[_ Old Earth _] The Bombardier Beetle

[tzalam2]

The example of the bombardier is probably given more often than any other example as a proof against evolution. This amazing insect has two sacs, one of which contains hydrogen peroxide, and the other contains hydroquinone. The beetle also has a third compartment into which these two substances are injecting when the beetle feels threatened. A third liquid, an enzyme, is then injected into this chamber and acts as a catalyst to cause this noxious fluid to heat up to near boiling and to shoot it out of an outlet duct with amazing accuracy at the offending animal. The hot chemical soup is shot through a sphincter controlled firing mechanism that is in itself quite amazing.

Not only is this a beautiful example of irreducible complexity, but it makes evolutionary theory seem even wackier than ever. Evolutionary theorist and intellectual lightweight Richard Dawkins has tried to say that this was simply nature making use of materials that it had around. Not only does this preposterous argument require that nature must have had forethought and design, but it fails to explain why these substances would be lying around in the beetle in the first place if they were not intended to be used as parts of a defense mechanism. Even in the ridiculously unlikely event that the beetle would evolve two chambers to contain otherwise useless liquids, it is even more absurd to propose that a third chamber for the catalase, and a fourth chamber for the three to combine, would come into existence along with a highly sophisticated system of sphincters for a shooting mechanism all at the same time.

This beetle is a particularly good proof that evolutionists are stupid. They only stutter or babble irrelevantly when presented with this example. The only argument that I've even seen was from a numbskull (I believe that it was Dawkins) who was criticizing a creation scientists for leaving out the catalase from his description. In other words he was arguing against the creationist view by pointing out that the whole apparatus was much more complicated than the creationist had stated, and that the impossibility of it having come into being by chance was even greater. Two chemicals were proof enough of design; three chemicals are even greater proof! We could use more enemies like Dawkins.

One would think that these wannabe scientists would get excited about such a proof and it might occur to them that if there were a designer, then their lives need not be empty, futile and completely pointless as they are now. They would then have a reason to pursue knowledge, instead of having wasted, useless lives geared toward the pursuit of erudite babbling that serves no purpose. What point is there in pursuing "knowledge" when they believe that their only outcome is to become one with the soil? Why would it matter to a person with such a belief what anyone believed? On the other hand, someone with a functioning brain would alter their worldview when faced with such strong evidence of creation. The evolutionist not only wastes his time with nonsense, but with nonsense that would have no value to anyone even if it were true. What makes this even more illogical is that they deify nature anyway. By positing that nature designed such creatures, they have posited that nature is an intelligent force.

How could a non-intelligent force design anything? They have posited a designed universe with an impersonal designer that doesn't think or judge. What does that do to their claim that there is no creator at all? Either the world came about by chance or it was designed. They seem to want it both ways, but of course, their real reason that they want to deny God is that they hate what is good and those who do good. Logic and reason take second place to that hatred. This is the true mark of a reprobate mind, and a very undeveloped one at that. The bombardier beetle is another thing for which we can thank God, because they make utter fools out of evolutionists.

 

[cubedbee]

We don't just copy and paste stuff onto this site without citing the sources.

A "John Hinton, Ph.D." wrote this piece.
http://www.kjv-asia.com/comparing_spiri ... beetle.htm

The way he talks and insults scientists who have PHDs in biology you would surely think he himself is a biologist.

No, of course not. He's probably never taken a biology class given his degrees. Going elsewhere on his site, we see that he was a
"A former Ph.D. student in the Near Eastern Languages and Civilization Department"

"A holder of an M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School in Near Eastern and South Asian studies."

"A holder of a B.A. in Arabic"

http://www.kjv-asia.com/bible_believing ... hinton.htm

It's awfully arrogant to insult and bash those in a field of which you yourself know nothing about and have no credentials in.

 

[cubedbee]

And then of course there's the fact that the article is just wrong about the bombadier beetles, and in fact there is nothing about the process which is irreducably complex.

Gish is wrong; a step-by-step evolution of the bombardier system is really not that hard to envision. The scenario below shows a possible step-by-step evolution of the bombardier beetle mechanism from a primitive arthropod.

1 Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [Dettner, 1987]


2 Some of the quinones don't get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful. (Quinones are used as defensive secretions in a variety of modern arthropods, from beetles to millipedes. [Eisner, 1970])


3 Small invaginations develop in the epidermis between sclerites (plates of cuticle). By wiggling, the insect can squeeze more quinones onto its surface when they're needed.


4 The invaginations deepen. Muscles are moved around slightly, allowing them to help expel the quinones from some of them. (Many ants have glands similar to this near the end of their abdomen. [Holldobler & Wilson, 1990, pp. 233-237])


5 A couple invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis.


6 In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear. (See Eisner, 1970, for a review.) This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone.


7 Cells that secrete the hydroquinones develop in multiple layers over part of the reservoir, allowing more hydroquinones to be produced. Channels between cells allow hydroquinones from all layers to reach the reservior.


8 The channels become a duct, specialized for transporting the chemicals. The secretory cells withdraw from the reservoir surface, ultimately becoming a separate organ.
This stage -- secretory glands connected by ducts to reservoirs -- exists in many beetles. The particular configuration of glands and reservoirs that bombardier beetles have is common to the other beetles in their suborder. [Forsyth, 1970]



9 Muscles adapt which close off the reservior, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed.


10 Hydrogen peroxide, which is a common by-product of cellular metabolism, becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. The two react slowly, so a mixture of quinones and hydroquinones get used for defense.


11 Cells secreting a small amount of catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, outside the valve which closes it off from the outside. These ensure that more quinones appear in the defensive secretions. Catalases exist in almost all cells, and peroxidases are also common in plants, animals, and bacteria, so those chemicals needn't be developed from scratch but merely concentrated in one location.


12 More catalases and peroxidases are produced, so the discharge is warmer and is expelled faster by the oxygen generated by the reaction. The beetle Metrius contractus provides an example of a bombardier beetle which produces a foamy discharge, not jets, from its reaction chambers. The bubbling of the foam produces a fine mist. [Eisner et al., 2000]


13 The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction.


14 Still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, and the walls toughen and shape into a reaction chamber. Gradually they become the mechanism of today's bombardier beetles.


15 The tip of the beetle's abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible, allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions.


Note that all of the steps above are small or can easily be broken down into smaller steps. The bombardier beetles' mechanism can come about solely by accumulated microevolution. Furthermore, all of the steps are probably advantageous, so they would be selected. No improbable events are needed. As noted, several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in living populations.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html