Comments On This Page:|
I don't understand posted by Jim Moore
on 10/06/2008 at 17:07:20 from IP# 99.139.245.214 I don't understand how the bombadier beetle came to be. However, the people who have studied it most closely do have reasonable explanations of its defense function. In science, the goal is discover, not assertion. If you need that beetle to be an impossible creation to justify your faith, then I'd say your faith should be what is in question, not the history of some bug.
But the one writer is correct... I have read most of these "explanations" that "prove" the notion of divine creation, I don't understand them at all. What amazes me is that you guys can use my lack of understanding as justification that you are right. There is such a thing as ethical intellectual standards (honesty) and it seems to me that those who make arguments like "because you cannot understand, I am justified" need to reconsider your standards. You should think more of yourselves than to allow yourselves to buy such cheap ideas as the ones you seem to be trying to sell.
|
|
Good rebuttal posted by James Malm
on 11/16/2007 at 07:49:05 from IP# 210.5.236.206 Aaron Goodman,
Great email in response to Mary Smith. Your motive was right on and agree. Most of the evolutionist that are out there are really grasping for straw and are quite frustrated with us creationist because our answers are so simple. We simplify things with a seemingly universal reason called creation when the modern scientists are trying so hard to explain our existence and origin with faulty non factual information. Its like trying to explain why water is not wet. The facts are the facts, water is wet and creation is real. Way to go with your ambition on your rebuttal to Mary letter. However I must say the attitude of your rebuttal was demeaning and disrespectful. Aaron the bible says that the most righteous of us is as filthy rags. That is filthy rags being the rags the lepers used to cover there scabbed and Pusey and bloody disease. Thats all of us, we are no better than that. Thats bad, and I know I definitely fall into that category. We are all on the same level in the sinful since and are nothing with out the sin filter called Jesus Christ that makes it possible for God to look upon us. Only then do we appear righteous to God. I'm not saying that some do not live there lives in accordance to Gods word better than others, because some certainly do. But we have to filter are responses to non Christians and Christians alike through a humble spirit with Gods help. I am not taking up for Marys unbelief, for that is a sure road to destruction but am supporting what sounds to be another believer, with constructive criticism that I hope that I have not in myself come across as prideful. If I am wrong in the way I interpreted your rebuttal I apologize but if not please let me know if I can support another brother in prayer and I would covet the same of you for I often fall in the same frame of mind from time to time. We can olny give the word and then pray for Mary Smith to have an open mind that God out of love for us gave us the wonders of creation to ever prove time after time how great he really is. God bless and I love your fire and motivation please keep it up.
In Christ, James Malm
|
|
Think about it for a minute! posted by Bethany Klink
on 03/01/2007 at 20:14:13 from IP# 70.88.40.1 If the first beetle had nothing it would be preyed upon and therefore end the line of the Bombadier Beetle. If it lived through that it would have many problems in its developement which anyone can look up for themselves and see. But answer me this, How can it sufvive all the trial and error of development? It cant it would explode eveytimr trying to get it right, therefore ending the species. God made everything fully mature and he made it all for a purpose. I thank God that he did not leave it up to chance. My God is an awesome God, and he can do anything but fail!
|
|
Evolution never happened posted by Neo
on 01/11/2007 at 09:47:39 from IP# 170.161.69.82 All these are nice arguments, but the point I see that keeps getting missed is this: No scientist can say in truth that they or anyone else has ever seen or recorded a species giving birth to another that is not of it's own kind. Let me put it this way. Where did the first dog come from...another dog. There is no proof that a dog can produce a non-dog. We have hundreds of different kinds of dogs, but they are all dogs. A cat can only come from a cat. We have many different kinds of cats, but they are all still cats. Here is the best one, no matter how close they say we are to apes, an ape will never give birth to a non ape. There are many kinds of apes and monkeys, but in the end they are all apes and monkeys. A human has never given birth to a non human. We may have defects but it will never be an ape, a monkey, a cat or a dog. According to the Bible, every species will reproduce after its own kind. I challenge any scientist to provide proof where any species has produces an offspring that is not of its kind. Just like those poor fruit flies that are being mutated. In the the end they will always be fruit flies, nothing different. No cat no dog no monkey no lizard. Here is my final question before I go. Science can prove that the human eye is more complex than any computer ever made. The ability to see is a marvel of science. The lap top computer is complex but it is made by man and at the same time no where as complex as the human eye. I ask you, if you were with Mr. Armstrong on the first flight to the moon and you discovered a dusty lap top computer on the moon what would be your first thought. Would it be: Who put this here ? Or would it be: How did this evolve? You tell me which makes more sense.
|
|
butterfly posted by ray
on 01/10/2007 at 06:11:38 from IP# 167.171.1.44 In response to Anonomous: The moths changing colors was shown in numerous Freshman Biology text books for years, until it was finally shown to be a hoax. But even if it had not been staged and the moths had changed color, not a single one changed to a lizard or even a bird, they were still moths. And speaking of not finding cows in the wild, what rock have you been hiding under? During the 19th century in Texas, the cows were turned loose on the Range, and only rounded up to go on a railroad trip. Any animal, except sheep, when turned loose over time will do what he needs to do to survive: wild hogs in south Georgia swamps, etc. Every one, however is still the same species, excerpt the sheep who becomes a meal without a sheepherder to protect him.
|
|
No Use Arguing With Evolutionists posted by Rene
on 12/29/2006 at 06:03:54 from IP# 202.69.163.8 Believers in Christ should not argue with evolutionists, who by definition are unbelievers. For Scripture teaches that they will never understand.
|
|
regarding mutation posted by john
on 11/22/2006 at 03:07:56 from IP# 66.178.174.162 It is my understanding that biological mutation is always (without exception) the reduction of complexity, never the increase. So to state that chemicals A and B could evolve independent of each other and then a mutation might occur putting these chemicals together in their function is an increase in not only the complexity of the anatomy of the beetle, but the complexity of the beetles parts on a cellular level. Structure leads to function, not the other way around. It is also interesting to me that no beetle has been found supporting your claims of possibilities of transitional examples of these chemicals in the insect, nor has the beetle changed since its discovery. If these chemicals were developed independently of each other for different purposes, what would those purposes be? Can any examples be found? Can the claim that evolution can 'explain' be justified by hypothesis that can not be tested, observed and repeated? Because that is one of the most important foundations of science.
|
|
What The!!! posted by anonymus
on 07/16/2006 at 22:18:26 from IP# 70.240.179.18 Why do we have to be so complicated, when the simple answer here is so obvious. The Lord created the Bombardier beetle and gave it all its needs. You look at Mount Rushmore, you say it can't be made by mistake/erosion. Have you seen the person who made Mount Rushmore in real life? Doubt it, so how do you KNOW!! Because Mount Rushmore is so complicated and detailed that erosion doing this would be 1 out of 1,000,000,000,000 etc. So, why is it so hard for people to understand that MAN is made by God. We are more complicated and so detailed that if anything were wrong we'd die. How can we have been just an "accident"! Another example: You have a broken alarm clock, you take all the hundreds of pieces and put it in a bag. Then you shake it, for millions of years, is it possible to end up with a fixed alarm clock by shaking this bag. No! Its to complicated! Yet we dare to believe we were just a accident! Evolution, the whole thing is just DARWINS GREAT GTREAT GREAT BIG MISTAKE! WE are not an accident, we are Gods children and he loves you whether you love him or not!
|
|
Response posted by Annonymous
on 02/08/2006 at 15:26:53 from IP# 137.123.153.61 "Since when have we seen an animal evolve? Never. " This state is compeltely ignorant. Evolution does take place in minor mutations. And we have even had a chance to witness some of these. The best example is back during the industrial revolution. Moths that lived in the newly industialized societys started changing colors. They were once white to match the bark of the trees but they began to darken to blend in to the trees once pullution started blackening their bark. Explain how this is not evolution. Another "recent" example is cows. If there was no evolution then we would be able to find cows that existed in the wild. Because of domestication cows have evolved over time and now they no longer exist in the wild. If we were to examine the bones of ancient cows they would be different from the cows that we raise today. Again an example of evolution.
|
|
Several Responses to Arguments posted by Anonymous
on 07/17/2005 at 12:01:59 from IP# 68.73.7.231 Since nobody else is trying to do so, I thought I might try and refute several of the arguements posted in the comments. First of all, Smart_Man, both of your arguments (why we are not seeing evolution on a day to day basis, and why plants are not growing limbs) are easily refuted. First of all, mutations do occur all of the time, albeit not dramatic ones. For example, frogs are sensitive to both water and air pollution, so many born in a polluted area are often mutated. While this is no the evolution-class mutations you are talking about, it does lend weight to the evolution argument. Second, there is two simple reasons why plants are not growing brains and hands: One, brains and hands are very complex, and take some time to be produced. Second, plants are not the evolutionary ancestors of Animals. Most likely, Protists were the ancestors of both. Gary Goldwater, you stated that every single organ has a use. While the discovery of the tonsil's value lends weight to this, it still does not explain the vestigal organs. The appendix, for example, did at one point have a use (digesting fiber), but at one point it's capability was lost. Please name a use, now that it can't process fiber. Sam Williams, science does not really offer proof, but explanations for events. Natural Selection is an explanation for why AntiBiotic-resistant bacteria dominate. We can not "prove" evolution, but we can certainly explain how it can work and instances which lend weight to the argument. Oh, and your glasses argument is flawed. Glasses do not correct the eyes. They bend light in such a way so that the imperfect eye can properly focus it.
|
|
Creation posted by Sam Williams Jr.
on 06/05/2005 at 10:30:06 from IP# 65.171.8.236 Can you guys , who are lost, that believe in evolution tell me what science is? It is varified knowledge, by testing and comming up with an answer and doing it again, and again, and again, all comming up with the same answer. You cannot repeat one part of evolution. Know why???? It is imposible! Only God could make the world. How many of you evolution guys wear glasses? Why don't you let your eyes go and let them change into something els, instead of correcting them with glasses? I will pray for you. Read the Bible. It is all there.
|
|
evolution is retarded.. posted by smart man
on 09/10/2004 at 11:08:35 from IP# 129.7.108.226 Since when have we seen an animal evolve? Never. Infact, we should see animals in the stages of evolving. FURTHERMORE, plants should be in the process of growing brains or hands or even faces for evolution states that somewhere down the line the predecessor of animals was plants. So why then are plants not moving on in an evolutionary scale. Also, why would the natural selection yeild an evolutionary animal who actually keeps and protects the weaker and dying out species. MAN IS COMPLETELY AGAINST EVOLUTION!!!!! IF MAN HAD EVOLVED, HE WOULD ENJOY NATURAL SELECTION AND NOT PRESERVATION.
|
|
A few of God's miracles posted by Jeremy Smart
on 05/12/2004 at 14:36:26 from IP# 66.81.52.193 Mary Smith. You said "--The two chemicals could have evolved independently of each other with their first purposes being totally unrelated to each other.--" Well that doesn't explane the all importune "inhibitor"! The Bombardier Beetle isn't the only very cool piece of God's creation that couldn't evolve slowly. What about the Woodpecker? They hammer away hundreds of times a minute, what would happen to the early beaks that were still too weak to take the punishment? They have a resilient shock-absorbing tissue between the beak and skull not found in ANY OTHER BIRD! Most of the two or three hundred species have a tongue that is about four times longer then their beak, and it wraps around the back of their head! They have short legs and very powerful claws. You try to hit a nail on the ground when you're standing straight up. You have to think about this, you really do. Why would they go through all the trouble of evolving this and that and this, when they had the bugs to survive on right there on the ground? It wouldn't make since. The Hummingbird. There are 300 varieties of Hummingbird. They weigh less then a tenth of an ounce, they flap their wings 80 times a second, their heart's beat 1,000 times a minute, they inhale 250 a minute, (except when the female is nesting) they fall into such a deep sleep every night that it is actually hibernation! They MUST have a high suger diet they get from plants, and they can take 13 sips of nectar a second! They do everything a helicopter can do, flying backwards, forwards, sideways, and even hovering! Now what if I told you a helicopter evolved without a designer? You remember how many failures it took before someone finally got it straigh, only for the Hummingbird it needed to fly to eat. There is no other bird, pre-bird creature(living or fossilized) that even slightly resembles the Hummingbird! The Giraffe! The Giraffe is 18 feet tall. Now have you ever thought about how much "heart" it takes to pump blood to the head? First of all their heart is one of the largest in the animal world, and nearly double the blood pressure of any creature. Their jugular blood vessels in the neck have a series of check valves so they don't literally blast his own brains out, when ever he lowered his head to take a drink of water. Now the same goes when it lifts it's head. You know the feeling of being light-headed or dizzy when you have been bent over then lift your head quickly. In the Giraffes case it would be so bad he would pass out, and be an easy meal for a lioness. Thats not all the Giraffe has but I'll stop there. Theres still Seahorse's, Shark's, HERMIT CRAB'S, Koala's, Pangolin, and the Platypus just to name a few! Look them up, it will be great reading. The Bible says "1 Thessalonians 5:21 prove all things; hold fast that which is good;"
|
|
Evolution Nonsene posted by Gary F. Boldwater
on 04/02/2004 at 00:16:39 from IP# 63.224.222.17 SOME or NO purpose?! Nonsense! EVERYTHING has SOME Purpose--just because man hasn't the imagination, Intelligence, or Understanding/knowledge to discover that PURPOSE, DOES NOT mean there is NO Purpose! Sheesh! The lack of integrity of Darwinists is astonishing, indeed!
|
|
Bombardier Beetle posted by C
on 04/07/2003 at 05:58:33 from IP# 209.246.129.208 I think the information provided here about the Bettle is cool
but i think its best to make ones arguments for faith, from the book of
Faith the Bible. I thank Amos for his comments and the info he provided and
all the other comments are noted.
|
|
Wait just a minute. posted by Nick Singleton
on 02/24/2003 at 17:09:09 from IP# 131.252.151.15 Perhaps someone could please explain to me why we are arguing about a beetle when there is a fundamental question that has to be answered first and perhaps it has and I wasn't around to hear it. I am assuming that every one would agree that the conservation of energy and mass to be truth, and that neither can be created nor destroyed. Here is my question, where did the mass and energy for the universe come from? Don't give me the answer of it was a pin head size ball floating in space billions of years ago and suddenly exploded. That is just avoiding the question. Also if you are a Christian and believe in evolution then this question is not for you but I do think you need to read the bible a little more without so much personal interpretation, because to be a real Christian you must believe that the bible is true through and through not just the parts that you think apply. My question is aimed at those who are really just trying to disprove the existance of God.
Thank you
Nick.
|
|
mutations vs. macroevolution posted by Frank
on 01/16/2003 at 14:31:07 from IP# 64.178.84.66 "Domain shuffling aside, it remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation, combined with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of new proteins with extraordinarily diverse and well-optimized functions. This problem is particularly acute for tightly integrated molecular systems that consist of many interacting parts, such as ligands, receptors, and the downstream regulatory factors with which they interact. In these systems it is not clear how a new function for any protein might be selected for unless the other members of the complex are already present, creating a molecular version of the ancient evolutionary riddle of the chicken and the egg." 1
____________________________ 1. Thornton and DeSalle, Genomics meets phylogenetics, Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 2000, p. 64
|
|
Bombardier Beetle posted by Adam
on 12/06/2002 at 04:56:19 from IP# 199.79.253.90 I have read some of the responses to using the different species of Brachinus as evidence for design due to its amazing abilities to store hydrogen peroxide and withstand the temperatures of the ejected solution. I myself am Christian but I feel the need to point out that perhaps you need to reevaluate your arguments. If you would actually read some primary literature about the actual beetle you would find that these feats while impressive cannot be used for the indented implication. If you would read up a bit on your biochemistry you would find that hydrogen peroxide is a common product or byproduct of cellular metabolism. And furthermore quinones are used in the tanning of the cuticle not only in this insect but many other ground Beetles. So the presence of quinones is nothing spectacular. In addition the beetle need not worry about contact with the peroxides due to where they are stored. The hydrogen peroxide is stored in a storage gland that like storage glands of other arthropods is simply an invagination of the cuticle of the insect. The cuticle is used for protection against a great many environmental factors. This cuticle has a tensile strength equal to that of aluminum at half the mass. So I don’t think the peroxides are really going to bother the beetle since the living tissue is quite well protected. As for the matter of heat, the mixture of peroxides and quinones is only mixed with the appropriate catalyses at the moment of ejection. So the beetle is only exposed to the heat for a scant amount of time. Perhaps you chemists should actually read some biological primary literature in addition to playing in the lab. I think you will find life outside the lab a bit different and actually provide more credible support for your arguments. I could go on about the other points about the various species of Brachinus but I need to go. Here is one group's interpretation of how the elaborate defense mechanism could have developed by evolution. Even if you dont agree with evolution you must ackowledge that it is good science. Parsimony folks.
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.
Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [Dettner, 1987]
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]) 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. 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]) Some invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis. 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. 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 reservoir. 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]
Muscles adapt which close off the reservoir, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed.
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 gets used for defense. 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. More catalases and peroxidases are produced, so the discharge is warmer and is expelled faster by the oxygen generated by the reaction. The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction. 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. 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
|
|
RE: Beyond Evolution posted by Amos Diede
on 06/12/2002 at 23:20:24 from IP# 216.196.243.254 Hello again! I have one last comment to forward to you regarding H2O2 and bombardier
beetles. I was searching the internet for hydrogen peroxide decomposition inhibitors.
I was sorting through the many articles on bombardier beetles hoping to find
some clues when I came upon your web site. I appreciate most of the creation web sites re bombardier beetles, but
unfortunately, many sites do post incorrect information. Propagating
incorrect information, no matter how good the intentions, discredits
creationism and gives evolutionists ammunition to justify their position.
This is unfortunate and unnecessary. If one mixes 20-30% hydrogen peroxide (the concentration found in b.
beetles) with hydroquinone, a sudden explosion does NOT result. I have done
this in the lab myself. The mixture just slowly turns yucky brown and
fizzes a little. The mixture is unstable, but no spectacular reaction
results. However, addition of the correct catalyst will cause a sudden and
rapid exothermic reaction to take place. Again, the mixture will not
"explode". The catalyzed reaction simply yields a rapid release of heat,
oxygen, and steam. The energy release is insufficient to turn all of the
liquid into steam so the reactants are a mixture of oxygen gas, steam, and a
water solution of various chemical heated to roughly 212 degrees F, or the
boiling point of the mixture. As I understand it, upon demand, the b.
beetle injects the hydrogen peroxide/hydroquinone mixture into the beetle's
reaction chamber where there are enzymes present which are very effective in
catalyzing the decomposition of the mixture. The gas generated by the
reaction produces the pressure necessary to spray the hot reaction products
out of the "tail pipe" so to speak. The catalysts are very effective and
can yield astonishing reaction rates. The abrupt reaction can cause a
"bang" of sorts, but there is no combustion or explosion per se. It is also incorrect to call the two chemicals "highly dangerous".
Hydroquinone is a rather benign chemical. Hydrogen peroxide (30 percent)
is dangerous if you drink it or get it in your eyes. As I said before, it
is totally incompatible with living tissue. Yet, 30 % hydrogen peroxide is
used daily in beauty salons to bleach hair etc.--- but like Drano---don't
drink it!!! At the 90-98% level, hydrogen peroxide is indeed dangerous
unless the handler has the appropriate safety equipment and knows what
he/she is doing. We handle it all the time---but with extreme respect and
caution. I don't doubt the presesence of an inhibitor to stabilize the hydrogen
peroxide/hydroquinone mixture. Without it, I don't see how the two
chemicals could co-exist. In fact, I am looking for it!! One of the
problems we face is the inherent instability of H2O2. H2O2 spontaneously
decomposes at a slow rate even when every measure known has been taken to
prevent it. So far, H2O2 has defied every attempt to stabilize it. Yes,
stabilizers do exist that sequester catalytic metallic ions and these
stabilizers slow the decomposition rate to less than 1% per year at 25 deg
C, but the H2O2 still spontaneously decomposes into oxygen and water--just
at a slower rate. The continual release of oxygen gas makes it impossible
to store hydrogen peroxide in sealed tanks for extended periods of time.
Thus we are searching for the "magic" inhibitor to stabilize H2O2 fully so
that it can be stored indefinitely in sealed tanks without decomposition and
pressure buildup. Without a question, bombardier beetles are an example of God's incredible
wisdom, design, and power. The more I work with H2O2, the more I am amazed
that this little creature can make this quirky substance and store it in its
body---not to mention body parts that can withstand 212 degree F
temperatures. I have had many interesting experiences with H2O2 that I
cannot go into here but it will be sufficient to say that the obstacles for
a living organism to make, store, and use hydrogen peroxide are staggering.
It is not a trivial matter by any means and it points to an incredible
Creator God. Scientists and engineers have been working for years on H2O2
technology and this little beetle demonstrates abilities that we cannot
achieve with current technology. In fact, we are looking to the beetle for
solutions to our nagging problems. Last, I exhort creationists to study to show yourselves approved! Don't
propagate or use faulty technical information to support what you know in
your heart to be true. The truth cannot be propped up with falsehood. Be
careful to strive for truth and accuracy in all things--this is pleasing to
the Lord. Don't give the devil a foothold. Please pass this on.
|
|
Beyond Evolution posted by Amos Diede
on 06/11/2002 at 15:42:36 from IP# 206.37.206.68 I am a research engineer who has worked extensively with hydrogen peroxide. Hydrogen peroxide is an unstable substance that is very damaging to living tissue. Pouring 3% hydrogen peroxide on a simple cut demonstrates the point. Upon contact with living tissue/systems, the hydrogen peroxide immediately begins to decompose into water and oxygen. Mono atomic oxygen is formed for a fleeting moment during the decomposition process and this highly reactive form of oxygen immediately destroys bacteria present. Brief contact with 3% peroxide only destroys a thin layer of living cells--so the benefit of killing microbes outweighs the slight additional harm to the host. However, 30% hydrogen peroxide is a different "beast". There are documented cases of accidental ingestion of 0.5-1.5 ounces of 30% hydrogen peroxide. This amount of H2O2 is fatal to a human being in short order unless emergency medical procedures can be performed immediately. Hydrogen peroxide at the 30% level is extremely "corrosive" to living tissue and quickly destroys tissue in the upper digestive tract--or any living tissue that it comes in contact with. I have also worked extensively with 90-98% H2O2. Once I spilled a few drops on my shoe and it immediately ignited the shoe leather. Chromium compounds in the leather catalytically decompose the hydrogen peroxide rapidly releasing heat and oxygen--resulting in rapid ignition. Contact with skin rapidly turns the skin white and produces painful burns--I have experienced this too! Contact with eyes will produce immediate blindness. Hydrogen peroxide is hardly compatible with living systems. For a "lowly" beetle to produce fairly concentrated H2O2 and store it within its body is a most remarkable feat---not to mention body parts that can withstand 100 degrees C!! The more I work with concentrated hydrogen peroxide and witness its many hidden quirks, the more I am amazed that a beetle (who knows nothing of chemistry) can produce and store this material within it body---and then put it to good use!! Absolutely amazing!! To not be amazed is to be willfully ignorant or arrogant, or both. I am part of a technical team that has been struggling for years to harness hydrogen peroxide for various technical applications that I can not disclose publically. I know the many technical challenges and obstacles that one encounters when trying to use hydrogen peroxide. After spending years of effort and millions of dollars, this little beetle still has us beat--hands down! We are starting to look to the bombardier beetle and study its design for answers to some perplexing problems that we have been unable to solve. Is there an intelligent Master Designer--a Creator God. You bet!! It is self evident to anyone willing to take an honest look. Now I'm sure 99+% of evolutionist readers will remain unconvinced no matter what anyone writes. Perhaps there is a more fundamental issue for evolutionists to ponder and answer. Answer these two questions about yourself, if you dare.....if you can!
Be honest with yourself now!! 1. Where was I 100 years ago??? 2. Where will I be 100 years from now??? Chew on these two questions for awhile. Then use all your intelligence and see if you can design and build a "better" bettle. Work at it for a few million years if you like. Let me know when you reach the goal. I'd like to see the result. Amos Diede
Research Propulsion Engineer
US Navy
Ps: I need to run. No, I didn't use spell check. If you wish to discredit what I have learned because I hit a few keys incorrectly---or some other trivial reason---be my guest.
|
|
Evolution in the Lab posted by Ben Bacon
on Sun Nov 18 09:08:49 2001 from IP# 63.15.231.221 Ricks has discussed the use of fast-breeding organisms in Labs to make evolution observable in the lifetime of a scientist. He explains that, when this was tried with the fruit fly, some flies arose with mutations that caused sterility. Is this experiment still going on, and if so, are the entire population sterile, as a result of the spread of this gene? I suspect not: Natural Selection would predict that a gene for sterility would be selected against, since it confers the inability to reproduce. On the other hand, there are mutations that occur more frequently than others, and sterility could arise again and again.
Inducing mutations through excessive ultraviolet radiation is an interesting idea. I'm not sure such accelerated evolution is a good model for what happens in nature. It seems that the experiment was about mutation, but not about natural selction, which is the crucial second part of evolution.
BTW, mutations are not the only source of variation within species. There are also the variations that already exist between individuals because of genetic recombination and sexual reproduction.
|
|
THIS IS THE EVIDENCE :) posted by Peace
on 10/19/2001 at 19:22:34 from IP# 213.14.3.88 This beetle is the one of the strongest evidences of creation...and this shows that there is no evolution in this universe..never was..never will :)
|
|
A pic? posted by Morgan
on 08/27/2001 at 21:07:07 from IP# 205.188.201.212 Yes I am doing a project for my class about the bombardier beetle. I was wondering do you have some pictures of this beetle. I wanna be able to have lots of pictures to show my class. Please send them to me. Thanx, Morgan
|
|
"just so stories" posted by David Ricks
on 03/15/2001 at 19:18:15 from IP# 150.201.2.49 I think it's high time that someone points out the fact that this entire discussion is basically pointless. For almost any biological mechanism, a clever evolutionist can concoct some pseudo-scientific scenario to explain its benefit and continuity towards the next generation. It is not enough to imagine how a particular step in a certain process MIGHT be beneficial; the fact is that at a fundamental level, the premise for these clever little "just so stories" are flawed. No one, no evolutionist can agree on the exact mechanism for evolutionary change. No matter what side in the argument you take, thousands of scientists will say that you're dead wrong; there is no agreement, no consensus. And there really cannot be, because macroevolution cannot be observed or demonstrated. I know, I know, evolutionists will always come back with, "It takes millions, and millions, of years fo..." Nonsense! And there is empirical proof that this is nonsense.
For some 90 years, evolutionists have been experimenting upon Drosophila Melanogaster, the common fruit fly. For at least 50 of those years, they have been blasting these insects with intense ultraviolet radiation; this in combination with other mutagens accelerates the normal rates of mutation thousands of times over. The little flies can then be grown in conditions of extreme heat or cold, intense, unnatural lighting, total darkness, or extremes of sound. And their life-cycle is only 12 days. At last! Evolution in action! In fact, it is quite possible to duplicate a million years of perfect selection well within the lifetime of a human observer by accelerating these mutation frequencies.
Indeed, all manner of twisted, freakish mutant flies can be produced; some with curly wings, some with multiple wings, flies with eyes of all colors of the rainbow. Manipulation of homeotic genes can even create flies with legs growing out of their heads. Darwin is justified! At last! Wrong my friends; none of these abominations are EVER more suited for survival in ANY environment than their parents. But aren't these mutants examples of new species? Sure, in the same way that someone with Down-syndrome or sickle-cell anemia is a new "species". It depends on your definition. (and scientists have trouble agreeing on that definition) And the real kick in the pants comes when the researchers take their mutations further...what do you get if continue to mutate a strain of blind flies? I'll tell you what you get....Sterility! That's right, you can take mutations to a certain extent, and the population MAY survive, but in trial after trial, the poor creatures are so burdened with mutations that the population is soon unable to reproduce! And similar experiments have been conducted on the Gypsy moth and Round worm. But...but...I thought mutations were supposed to go on and on forever? They do, but only in the minds of the most ardent, Darwinian fanatics.
In "Theory" it is possible to imagine an evolutionary progression leading to the defense mechanism of the Bombardier beetle, but in practicality mutations will NEVER order the arrangements of such specialized and complex mechanisms. And mutations are the only genetic variation. It it possible to argue endlessly over stupid, unproveable, evolutionary scenarios, but while we're at it, we might as well argue about the nature of phlogiston chemistry! It is a meaningless fraud and a waste of time. So as not to waste any more of my time, let me say in closing that all these "just so stories" are about as plausible as a snowstorm forming a perfect ice sculpture of Michealangelo's "David" (including a leaf)
|
|
On the Bombardier Beetle posted by Duncan Kunz
on 12/22/2000 at 13:21:16 from IP# 12.13.238.140 Dear Mr. Goodman and Ms. Smith: The capability of bombardier beetles, typically genus Brachinus (Lawrence & Britton, 1991) to produce hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide coupled with secretory glands lined with cells that secrete cataleses and peroxidases is well known; yet there are several reasonable hypotheses that show the possibility that such a complex system can be arrived at through evolutionary processes. Let me explain the reasoning behind this, but first a short history regarding the mistaken belief that a bombardier beetle would 'explode spontaneously'. Duane Gish claimed that hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones would explode spontaneously if mixed without a chemical inhibitor, and that the beetle starts with a mix of all three and adds an anti-inhibitor when he wants the explosion. [Weber, 1981] In fact, the two do not explode when mixed, as others have demonstrated. [Dawkins, 1987, p. 86-87] (Schildknecht did propose a physical inhibitor which kept the mixture from degrading in un-dissected beetles; in fact, the degradation he saw was probably simply a result of exposure to the air.) Gish still used the mistaken scenario after being corrected by Kofahl in 1978. [Weber, 1981] The same mistake is also repeated in books by Hitching in 1981, Huse in 1983 and 1993, and twice in a creationist magazine in 1990 [Anon, 1990a,b]. Bear in mind that a strong creationist argument is based on the belief that a complex (i.e., interlocking-component) biological system could not arise ex nihilo; that makes sense. But the author of the article, which can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html , makes a strong case that the individual components of the Brachinus' defense mechanism are found in many other beetles allied with the Bombardier; and that simple selection -- each of which would be survival positive -- could develop in a logical way. I strongly urge you to review this information; it could provide both of you with additional insights. And, finally, I have two personal requests to Mr. Goodman. First, please do not denigrate either my spelling or grammar; they have little bearing on the validity or invalidity of any respondent's theses. Indeed, such emphases on the irrelevant details of a person's actions, rather than the belief or thoughts of the person, reminds me of the Pharisee's neurotic attention to arcane forms of worship, and is more conducive to Leviticus than to the gospel of our Saviour. Second, I would mention that, in addition to being an engineer, I am also a Sunday-School teacher at my church. I do not consider a belief in a 12+-billion year-old universe, the development of the Solar System from a 4+_billion-year-old accretion disk, the theories of natural selection, plate tectonics, etc. to be in the least incompatible my belief in God. I hope you understand that such beliefs are not 'required' for salvation. Indeed, our Heavenly Father gave me free will; I assume that He gave it to all. Learning about the wondrous working of the heavens and the earth does not diminish my faith; indeed, it reinforces my belief in the Great Engineer who developed such a Plan and allowed it to go forward -- and also sent His Son to purchase me from damnation and justified in my belief by His crucifixion and resurrection. Sincerely, Duncan Kunz / duncan.kunz@prodigy.net Mesa, Arizona
|
|
Spell check? Interesting! posted by Aaron Goodman
on 12/19/2000 at 14:03:51 from IP# 205.198.148.54 For your information Mary Smith, the proper spelling is Bombardier Beetle, not Bombadier Beetle as you call it, but I'm sure you already knew that. Based on your important observation and attention to detail, you have probably discovered another beetle known as the Bombadier Beetle with the mystery chemicals A and B. How volatile are these chemicals, are these mysterious chemicals perhaps involving to Chemicals C and D, oh my!! The fact is, Mary, you have been deceived your whole life, and you just can't stand to be wrong! You know, I'm amazed at your FAITH!! It takes more faith to believe in Evolution than it does to believe in the creator who made us all, yes, even our little buddy the Bombardier Beetle. You may spend your whole life trying to prove that God does not exist, but the fact is, neither you or I can survive in a world like this without some type of Hope!! What do you hope in? You must Hope in something, don't you? Do you honestly believe that we evolved from apes? I guess the apes that are still around are waiting to see if this whole human being thing takes off! I guess it's sortof like people not buying video tapes, just to see if the DVD thing really takes off! Huh? Look, I really want to help you understand that we are NOT alone in this universe!! In fact, I know that you are not alone wherever you are right now, because I'm sure that God has you surrounded by angels right this moment to protect you, even though you deny His existence. Why don't you open up the Bible and give God a chance to show you that He is real, He has a purpose for you, and He loves you, even though you deny His existence. I truly hope that I have not offended you, but I'm trying to be a friend by letting you know that there is such a thing as absolute truth, it's not science, it's faith in the one true God. I hope you understand that I don't have to defend God, "the Earth is His footstool" (pretty darn big footstool if you ask me!!), He doesn't need me as a bodyguard!!! God simply wants me to share the truth with anybody who comes across my path, not to offend, but to share the love that only God can offer. Please email me if you want to discuss anything, my door is open, again, please do not be offended, just be thankful that God loves you enough to motivate me to type up this long response!! In Christ, Aaron Goodman
|
|
A case of evolution, not special creation posted by Mary Smith
on 12/03/2000 04:24:01 from IP# 139.94.20.46 Evolution can explain the remarkable phenomenon of the bombadier beetle. The two chemicals could have evolved independently of each other with their first purposes being totally unrelated to each other. For example, an organism might have a chemical A that functions for some or no purpose. Chemical B might evolve independently of A and also function for some or no purpose. A mutation might occur putting these two chemicals together and now a more beneficial, dependent purpose is discovered. Those individuals with these two chemicals working together are now at an advantage for survival and would produce more offspring with the advantageous trait than those without the two chemicals working together. The new system would quickly become the norm. Evolution can occur. Also, learn how to use spell check.
|
|
Listen
Add to Collection
Help