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: 11203
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
Comments (1-26) not displayed.
.
.
.
#27. To: A Pole (#25)
I've never had cause to ban you before. Calling me a racist is cause for that. You demoncrats have to slander and lie. Of course you don't respect children either as you support putting them in a wood chipper like device. Sick🤤
So you worship a sinner who is currently covering up Catholic child molesters. Now tell me the heresy.
What is worse, to be called a racist or a godless Democrat?
So you worship a sinner who is currently covering up Catholic child molesters. I am not a Roman Catholic.
There is nothing disingenuous about that. It is the absoloute truth.
I'm not a racist. You don't believe the Bible so it is accurate to call you godless. You vote to murder children, that is satanic not godly. Even the Catholic Church teaches that. You reject your own religious leaders.
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.
They are still fruitflies.
Nope, Protestants are offshoot of Catholicism. And Catholicism is an offshoot of from us (since eleventh century):
The reality is quite the opposite. That's why bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics and we create different breeds of dogs. No, "reality" is NOT "quite the opposite. It has never been the case that something has grown stronger. Unless you can cite an example other than bacteria? (which only adapt, while different breeds of dogs ARE STILL DOGS.) You are familiar with the 'Second Law of Thermodynamics,' right? ALL of creation is growing WEAKER and dying. There are no exceptions.
Yup.
With dogs. They are still dogs. Just different characteristics. When the White man came to America and had sex with an indian. They created a new species right? Well stated...
Without "words" and definitions, what have we? "Species" is a necessary descriptor of a family of living beings. Weren't we just recently discussing the importance of clear semantics and language?
Antibiotics kill bacteria that don't have susceptibility to their affects. This is not a strong aspect of bacterial adapaptation, but a weak one. Naturally, bacteria will thrive in such an environment. However, this doesn't make bacteria stronger. They are actually weaker as a whole from many other factors.
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. So "hard to do" that it IS impossible. WITHOUT the "mechanism" of Supernatural help. There has NEVER been a single instance or case or discovery that has proven OR CAN prove DNA at the cellular, molecular level can be re-arranged and created to produce different life. But if your corollary in this case is about claiming, "ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE," is that statement/claim actually true? As far as creationism goes, there is also "no known mechanism" for the divine creation of new life. True. Other than a Divine Creator to simply "speak" it (as briefly explained in Genesis). 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... I suppose Creationists are not exactly looking to explain how God made it happen. Technically, you are correct; I would never presume to have an inkling to "understand" how God created heavens and earth. But then why must this question have an answer? If an Ant can't understand Man, what should we presume to understand God? Creationism CAN be validated through simple observation of infinitely-complicated life. That's a 1 + 1 = ? equation that is just hanging there (for many of us any way.) The more scientists have learned about the incredible complexity of even a single cell, the more inclined they are to believe in a Creator. To some degree Bible accounts validate a Creationism is we believe it is literal. Of course there are few details which understandably frustrates even some believers. Our geology and fossils embedded within the rock strata through The Great Flood (along with numerous other ancient cultures) confirm the event of The Great Flood. It confirms the Scriptural account of a planet that was awash in cataclysmic upheaval, (The founts of the deep opened up"), a total wipe-out (and start-over) of all life. There is no record of past life beneath those strata layers and embedded fossils of which Evo-scientists base much of their Dating of Earth. Now there's irony. On the other hand, Evolutionists provide ZERO "proof" of any "evolution," of an "Old Earth" other than inconsistent and unreliable dating methods -- which assume all values have been static (i.e., gravity, geography, geology, magnetic pull, planetary tilt, dramatic atmospheric and climate changes, etc.) are IN THE PAST as they are TODAY. There are NO "Missing Links" of plant or animal species or man. But there is proof of massive extinctions of past life, highly likely as a result of the Great Flood.
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. Are you serious?? From which part of Genesis are you quoting? In the beginning He created space, visible and invisible world, gave it physical laws and started the time. Now THAT can be found ostensibly in Genesis.
Excellent observation and point. Scientists tried to accelerate generations and stumble into a mutation that might cause the fruit fly to "evolve." Instead, in keeping with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the flies grew weaker and de-volved.
Really?? I for one await your counter-argument and corrective analysis.
"Species" is a necessary descriptor of a family of living beings. Weren't we just recently discussing the importance of clear semantics and language? Well, species is a man-made term. I agree we have to have a system for classifying living things. The bible says "things." I don't know what the original translation from the original language was. Frankly, creationists believe in changes in species more than evolutionists. That explains the world wide distribution of animals after the ark. Creationists just think it is ridiculous that a fruit fly could ever become a bird.
6 days isn't very long. +600, Stone
Saying millions of years was a bit of a hyperbole, but it was done over many, many generations of fruit lies.
Of course "species" is a man-made term for a necessary designation. The Bible explanation of "species" to be, "of its kind."
I completely understood your context.
Well to be fair, Moses wasn't actually "there," but was somehow divinely infused with knowledge and truth of "The Beginning" as well as ancient history. He did after all speak to The Almighty (Burning Bush) if we recall. In Ping's defense, he is merely stating that there is no scientific proof of either Creationism or of Evolution.
You know who else insisted on taking the Old Testament literally?? Jesus Christ. Repeatedly. LOOK IT UP. Of course there are parables, metaphors and symbolism from Jesus himself to consider that aren't to be taken literally. As to your claim that "Prots treat Genesis as a handbook on biology and astronomy" -- uh, SINCE WHEN? And by WHOM exactly? And in what context? Within Genesis is found the claim of the Great Flood event (and reason for it for which I doubt most RCCs are aware.) THAT event is proven. And through it and the epic cataclysmic convulsions of the planet, ALL life was changed while a recorded history of past live was preserved within the fossil record. All Christians, Bible-Believers, and scientists had to do was connect the very large dots. (and YES, many scientists ARE Literal Bible Believers. 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... What is this blood-fetish about? You DO understand the THE ABOVE is not to be taken literally, right?? That the Apostles drank wine at the Last Supper and NOT Jesus actual blood? And that they ate bread and NOT a chunk of Jesus' flesh?
A Pole isn't alone among "Christians" in eschewing the literal when it comes to the Bible. That said, only Jesus knows his heart. Then the same idiot votes for murdering children. A Pole -- do you vote for Democrats, a Party that wholly supports abortion? Or are you a Polish citizen?
HUH? On whose or what authority does such a thing exist? SYMBOLISM, Pole, symbolism. "In memory of me." At the Last Supper. Jesus didn't ask the Apostles or believers to become Zombie/Vampire-by-Proxy.
Are you serious?? From which part of Genesis are you quoting? You take mystical and subtle text intended for the small elite (yes, there was no printing press and books when the Pentateuch was written were EXTREMELY rare) crudely and literally, like a Cargo cult member who found a book on quantum physics OK, MR Literalist, explain me one thing, how Noe managed to fit countless thousand species of animals into his Ark, and how did he manage to get all those species from all continents? He must have had countless biologists all over the world collaborating with him, did he?
Wow you really don't believe the Bible. Next thing you are going to tell us is there was no serpent and no garden of Eden. Is that what you believe? Now to your question. 1. Who is to say that there were animal kinds that weren't near where the ark was consructed. 2. Secondly. Do you think there were poodles, German shepherds, cockerspaniels, wolves and every creature like that on the ark? There wouldn't need to be. There is the dog kind and they are responsible for all the variable types of dogs we have today. Same with other creatures such as rabits, squirrles etc. I'm sure they would have used younger creatures instead of a full grown giraffe. 3. Do you know how big the ark was? Mr Pole there is a life sized replica of Noah's ark in Kentucky. I haven't seen it yet. But I will some day. You should go see it. It might help your faith. I reallyl want your answer on the serpent and the garden of Eden.
So you think God was lying when he said he would preserve his word? You don't seem to have any faith at all.
"In memory", does not mean "not real". If your dying grandfather asks to drink a glass of wine in his memory on anniversary, does he mean a fruit juice from supermarket? This circumvention is sooo lame! Even Luther abhorred this Calvinist concept.
Personal doubt, confusion, or discomfort in trying to organize or explain things.
The actual Church of Christ as really founded by Christ Himself in a certain concrete place and time, was not based on the Bible. New Testament was written by the members of the Church much later. The serpent and garden of Eden were real, but the Serpent was not a snake, but Satan, Garden of Eden was not a plain garden but a world before the fall.
You think Noah's ark is made up. Why not the Garden of Eden?
Aaargh. I start to think that literacy is not so good for everyone.
Jesus quoted from the old testament. He said it was reliable. You don't believe the New Testament is inspired by God? Why do you put your faith in Christ if you think the Bible is a bunch of crap?
Bad sentence structure. Could you rephrase please?
Pewnie, mysle, ze pismiennosc nie jest taka dobra dla kazdego.
Ok I accept that that is as good as you can write. Unfortunately it is incoherent and I can no longer respond.
In how many languages can you write?
No evolution here
Comments (68 - 128) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestyou're a member of the godless Democrats, so that would explain If I am a godless Democrat, you are a snake handling member of Ku Klux Klan.
#28. To: A Pole (#24)
Such heresy did not take place among Christians for 15 centuries until Calvin.
#29. To: A K A Stone (#27)
Calling me a racist
#30. To: A K A Stone (#28)
"Such heresy did not take place among Christians for 15 centuries until Calvin."
#31. To: buckeroo (#13)
Evolution was not observed in fruit fly genetic manipulations in 1980, nor has it been observed in decades-long multigenerational studies of bacteria and fruit flies. The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don't evolve—they just die.
#32. To: A Pole (#29)
Calling me a racist What is worse, to be called a racist or a godless Democrat?
#33. To: A Pole (#30)
I am not a Roman Catholic.
#34. To: no gnu taxes (#31)
#35. To: A K A Stone (#33)
However I think you come from an offshoot of Catholicism.
#36. To: rlk (#2)
DNA is incapable of mutating other than regressively or DE-volving.
#37. To: paraclete (#3)
One bettle does not prove either evolution or adaptation but evolutionists are desperate to prove their theory, obviously the toad is not adapted to consume these bettles
#38. To: A K A Stone (#6)
What happens is antibiotics kill off certain bacteria. Then what remains has natural resistant to the antibiotics. Then those ones that are left multiply with each other. No new species.
#39. To: rlk (#8)
What is a species? Nothing but an organism with sharply different inherited permanent charactistics. Don't get hung up on words used to describe something.
#40. To: A K A Stone (#6)
#41. To: Pinguinite (#9)
It is more accurate to say that there is no known mechanism for DNA to extend it's instruction set.
#42. To: A Pole, redleghunter (#11)
He [God] did it [created life] through the evolution.
#43. To: no gnu taxes, Pinguinite (#12)
They screwed with fruit fly DNA for what would amount to millions of years of human existence, and they could never come up up with anything other than some really effed up fruit flies. That right there should have made it clear that evolution is simply not credible.
#44. To: buckeroo, no gnu taxes, Pinguinite (#13)
You are being disingenuous again. I won't list variables about your poor analysis but you could be more objective in your commentary.
#45. To: Liberator (#39)
Without "words" and definitions, what have we?
#46. To: A K A Stone, A Pole (#14)
A Pole: "[Creation was] a very long process."
#47. To: Liberator (#44)
#48. To: no gnu taxes, rlk (#45)
(Edited)
Well, species is a man-made term. I agree we have to have a system for classifying living things. The bible says "things." I don't know what the original translation from the original language was.
#49. To: no gnu taxes (#47)
Saying millions of years was a bit of a hyperbole, but it was done over many, many generations of fruit lies.
#50. To: A K A Stone, Pinguinite (#15)
(Edited)
It is found in Genesis chapter one by people who were actually there.
#51. To: A Pole, A K A Stone (#16)
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.
#52. To: A K A Stone, A Pole (#17)
What is funny is some idiot who doesn't believe the Bible and claims to be a Christian.
#53. To: A Pole (#20)
Do you believe that the consecrated Bread and Wine is the real Body and Blood of our Savior?
#54. To: Liberator, A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#42)
"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."
#55. To: A Pole, redleghunter (#54)
OK, MR Literalist, explain me one thing, how Noe managed to fit countless thousand species of animals into his Ark, and how did he manage to get all those species from all continents? He must have had countless biologists all over the world collaborating with him, did he?
#56. To: A Pole (#54)
You take mystical and subtle text intended for the small elite (yes, there was no printing press and books when the Pentateuch was written were EXTREMELY rare) crudely and literally, like a Cargo cult member who found a book on quantum physics
#57. To: Liberator (#53)
SYMBOLISM, Pole, symbolism. "In memory of me." At the Last Supper.
#58. To: Liberator (#39)
Without "words" and definitions, what have we?
#59. To: A K A Stone (#55)
Wow you really don't believe the Bible. Next thing you are going to tell us is there was no serpent and no garden of Eden. Is that what you believe?
#60. To: A Pole (#59)
The serpent and garden of Eden were real,
#61. To: A K A Stone (#60)
You think Noah's ark is made up. Why not the Garden of Eden?
#62. To: A Pole (#59)
The actual Church of Christ as really founded by Christ Himself in a certain concrete place and time, was not based on the Bible. New Testament was written by the members of the Church much later.
#63. To: A Pole (#61)
I start to think that literacy is not so good for everyone.
#64. To: A K A Stone (#63)
Bad sentence structure. Could you rephrase please?
#65. To: A Pole (#64)
#66. To: A K A Stone (#65)
Ok I accept that that is as good as you can write.
#67. To: A Pole (#66)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]