Creation vs Evolution: The Bombardier Beetle Challenge

Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | February 8, 2018 | David F. Coppedge

[fishtank]

Creation vs Evolution: The Bombardier Beetle Challenge

February 8, 2018 | David F. Coppedge

Bombardier beetles made the news again this week. Creation scientists have long used them to challenge evolutionary theory. Can the Darwinians fight back?

Watch a funny video on National Geographic of a barfing toad. The toad made the mistake of sneaking up on a bombardier beetle and snatching it with its tongue before the beetle could fire its weapons. It’s not hard to imagine what happened inside the toad’s stomach, because a few minutes later, the toad gags and vomits out the beetle, practically turning its stomach inside out to get rid of the pest which, though sticky with gastric juices, is none the worse for wear and crawls away.

[Popman]

-—What evolutionists claim is evolution is actually adaptation.-—
Really?
Cite one species that adapted to another species!!!

[BroJoeK]

from the article: "Creation scientists have long used them to challenge evolutionary theory.
Can the Darwinians fight back? "

All of science begins with the following question:

"Is there a natural explanation for what we see?"

If the answer is "no", then no science is possible, but if the answer is "maybe" then science can do its thing.
So, in the case of the Bombardier Beatle, here's what science says:

• "The full evolutionary history of the beetle's unique defense mechanism is unknown, but biologists have shown that the system could have theoretically evolved from defenses found in other beetles in incremental steps by natural selection.[7][8]
• Specifically, quinone chemicals are a precursor to sclerotin, a brownish substance produced by beetles and other insects to harden their exoskeleton.[9]
• Some beetles additionally store excess foul-smelling quinones, including hydroquinone, in small sacs below their skin as a natural deterrent against predators—all carabid beetles have this sort of arrangement.
• Some beetles additionally mix hydrogen peroxide, a common by-product of the metabolism of cells, in with the hydroquinone; some of the catalases that exist in most cells make the process more efficient.
• The chemical reaction produces heat and pressure, and some beetles exploit the latter to push out the chemicals onto the skin; this is the case in the beetle Metrius contractus, which produces a foamy discharge when attacked.[10]
• In the bombardier beetle, the muscles that prevent leakage from the reservoir additionally developed a valve permitting more controlled discharge of the poison and an elongated abdomen to permit better control over the direction of discharge.[7][8]"

In other words, squirting is not uncommon among insects and likely came first, with chemicals squirted becoming increasingly toxic under pressures from natural selection.

Nothing necessarily "irreducibly complex" about it.

"The unique combination of features of the bombardier beetle's defense mechanism—strongly exothermic reactions, boiling-hot fluids, and explosive release—have been claimed by creationists and proponents of intelligent design to be examples of irreducible complexity.[11]"

[BroJoeK]

Popman: "Cite one species that adapted to another species!!!"

The only thing preventing such events are your own word definitions -- "adaption" vs "evolution", "micro-" vs "macro-" evolution.
But in reality, all adaption is evolution and all evolution is adaption, only the time scales differ:

1. "Adaption" relatively short-term creates new breeds, varieties and sub-species.

2. "Evolution" accumulating changes over relatively longer-terms produces new biological species, genera, families, etc.

But the processes are exactly the same except for the time periods required.

[Popman]

Not going to disagree with your post...

By whatever terms you want to use cite one transition species to another species...

[Tucker39]

The late Dr. Kennedy, in one of his archived sermons, quoted what Huxley said on an NPR TV show. That probably won’t be good enough for you. Sorry. That’s all I can tell you. In closing, may I invite you to read the book of Romans and the Gospel of John, in the New Testament. Have a nice eternity.

[Hot Tabasco]

so where was the video?

[BroJoeK]

SoConPubbie, post #10: "Actually, with the miniscule probabilities attached to a God-less evolution, it takes far more faith’ to believe in the religion of evolution"

Popman post #60: "That’s a point I always use when discussing this topic with evolutionist...
Typically just makes them mad..."

Strictly defined, in science there's no belief, no faith, no doctrine and no theory is ever 100% "settled".
All explanations are subject to change if/when new data or better ideas are found.
So, if somebody tells you, you have to believe in evolution, that's a lie.

What science does instead is accept, conditionally and temporarily, ideas that best fit all the available data.
In natural history, evolution has been the dominant idea, greatly modified over the past 150 years.
Such modifications have kept Darwin's original idea relevant & up-to-date to the point where all of our understandings in such fields as biology & geology are based on them.

As for your daunting probabilities, I assess the probability of the Universe existing absent God's creation as zero, so anything we see in the natural realm is His handiwork, whether it agrees with our theological ideas or not.
God does not need our permission to create life through evolution or any other method which might suit Him.

[BroJoeK]

Popman: "By whatever terms you want to use cite one transition species to another species..."

All species, without exception, have "transitioned" from previous breeds, sub-species, species, genera, etc.
You don't need me to name them for you.

[BroJoeK]

Tucker39: "The late Dr. Kennedy, in one of his archived sermons, quoted what Huxley said on an NPR TV show.
That probably won’t be good enough for you."

Since there are several versions of that quote I'll take it as apocryphal, meaning Huxley might have said it, or might not.

Tucker39: "...may I invite you to read the book of Romans and the Gospel of John, in the New Testament.
Have a nice eternity."

Thanks, we study those in church each Sunday.
So, same to you.

[Tucker39]

I just realized I erred in my last reply. I said NPR. Dr. Kennedy hardly saw Huxley on the radio. No, it was on the TV arm of Public Broadcasting a few years before Huxley died.
Regards.

[angryoldfatman]

SoConPubbie, post #10: “Actually, with the miniscule probabilities attached to a God-less evolution, it takes far more faith’ to believe in the religion of evolution”
Popman post #60: “That’s a point I always use when discussing this topic with evolutionist...
Typically just makes them mad...”

Strictly defined, in science there’s no belief, no faith, no doctrine and no theory is ever 100% “settled”.
All explanations are subject to change if/when new data or better ideas are found.
So, if somebody tells you, you have to believe in evolution, that’s a lie.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Until, much like leftists do, you disagree with BroJoeK. Then the Dawkins’ hat trick is used (dissidents are stupid, ignorant, or crazy).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What science does instead is accept, conditionally and temporarily, ideas that best fit all the available data.
In natural history, evolution has been the dominant idea, greatly modified over the past 150 years.
Such modifications have kept Darwin’s original idea relevant & up-to-date to the point where all of our understandings in such fields as biology & geology are based on them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The “ignorant” portion of the Dawkins strategy used here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for your daunting probabilities, I assess the probability of the Universe existing absent God’s creation as zero, so anything we see in the natural realm is His handiwork, whether it agrees with our theological ideas or not.
God does not need our permission to create life through evolution or any other method which might suit Him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your idea of God is an unemployed loser unworthy of worship, like all other atheists.

He didn’t start life, he didn’t direct life’s progress to make a creature that could understand and worship Him. If I pushed you, you could deny his role in the creation of matter and time, thereby making Him the unemployed, fictional deity you wish Him to be.

By the way, it wasn’t Julian Huxley who spoke of atheism allowing sexual freedom; it was his brother Aldous:

“We objected to the [Christian] morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”

Ends and Means, 1937

[BroJoeK]

angryoldfatman: "Until, much like leftists do, you disagree with BroJoeK.
Then the Dawkins’ hat trick is used (dissidents are stupid, ignorant, or crazy)."

Nonsense.

angryoldfatman: "The 'ignorant' portion of the Dawkins strategy used here."

So who are you calling "ignorant"?

angryoldfatman: "Your idea of God is an unemployed loser unworthy of worship, like all other atheists."

Complete rubbish.

angryoldfatman: "He didn’t start life, he didn’t direct life’s progress to make a creature that could understand and worship Him.
If I pushed you, you could deny his role in the creation of matter and time, thereby making Him the unemployed, fictional deity you wish Him to be."

More nonsense, sounds to me like some kind of template you copy & paste regardless of facts, right?

angryoldfatman: "By the way, it wasn’t Julian Huxley who spoke of atheism allowing sexual freedom; it was his brother Aldous:
'We objected to the [Christian] morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.'
Ends and Means, 1937"

So, after a seemingly endless blast of manure, you reach your point which is to abjectly confess that the quote posted by Tucker39 in #20 above is in error, just as I suspected from the beginning.

Thanks for that.

[Popman]

All species, without exception, have "transitioned" from previous breeds, sub-species, species, genera, etc. You don't need me to name them for you.

Only the ignorant denies micro-evolution which you included in your straw man point...

You included the terms "species, genera,"

???

Again, I ask you to cite ONE example where a species or genera has transitioned from one to another...

[UCANSEE2]

I don’t ask questions I don’t already know the answer to.

If you say I am a dummy, and am wrong, then what is your answer to those questions ?

[UCANSEE2]

I’m waiting for a monkey to ‘adapt’ itself as a giraffe.

Humorous, but... their is no environmental adaptation needed by the monkey to survive by becoming a giraffe.

Monkeys can climb trees not matter how tall they are. Giraffes cannot climb trees.

[BroJoeK]

Popman: "Only the ignorant denies micro-evolution which you included in your straw man point..."

Not a "straw man point", since micro & macro are exactly the same things, period.
Only the time scales are different.

Popman: "Again, I ask you to cite ONE example where a species or genera has transitioned from one to another... "

I see you missed my answer the first time, so I'll say it again more s-l-o-w-l-y:

All of them, every one, without exception.

Clear enough for you?

[BroJoeK]

UCANSEE2: "I don’t ask questions I don’t already know the answer to."

So, you're just being a sm*rt *ss pretending to be a d*umb sh*t?
And you want a serious answer for that?

Why?

UCANSEE2: "If you say I am a dummy, and am wrong, then what is your answer to those questions?"

Your question in post #39 betrays a gross ignorance of basic biology, so now you wish me to believe you are not really that stupid, but still deserve an intelligent answer??

Why?

[BroJoeK]

My apologies, sorry for the language, no excuse.

On another thread we were reminiscing fondly about our old school drill sergeants, always, ahem, colorful in their choices of words.
A little bit of leakage there.
Won't happen again, sir.

[Bellflower]

The difference between adaption and evolution, evolution as taught in government schools, is in that The LORD said everything reproduces after it's kind. There are kind barriers built into all creatures, by The LORD.

There are myriads of variations within kinds (The LORD loves variation), but they hit essentially a pre built in “firewall” that will not let them be anything but a variation of their original kind.

All the healthy possibilities within a “kind” are already there from the beginning, genetically. In the beginning The LORD built into the genetic codes of all of His creatures, including man, a possible infinite amount of variations, when paired and re paired.

Mutations, which multiply though out the corrupted ages of this time, are present and may cause some weak, but not lasting, even minimally favorable changes. This being very rare, and fragile and actually serving to ultimately weaken an organism, even though in the short run, though an accidental fluke, useful for helping the organism survive.

Mutations would eventually take over our codes, and apart from the eminent return of Jesus Christ, would destroy us and all living things.

Viruses are break off beings. They are parasitical, partial beings, and to live must rely on their host cells to reproduce. They sometimes exchange information between beings. The information, they sometimes may exchange, is again, not new information, but information that was created into the genes of The LORD’s creatures, information that was there from the beginning.

When creatures specialize into species it is because of a loss of information, not the adding of new information. Creatures are isolated and certain genetic properties come into the forefront and take over, while other information is lost. A wolf is reduced, genetically, down to a Chihuahua. Wolves may again be reduced down to Chihuahua, but due to lots of lost genetic information, Chihuahuas are unlikely to ever again, through coupling, become wolves.

All information has been there from the beginning. A "firewall" exist that keeps creatures' offspring being from becoming anything except a creature of it's original kind, by design of The LORD.

It may even be possible, in my estimation, that The LORD orchestrates, in some way, the coming about of the differences needed to come forth by kinds, in survival situations.