• 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.

Question for evolutionists

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.
 
Upvote 0

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
49
Visit site
✟20,190.00
Faith
Atheist
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.


   A step-by-step scenario for the evolution of it is also listed there.
 
Upvote 0

Ah, yes - the bombardier beetle.

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

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
 
Upvote 0

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.
 
Upvote 0
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.



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.
 
Upvote 0

I will have to check.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
49
Visit site
✟20,190.00
Faith
Atheist
  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.

 
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0

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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0

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...
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,917
1,530
20
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟70,235.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.
 
Upvote 0