Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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].
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?