Creationism/Evolution
See other Creationism/Evolution Articles
Title: Creation vs Evolution: The Bombardier Beetle Challenge
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://crev.info/2018/02/creation- ... n-bombardier-beetle-challenge/
Published: Feb 9, 2018
Author: David F. Coppedge
Post Date: 2018-02-09 14:59:08 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 11160
Comments: 128
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. The amazing bombardier beetle is the “dinner date from hell,” the article quips. New Scientist says these beetles can survive for almost two hours before being spit out by any predator unlucky enough to gulp them down. Japanese scientists proved it was the bug’s cannons that forced the vomit response, because beetles that had already fired their weapons were not regurgitated. Creationists have long used the bombardier beetle as a challenge to evolution since the days of Duane Gish and Robert Kofahl in the 1960s and 1970s. Jobe Martin talked about them in his films, Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution. How could such a system evolve by a Darwinian process? Unless the entire mechanism were in place, the bug would blow itself to bits. The secular articles admit that it’s a remarkable “shock and awe” defense mechanism. National Geographic explains, Bombardier beetles aren’t especially rare; more than 500 species live on every continent except Antarctica, and all of them create a toxic brew of chemicals in a special chamber at the bottom of their abdomen. The molecules are mixed together at the last minute and react to form hydrogen peroxide and another class of compounds called benzoquinones, along with huge amounts of heat and pressure. Both chemicals are irritants and can damage skin and lungs. Thanks to the shape of the chamber, this boiling foul mixture is ejected with a huge force. Luc Bussiere at The Conversation is similarly intrigued by these bugs. He includes slow-motion video of the beetle firing its weapons. You can see that the eruption comes out well-aimed and in spurts. The explosion actually creates smoke. Could this evolve? In Spacecraft Earth, Dr Henry Richter describes the creation challenge presented by the bombardier beetle, which he calls one of his favorite examples of creatures that defy evolution. This amazing insect uses two separate chambers in its abdomen, one for the explosive (hydrogen peroxide) and one for the detonator (hydroquinone). These chemicals must be kept separate and in a deactivated state. When they are mixed in the combustion chamber, they must be activated at just the right time, in the right amounts, and in the right way, or else the bug will be a victim of its own weapon, unable to reproduce. How could such a system evolve? Everything had to work right from the beginning, or no offspring would see the light of day to pass along the lucky discovery. He quotes Lyell Rader’s 1998 book for additional details: Bombardier beetle (Wikimedia Commons) All of these systems have to be in flawless working conditions for the beetle to survive. The cannons without the explosives would be meaningless. One chemical without the other would not explode. Both chemicals, without the inhibitor, would blow the beetle to bits. Without the anti-inhibitor, the beetle would be unable to trigger the explosion at all. Without the storage chambers, it wouldn’t have the chemicals on hand when needed. Without strongly reinforced, heat-proof combustion tubes and cannons, the heat generated by the explosion would cook the beetle. But most amazing of all is the hair trigger communications system. The beetle identifies a potential enemy; waits until the enemy gets its mouth open; pulls the anti-inhibitor like a firing pin on a rifle; aims its cannons; and sends a scalding blast of noxious gas from its tail into the mouth of the aggressor, curbing its appetite for any more beetles. These five functions must be perfectly timed to a fraction of a second. Richter adds more detail illustrating the irreducible complexity of this creature: There’s more to this story. High speed cameras have shown that the beetle fires a rapid series of shots rather than one explosive burst. This gives the bug finer control over the explosion, preventing the recoil that would send it flying. The beetle can also aim its heat weapon precisely over a wide range of angles. All these controls require additional ‘brain software’ for their use. It’s no wonder, Richter says (pp 79-80), that creationists have enjoyed pointing to the bombardier beetle as a challenge to evolution. (As for the evolutionist quibble that the chemicals are not explosive, see Gish’s response quoted here.) The Darwinian Response Evolutionists must certainly be aware that creationists have long used the bombardier beetle as evidence against evolution. Let’s look in the three pro- evolution articles for their comeback arguments: National Geographic: “bombardier beetle species may have evolved the ability to survive toads’ digestive system…” New Scientist: “In another experiment, the researchers found bombardier beetles are more likely to survive after 20 minutes in a toad stomach than 14 other beetle species. This suggests they have evolved a tolerance for toad digestive juices.” The Conversation: “The diverse getaway tactics of animals are a testament to the fascinating creativity of evolution…. we should be mindful that evolutionary innovation can produce remarkable adaptations.“
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 33.
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
“The diverse getaway tactics of animals are a testament to the fascinating creativity of evolution…. we should be mindful that evolutionary innovation can produce remarkable adaptations.“ What's fascinating is Bogus Science's PTB claims that their 100% unproven theory of "Evolution" constitutes actual "science." We should be mindful that "Adaptation" is a whole different ballgame. Yet its doesn't stop National Geographic from performing semantic-contortionism. DNA is incapable of mutating other than regressively or DE-volving. That's just Genetics 101.
It is more accurate to say that there is no known mechanism for DNA to extend it's instruction set. And "no known mechanism" does not equate to one not existing, and is not sufficient to conclude that it cannot do so. To support a claim that DNA is "incapable" of mutating into more complex structures, one must prove a negative -- that it "can't" do something -- and that is very hard to do. As far as creationism goes, there is also "no known mechanism" for the divine creation of new life. To explain the existence of life on earth, Creationists say "God created it" while Evolutionists say "Evolution created it". Yet neither side can fully explain the mechanism by which life came to be. Though I suppose Creationists are not exactly looking to explain how God made it happen.
We have a plausible and compelling theory to explain it. He did it through the evolution. He made man from the clay ie from the ocean mud, and out of it He shaped plants, animals and man in a very long process. In the beginning He created space, visible and invisible world, gave it physical laws and started the time.
6 days isn't very long.
6 days isn't very long. Funny how Prots, or drifters with Prot background insist on literal reading in matters not needed much for their Salvation, treating Genesis as a handbook on biology and astronomy. Yet when they are told what is literally necessary, they either interpret it away as a mere symbolic ritual of commemoration or walk out. === Jesus said to them, “VERY TRULY I tell you, UNLESS you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you HAVE NO LIFE in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.” From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”
That is more complicated and this explains it be5er then I have time to. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-jesus-meant-when-he-said-you- must-eat-my-flesh
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-jesus-meant-when-he-said-you-must-eat-my-flesh: For Jesus eating is believing; drinking is believing. He promises eternal life to those who believe in him. Believe what? Believe that his death—the breaking of his body and spilling of his blood—pays in full the penalty for our sin and that his perfect righteousness is freely given to us in exchange for our unrighteousness. Believing this IS HOW we “eat” [quotes!] Jesus’ flesh and “drink”[quotes!] his blood. This is why he instituted the Lord’s Supper: he did not want us to FORGET the very core of what we believe. Ha, ha. You guys do exactly what I said. Simple saving words you interpret away as a symbolic ritual of commemoration. Such heresy did not take place among Christians for 15 centuries until Calvin.
So you worship a sinner who is currently covering up Catholic child molesters. Now tell me the heresy.
So you worship a sinner who is currently covering up Catholic child molesters. I am not a Roman Catholic.
My mistake and I withdraw any comments I made towards you that pertain to Catholics. I'm sorry. However I think you come from an offshoot of Catholicism.
#35. To: A K A Stone (#33)
Nope, Protestants are offshoot of Catholicism. And Catholicism is an offshoot of from us (since eleventh century):
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe Conversation:
#9. To: Liberator, A K A Stone (#1)
DNA is incapable of mutating other than regressively or DE-volving. That's just Genetics 101.
#11. To: Pinguinite (#9)
Though I suppose Creationists are not exactly looking to explain how God made it happen.
#14. To: A Pole (#11)
a very long process.
#16. To: A K A Stone (#14)
"a very long process"
#19. To: A Pole, redleghunter (#16)
Jesus said to them, “VERY TRULY I tell you, UNLESS you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you HAVE NO LIFE in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
#24. To: A K A Stone (#19)
That is more complicated and this explains it be5er then I have time to.
#28. To: A Pole (#24)
Such heresy did not take place among Christians for 15 centuries until Calvin.
#30. To: A K A Stone (#28)
"Such heresy did not take place among Christians for 15 centuries until Calvin."
#33. To: A Pole (#30)
I am not a Roman Catholic.
Replies to Comment # 33. However I think you come from an offshoot of Catholicism.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 33.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]