PHeMoX,

In all you dribble you missed the point of my original post. I was not attempting to prove or disprove anything. That is what I said from the beginning. I simply asked how evolution accounts for the things that I brought up. It is really that simple.

These sorts of questions are important because, as I pointed out, evolution cannot only account for the development of a varieyt of species, but also for the behaviors of these same species. In other words, it is not just the different kinds of animals that we need to account for (i.e. their existance) but also their distinct behavioral patterns. There is more to a bird than he has feathers. As noted, they also build a particular kind of nest (or none at all ... in some cases). And they always build the same kind of nest. It never changes. From an evolutionary perspective, as these animals began to evolve from one kind to another, then instinctive behaviors would evolve with them. How does evolution answer these questions? How does it deal with instinct, behavioral patterns and other things that are unique to a species?

And, yes, I certainly pointed out in my original post that there are many examples of simbiotic relationships. Just because they exist does not mean they don't mean anything or that they prove or disprove anything. I was simply asking how evolution would account for these simbiotic relationships. Many of these relationships, like that of the Giant Tube Worm, are so close knit that the one cannot possibly live without the other. Not only that, but both the Giant Tube Worm and its bacteria live in a place where there is no chace for either of them to live apart from one another (i.e. there is no other "host" for the bacteria, no other bacteria for the tube worm and no way or time for either to develop another simbiotic relationship). How could this relationship have come about in evolutionary terms. Again, I am not using this to prove or disprove anything. I am simply looking for a logical answer from an evolutionary perspective.