. Rooting for ignorance. This "science" offers no progress.