Despite my having a poor memory for whether the cleaner is a fish or a shrimp and the exact process and details, it's not relevent. To claim "...a bit of badly-memorized stump-the-dummies (be nice! No need to call yourself a dummy! I haven't called you one!)minutiae (as in your inability to present scientific evidence), demolished in a single web search", you have shown your ignorance of the entire process, save your recent web-search. This is a mere transparent mis-direct on your part in an attempt to not have to answer the "evolutionary" process that needed to happen in order for the situaton to even exist. So please, in your pomous wisdom, explain the behavioral processes and the reproductive requirements (despite insurmountable probability) that are to have been required for the "fittest" to behave like the most unfit and to have "evolved" and survived today.
To be quite candid, I really don't care if you happen to worship the god of your own intellect and bogus science, just don't use the term "science" (to which you avoid the definition of, as it applies to this discussion) to claim that evolution is a "fact". The only fact is your faith that it is fact. By all definitions of science, it is not fact, but theory at best and more probably a flimsy fairy tale for those adherents who need to have an excuse to be athiests.
baa
Are you playing "That's not it?" I linked you the evidence for dinos-to-birds. I gave you 200+ vertebrate transitionals. I gave you examples in-line from the fish-amphibians sequence. And, without having laid a glove on any of that, you sit back and say "Nobody has yet proven . . ."
Such unimpressive performances are why I still say the main evidence against evolution seems to be that nobody can make a creationist see the evidence for it.
This is a mere transparent mis-direct on your part in an attempt to not have to answer the "evolutionary" process that needed to happen in order for the situaton to even exist.
No, you've claimed the existing situation cannot have evolved. But a detailed examination of the scenario makes it clear there are adequate pathways from completely non-symbiotic lifestyles into the present situation. Your claim of impossibility was based upon misrepresenting what's happening out there. That's false witness, Brother!
So please, in your pomous wisdom, explain the behavioral processes and the reproductive requirements (despite insurmountable probability) that are to have been required for the "fittest" to behave like the most unfit and to have "evolved" and survived today.
Gave it already. You are bludgeoning me with your inability to get things.
The shrimp just have to be hungry enough to experiment with nipping bits of bacteria, small animal pests, and necrotic tissue from fish. And the fish have to like it. The shrimp don't have to start out by swimming into the fish's mouth. They probably would start well away from the mouth. Over time, the behaviors can get more elaborate as trust builds.
Why don't the fish cheat and eat the shrimp? Those that do lose the advantage of the symbiotic relationship. If there's insufficient advantage to either party in the relationship, you can expect it to disappear over time.
The theory of evolution is a model that best describes the current understanding of the diversity of life here on earth.
A scientific theory can be modified by data points when they no longer fall within the framework of that model. So I am certainly open to discard evolution should evidence (real, verifiable, peer reviewed) come along that is at odds with the evolutionary model. Religion on the other hand (being set down by God) has no checks and balances. Our notions of God are completely subjective as apposed to objective. So with that in mind, do you wonder that all of us (living in a solipsistic universe) have our own ideas of what God is? How then can you use "God" to define or help define the observed models we create to describe this physical universe?