Symbio-genesis is a 'Process', not an 'Event' ?

[Widdekind]

Symbio-Genesis, at all biological scales, is a "process", not an "event" ?

 

Over two billion years ago, a then-free-swimming pre-Mitochondrial, proteobacteria, was incorporated, into the proto-Eukaryotic (post-Thermoplasma ?) host cell. This "event" is often described in "instantaneously singular terms", as if full-fledged Symbiosis emerged, full-flower, from some single happenstance. Yet, that newly-proto-Mitochondrial, intra-cellular symbiont, surely had a genome of ~1000 genes, >2 Gya, which has been steadily eroded down -- by "streamlining deletions", and "nuclear incorporations", of the proto-Mitochondrial genome -- to only 37 genes, today. Thus, Eukaryotic Mitochondria have gradually given up genes, as they have "relaxed" into their "climate controlled" intra-cellular "farm", at an average rate, of -1 gene per 2 Myr. Thus, Symbiogenesis has been a gradual process, evolving over geological time-scales, and not some singular 'one-time' event.

 

Now, terrestrial plant Photo-Respiration can be construed, as earth plants behaving according to a 'pan-planetary perspective' -- to wit, 'stewarding' earth-atmospheric Carbon Dioxide concentrations, as if to avoid additional 'snowball earth' global glaciations:

 

Photorespiration can occur when carbon dioxide levels are low... Photorespiration produces no ATP, and leads to a net loss of carbon and nitrogen (as ammonia), slowing plant growth. Potential photosynthetic output may be reduced by photorespiration by up to 25% in C3 plants.

Thus, even as Symbiogenesis may be a gradual process, of "relationship building" -- "they meet, shake hands, start to small-talk, continue a deeper conversation, one-thing-leads-to-another, and they begin to get intimate" -- at the level of the single cell, so to, Meta-Symbiogenesis, at the pan-planetary 'super-scale', may also be an (even more) gradual process, occurring 'glacially slowly', yet inexorably, over geological time.

[CharonY]

I do not know what you try to say, but symbiosis is the result of co-evolution, closely related (in mechanics) to parasitism. There is virtually no one arguing that it happened in an instance. Moreover, the the nuclear transfer in mitochondria arguably occurred way after establishment of a symbiotic relationship.

From the way you wrote it, it appears to me that you were paraphrasing it (wrongly) from somewhere else (and adding random thoughts). Maybe providing a source could help others assist others to understand your point better?