[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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: 11155
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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 97.

#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)

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.“

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.

Liberator  posted on  2018-02-09   15:18:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Liberator, A K A Stone (#1)

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.

Pinguinite  posted on  2018-02-10   1:49:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Pinguinite (#9)

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.

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.

Liberator  posted on  2018-02-10   14:37:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: Liberator (#41)

I've pondered how I might respond further on this topic, and it occurs to me that this is an issue where there is no small amount of difference in perspectives. Creationists argue that all species of life were spoken into existence perhaps with an earth that is just 6000 years old (I suppose some creationists would hold it could be much older), while the standard secular science says the earth is some 4.5 billion years old with life arising spontaneously and evolving into higher forms from there.

That is no small amount of difference. Most arguments are about issues where the parties agree on 90% of the facts, but on this one, the agreement is hardly more than that planet earth and life both exist.

To me, starting with the premise that the Bible is the "Word of God" and building a scientific model around it is flawed for the simple reason that (at least most people) have never established any valid, objective reason for accepting the premise that the Bible is the "Word of God". You talk about strata being evidence of the Great Flood, but secular science also says there have been many great floods throughout geologic history, including the Black sea being flooded within weeks by a breach of the barrier separating it from the Mediterranean sea (which may have been the event upon which the story of the Biblical flood was based).

I don't see creationists argue that the universe is smaller than science says, and for me it seems quite reasonable that the universe is as old as it is large.

I am glad that my particular beliefs do not depend on evolution being factual or not. That we have an immortal soul, or stated accurately, we ARE immortal souls, and that what we HAVE for a short time are mortal bodies, which are far inferior to souls, that our human nature & origins adds NOTHING to our value as souls. Nothing at all.

Liberator, this all comes back to belief systems. Debating about evolution is a red herring. That's not what creationists are really arguing about. What they are instead arguing about is that the Bible is literally the "Word of God". That's what it's really about. As long as a creationist believes that, no amount of discussion about evolution will convince him/her otherwise, and for any secular scientist, no amount of debate about evolution will convince him/her that each species miraculously appeared by divine command.

So if you really want to convince anyone about creationism, you have to convince people that the Bible is the Word of God. Period. That's it.

Now we've had some of that discussion in the past and I've issued my challenges on this point. You promised to get back to me several times and it's up to you if you ever do. I have not judged and will not judge you for not doing so and set no time limit at all, even if you never do. But I will say this: I have yet to find a single person who has ever made any real effort at all to debunk my perspective on this subject, much less even come close to succeed in doing so, even though I have come to the arena a number of times. Under my model, God is more patient, more forgiving, never judges, never gets angry and so on. And yet there is full accountability for how we live, and a real purpose to life and for the existence of the universe and everything in it. And it doesn't matter if evolution is true or not or how old the universe. In fact the universe itself, for all it's wonder, is a mere tool created for a greater end. It all fits together so much better. Perfectly really.

So if and when you want to come to the floor on the REAL topic here, I'm game. Until then, arguing/debating about evolution vs creationism is, I will say most politely, a waste of time.

Pinguinite  posted on  2018-02-10   21:40:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: Pinguinite, redleghunter, no gnu taxes, a pole (#77) (Edited)

The 6000 years old premise conflicts with the self-evident observable reality that we can see light from celestial bodies that are billions of light years away.

When relativistic time dilation is taken into account, the question becomes: In whose inertial frame did each of those "days" transpire?

That is the time scale in which DNA/RNA, and the associated cellular machinery, operate to effect the natural selection and creation of species.

The unanswered question then remains: where did DNA/RNA come from?

VxH  posted on  2018-02-10   21:52:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: VxH (#78)

When relativistic time dilation is taken into account, the question becomes: In whose inertial frame did each of those "days" transpire?

So god created plants. Then it was dark for billions of years. No that doesn't work.

You're trying to make the Bible fit into your tiny minuscule bit of knowledge you have.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-10   22:36:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: A K A Stone (#85)

Nope. Light was created first. Then matter condensed from it.

Just like Genesis says:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

VxH  posted on  2018-02-10   22:40:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: VxH (#87)

You didn't quote Genesis. You quoted something else.

Genesis says the earth was with out form and void. Not what you quoted.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-10   22:43:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: A K A Stone (#89) (Edited)

What does Genesis 1:3 say?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1

VxH  posted on  2018-02-10   22:45:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: VxH (#90)

What does Genesis 1:3 say?

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-10   22:48:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: A K A Stone (#93) (Edited)

E=mc^2

What does this mean?

VxH  posted on  2018-02-10   22:49:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#96. To: VxH (#94)

E=MC^2

What does this mean?

You don't need that to understand the Bible.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-10   22:50:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#97. To: A K A Stone (#96)

I understand the Bible doesn't conflict with observable natural law.

VxH  posted on  2018-02-10   22:51:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 97.

        There are no replies to Comment # 97.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 97.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com