Question for evolutionists

[Jerry Smith]

s0uljah:

did you catch this remark from me?

The only answer for this case would be that A was non-fatal to begin with, but was functional for some reason. A became "fatal-without-B" after A evolved. I hope that helps.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Yeah I did, thanks. I just have a hard time suspending my disbelief long enough to imagine a scenario where that would be the case.

One example that I was thinking of has to do with a beetle that uses acid for defense. But it relies on something to control the acid, else the acid will kill it. That something else, I can't recall, but had no purpose other than to keep the acid from being non-fatal to the beetle.

 

[Morat]

Oh my. the Bombadier beetle? I haven't heard that one in forever.

  The chemicals don't react until a third chemical, a catalyst, is introduced.

The mechanism of their spray works thus: Secretory cells produce hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide (and perhaps other chemicals, depending on the species), which collect in a reservoir. The reservoir opens through a muscle-controlled valve onto a thick-walled reaction chamber. This chamber is lined with cells that secrete catalases and peroxidases. When the contents of the reservoir are forced into the reaction chamber, the catalases and peroxidases rapidly break down the hydrogen peroxide and catalyze the oxidation of the hydroquinones into p-quinones. These reactions release free oxygen and generate enough heat to bring the mixture to the boiling point and vaporize about a fifth of it. Under pressure of the released gases, the valve is forced closed, and the chemicals are expelled explosively through openings at the tip of the abdomen. [Aneshansley & Eisner, 1969; Aneshansley et al, 1983; Eisner et al, 1989]

Much creationist literature gives an inaccurate account of the process. Based on an admittedly sloppy translation of a 1961 article by Schildknecht and Holoubek [Kofahl, 1981], 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 undisected 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].

   A step-by-step scenario for the evolution of it is also listed there.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by s0uljah
One example that I was thinking of has to do with a beetle that uses acid for defense. But it relies on something to control the acid, else the acid will kill it. That something else, I can't recall, but had no purpose other than to keep the acid from being non-fatal to the beetle.

Ah, yes - the bombardier beetle.

For a look at the bombardier beetle from an evolutionary persepective, see:

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

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

No, it wasn't that one. But I will look at that link anyway.

 

[Morat]

  Really? It wasn't that one? Which one was it?

  Because your description is the one you see attached to "bomadier beetle" in Creationist literature. Admittedly, second-tier stuff like Hovind and Chick more than AIG.

 

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Morat
  Really? It wasn't that one? Which one was it?

  Because your description is the one you see attached to "bomadier beetle" in Creationist literature. Admittedly, second-tier stuff like Hovind and Chick more than AIG.

 

 

The description does seem to fit that beetle, but the "something" that was needed wasn't a chemical, it was something physical.

Anyway, gotta go, see ya tomorrow.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Yeah I did, thanks. I just have a hard time suspending my disbelief long enough to imagine a scenario where that would be the case.

I'm not sure that it actually has been the case where a system has evolved that would be fatal without a separately evolved "part", but it may be. In any case, that would answer such a scenario should it come to light.

One example that I was thinking of has to do with a beetle that uses acid for defense. But it relies on something to control the acid, else the acid will kill it. That something else, I can't recall, but had no purpose other than to keep the acid from being non-fatal to the beetle.

It may be that this is a beetle that "evolved from" the Bombadier beetle (in the re-telling of the story, that is). If it is a real beetle, then we may be able to give a better answer knowing its name and the details of the kind, concentration, and quantity of the acid it uses as defense, together with the mechanism that protects the beetle from the ill effects of it.

 

[Morat]

  The Bombadier Beetle is quite unique. I'm certain it's what you're referring to. Unless you manage to surprise me by finding another bug like it, I'd guess you'll have to be satisifed with the rather simple evolution of this beetle.

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Morat
  The Bombadier Beetle is quite unique. I'm certain it's what you're referring to. Unless you manage to surprise me by finding another bug like it, I'd guess you'll have to be satisifed with the rather simple evolution of this beetle.

 

I will have to check.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Ok, I think it was the bombadier beetle. But I do not think that the scenario listed on that site is "satisfying" at all. I think I was confused about the "dual" fatal part.

I can't remember the details right now, but basically, the logic was that the beetle would have to evolve several mechanisms (the chemical, the delivery system, the instinct to use it, etc), any one of which wouldn't have made sense in and of itself (from an evolutionary standpoint). Its a timing problem.

 

[Morat]

  The site listed a clear, step-by-step path.  What part did you have a problem with?

  Given that we showed you a clear path, you're going to have to be specific over what part failed in your estimation.

  And to be frank, the site has the chemistry correct as well.

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Well, first:

1. Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods.

2. Some of the quinones don't get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful.

If the quinones sit on the skin as a random mutation in one creature which make it "taste bad", I don't imagine a predator eating the beetle, then spitting it out half-eaten, and then the beetle saying "I have to mate so I can evolve further, hurry, before I die!"

Sorry for the sarcasm...its been a long day.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Well, first:

1. Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods.

2. Some of the quinones don't get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful.

If the quinones sit on the skin as a random mutation in one creature which make it "taste bad", I don't imagine a predator eating the beetle, then spitting it out half-eaten, and then the beetle saying "I have to mate so I can evolve further, hurry, before I die!"

Sorry for the sarcasm...its been a long day.

The insect is distasteful, therefore predators learn to avoid them. Predators learn to avoid them, therefore the populations that have individual(s) that bear the trait are selected for.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith


The insect is distasteful, therefore predators learn to avoid them. Predators learn to avoid them, therefore the populations that have individual(s) that bear the trait are selected for.

Hi Jerry-

I understand the idea, but since this has to be a mutation, by definition, it happens in beetle 'A.' That beetle must survive its first, and subsequent encounters with the predators, before it mates to pass on the mutation.  I don't see that as a likely scenario, unless the mutation is common or something.

 

[Jerry Smith]

The gene might get passed around a small population for several generations before it becomes a reproductive advantage. Once several individuals express it, predators would begin to avoid the entire population (colony/what-not), and go after neighboring populations.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Well, first:

1. Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods.

2. Some of the quinones don't get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful.

If the quinones sit on the skin as a random mutation in one creature which make it "taste bad", I don't imagine a predator eating the beetle, then spitting it out half-eaten, and then the beetle saying "I have to mate so I can evolve further, hurry, before I die!"

Sorry for the sarcasm...its been a long day.

What you don't realize is that birds are good sportsfowl and knew ahead of time that certain beetles would evolve this trait (a little birdie told them). So they avoided these beetles until this particular strain got enough of a good head start in the population. Unfortunately, birds can't count, so they never knew when the head start was over. Eventually, they got tired of waiting and started eating these beetles again. But by then, there were so many that the birds couldn't wipe out that new species.

Fortunately for the birds, every single beetle of the old species simultaneously mutated a sign on its back that said, "Eat me. in birdese. The lucky birds knew which beetles to eat and which ones to avoid so that they could wipe out the species without having to guess which ones had a bad taste. There is no fossil record of the beetle with the sign "Eat me" because they were extinct within days of having evolved the sign.

Unfortunately for the birds, none of them evolved a taste for the new species of beetles, although a couple of them developed a taste for limburger cheese. This led to immediate reproductive isolation and yet another brand new species, which led to some modern birds, and explains why these modern birds have small nostrils hidden below the feathers.

I hope you're getting this down...

 

[Jerry Smith]

Nick,

Please take a little bit of time to reflect. I assume that you meant your above charicature as a humorous intentional misrepresentation of the explanation of the arrival of quinone in beetles, and that the intent was to show the unlikelihood of the real scenario.

Wouldn't it serve both honesty and your argument better to present (discover first if necessary) the explanation that a scientists would or did make, then address the perceived shortcomings and flaws point by point?

Then, if your points were valid, it would become clear that they were - and if they weren't their own shortcomings could be pointed out. I think veiling your criticisms in sarcastic language is an effort to shield them from scrutiny, and at the same time appear "witty".

I think your integrity and the integrity of this discussion would be served by less "wittiness" and more substance.

But, if you stop short with creative-sounding parodies of science, eventually those who are sincerely interested will be listening only to those who are willing to present their case and defend it, and you will be preaching only to Nick and to the choir.

 

[seebs]

I would be interested in hearing a serious attempt at explaining how the various toxins evolve, and how animals "learn" to avoid them... and also in a serious attempt to rebut it.

I have to say, the cute-sarcastic "gosh isn't that stupid" is stunningly unpersuasive.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Yeah but its hilarious. Nick always makes me laugh.