Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Biblical Creation

[Split Rock]

So for millions of generations these 2 OR 3 chemicals just drooled out the beetles rear end until evolution finally got the explosive formula just right? (I'm sticking to terms from the peer reviewed literature in spite of your objections)

Please explain what benefits these explosive compounds had before they resulted in the current defense system?

I guess you didn't bother to read Chris' link. Here is an exerpt from it:

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.

Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design

 

[Loudmouth]

Please explain what benefits these explosive compounds had before they resulted in the current defense system?

Quinones are common in many beetles. They help their cuticles cure and taste bad to predators. Hydrogen peroxide is a natural byproduct of many known enzymes that are common to many forms of life. They are often associated with metabolism and immune responses. Catalases are also common and used by life in many areas not related to explosions coming out of their back ends. All of the ingredients of the mixture have known functions outside of producing the explosion in the back end of bombardier beetles. Also, it is the catalase that drives the reaction. If it were not for the catalase you would never get the explosion. Some creationists have claimed that there is an inhibitor. This isn't true.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Speaking of beetles, why would a creator make over 50,000 species of 'em?

 

[SkyWriting]

Speaking of beetles, why would a creator make over 50,000 species of 'em?

He likely wouldn't. He'd make 2 that were well designed and versatile. Cause that's the kind of guy He is. A pretty smart cookie. Any that needed to specieate for different conditions have that ability.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

He likely wouldn't. He'd make 2 that were well designed and versatile. Cause that's the kind of guy He is. A pretty smart cookie. Any that needed to specieate for different conditions have that ability.

Your god does seem to be just like us, only better.

 

[SkyWriting]

Originally Posted by SkyWriting Please explain what benefits these explosive compounds had before they resulted in the current defense system?

Quinones are common in many beetles. They help their cuticles cure and taste bad to predators. Hydrogen peroxide is a natural byproduct of many known enzymes that are common to many forms of life. They are often associated with metabolism and immune responses. Catalases are also common and used by life in many areas not related to explosions coming out of their back ends. All of the ingredients of the mixture have known functions outside of producing the explosion in the back end of bombardier beetles. Also, it is the catalase that drives the reaction. If it were not for the catalase you would never get the explosion. Some creationists have claimed that there is an inhibitor. This isn't true.

I wasn't specific enough. Please explain what benefits these explosive compounds had {in this beetles rear end} before they resulted in the current defense system? What were they doing before. What roles did they play before the beetle came up with the idea of combining them together until they where boiling hot and shooting the spray at offenders? Where did he get the idea of clamping his volcano hole closed until the pressure built up? Did he get it right the first 10 times or 20 thousand times? Whether he used the "clamp my butt closed until it pops" method or "mixed in a chemical inhibitor."

I'm confident there is some cleaning cycle involved, chemical inhibitor, or something to wash out the combustion chamber in his rear.


I like it if people link to their sources when they claim they know "truth".

There are plenty of jaw dropping details in the mainstream literature. None of the published articles have a tone to them suggesting this particular beetle is boring or uses everyday common chemistry in it's defense systems.

http://www.heveliusforum.org/Artykuly/Biomimetics.pdf

Your efforts to play down the unique attributes of the beetle constitute fraud as much or more than the theory of a chemical inhibitor do. My first guess is that the inhibitor can be found in the German researchers early research papers. It may have been an early theory. I'll continue to research this.

This person claims to have found mention of an inhibitor:
General insect study and related issues » Blog Archive » Re: Bombardier Beetle Inhibitor

 

[SkyWriting]

Your god does seem to be just like us, only better.

We are made "in His image" so that stands to reason.
Nothing can occur that is not sourced by something equal or greater.

 

[Loudmouth]

I like it if people link to their sources when they claim they know "truth".

There are plenty of jaw dropping details in the mainstream literature. None of the published articles have a tone to them suggesting this particular beetle is boring or uses everyday common chemistry in it's defense systems.

Your efforts to play down the unique attributes of the beetle constitute fraud as much or more than the theory of a chemical inhibitor do. My first guess is that the inhibitor can be found in the German researchers early research papers. It may have been an early theory. I'll continue to research this.

This person claims to have found mention of an inhibitor:
General insect study and related issues » Blog Archive » Re: Bombardier Beetle Inhibitor

You asked what use these chemicals have outside of the reaction in the bombardier beetle. I showed you. There is no playing down or anything else. Beetles that are not bombardier beetles produce all of the chemicals that bombardier beetles produce. Those are the facts.

 

[Loudmouth]

We are made "in His image" so that stands to reason.

Based on what evidence?

Nothing can occur that is not sourced by something equal or greater.

Evidence please.

 

[Split Rock]

T here are plenty of jaw dropping details in the mainstream literature. None of the published articles have a tone to them suggesting this particular beetle is boring or uses everyday common chemistry in it's defense systems.

Who says the beetle is boring? AVET would call that "Arab Phone." And yes, it uses common chemicals and enzymes in its reactions. Sorry if you don't like that. Maybe if your god has created it from scratch, it would use unique chemicals and enzymes.

Your efforts to play down the unique attributes of the beetle constitute fraud as much or more than the theory of a chemical inhibitor do.

Fraud? Really? I suppose I should now claim that you downplaying what evolution can do constitutes "fraud," as well.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

If you want to go with a "track record" I would go with Moses. His Creation story is still around after 3500 years. The people who support Moses are all still alive. The people who reject Moses are long gone.

It's really not the Christians you have to worry about so much as the Muslims. They are getting tired of Americas filth and moral corruption and they plan to do something about it. So even if you reject God's Grace you still have God's Law to deal with.

...and here's the standard trump card. The last line of defense of all good faith based belief systems. When all else fails turn to good old threats and intimidation. A nice precursor to another dark age if we don't let calmer heads prevail.

I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to place a life's worth of trust in something without merit. Once you collect yourself, try to take solace in the fact that this isn't the first time a faith based belief had to be changed in light of scientific knowledge. If your ancestors could come to accept that the Earth isn't the center of the universe then you can eventually accept evolution.

For whatever it's worth though... I do feel badly about your situation. I just hope the cycle can be broken sooner rather than later so that your progeny won't have to carry this unnecessary burden... Sincerely.

 

[Split Rock]

We are made "in His image" so that stands to reason.
Nothing can occur that is not sourced by something equal or greater.

Does that include the existance of God? Wait... I already know the answer...

 

[SkyWriting]

You asked what use these chemicals have outside of the reaction in the bombardier beetle. I showed you. There is no playing down or anything else. Beetles that are not bombardier beetles produce all of the chemicals that bombardier beetles produce. Those are the facts.

I like it if people link to their sources when they claim they know "facts".
It's a Sciencey pet peeve thing that is totally unique to me.

 

[Loudmouth]

I like it if people link to their sources when they claim they know "facts".
It's a Sciencey pet peeve thing that is totally unique to me.

Enzymes capable of producing hydrogen peroxide are ubiquitous in life. For example, humans have enzymes capable of producing hydrogen peroxide and using it. A google search for "hydrogen peroxide metabolism" will find you tons of examples.

As for quinones present in beetles other than the Bombardier beetle, a simple google search for "quinone in beetles" found this peer reviewed article:

ScienceDirect - Journal of Insect Physiology : Cuticular sclerotization in the beetles Pachynoda epphipiata and Tenebrio molitor

Try Google sometime. I promise, it won't bite.

 

[SkyWriting]

Who says the beetle is boring? ...." And yes, it uses common chemicals and enzymes in its reactions. Sorry if you don't like that. Maybe if your god has created it from scratch, it would use unique chemicals and enzymes. Who says the beetle is boring? And yes, it uses common chemicals and enzymes in its reactions. Sorry if you don't like that. Maybe if your god has created it from scratch, it would use unique chemicals and enzymes.

Each beetle is unique.
For example:
The secretion of M. contractus appears to be specially
adapted in other ways as well. M. contractus is the only
bombardier that emits secretion as a topical ooze, such as can
be expected to confer protracted deterrency. It is also the only
bombardier that produces 1,4-benzoquinone as its primary
defensive quinone.

1 1,4-Benzoquinone 87.40 108 1679, 1300, 1067, 1057, 880
2 2-Methyl-1,4-benzoquinone 0.06 122 c
3 Unknown 0.11 124 c
4 2-Chloro-1,4-benzoquinone 0.97 142, 144 c
5 2-Ethyl-1,4-benzoquinone 0.18 136, 108 c
6 2-Methoxy-3-methyl-1,4-benzoquinone 0.03 152, 122 c
7 Tridecane 0.80 184 c
8 Tetradecane 7.63 198 2933, 2865, 1463
9 7-Pentadecene 1.00 210 c
10 Pentadecane 100.00 212 2933, 2865, 1463
11 6,8-Pentadecadiened 0.30 208 c
12 5,7-Pentadecadiened 4.20 208 c
13 5-Methylpentadecane 0.45 226, 169, 168 c
14 4-Methylpentadecane 0.24 226, 183, 182 c
15 3-Methylpentadecane 2.10 226, 197, 196 c
16 Hexadecadiene (non-conjugated) e 0.27 222 c
17 Hexadecenee 0.63 224 c
18 Hexadecane 1.68 226 c
19 6,8-Hexadecadiened 0.66 222 c
20 7,9-Hexadecadiened 2.04 222 c
21 (6Z,9Z)-6,9-Heptadecadienef 12.24 236 3017, 2933, 2868, 1460
22 (Z)-8-Heptadecenef 8.66 238 3015, 2933, 2866, 1460
23 Heptadecane 4.17 240 c
24 5,7-Heptadecadiened 2.10 236 c
25 7,9-Heptadecadiened, g 7.32 236 c
26 (7Z,9Z)-7,9-Heptadecadiened, f 37.60 236 3034, 3009, 2965, 2934, 2867, 1460
27 Nonadecane 0.46 268 c
28 7,9-Nonadecadiened 0.37

Fraud? Really? I suppose I should now claim that you downplaying what evolution can do constitutes "fraud," as well.

You may claim that. Then you'd have to show otherwise. Most of the source articles don't mention evolution in any way. Evidently irrelevant.

 

[SkyWriting]

Based on what evidence?

Entirely based on Faith.


Nothing can occur that is not sourced by something equal or greater.

Evidence please.

It's the law.

Conservation of energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newton's Three Laws of Motion

 

[Loudmouth]

Each beetle is unique.

Doesn't change the fact that each of these ingredients are found in other species serving a function that is unrelated to the functions found in bombardier beetles. That is the evidence you asked for.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nothing can occur that is not sourced by something equal or greater.


It's the law.

Conservation of energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newton's Three Laws of Motion

Ice crystals are larger than the water droplets that make them up. Therefore, smaller things can combine to create larger things.

 

[Split Rock]

Each beetle is unique.
For example:
The secretion of M. contractus appears to be specially
adapted in other ways as well. M. contractus is the only
bombardier that emits secretion as a topical ooze, such as can
be expected to confer protracted deterrency. It is also the only
bombardier that produces 1,4-benzoquinone as its primary
defensive quinone.

1 1,4-Benzoquinone 87.40 108 1679, 1300, 1067, 1057, 880
2 2-Methyl-1,4-benzoquinone 0.06 122 c
3 Unknown 0.11 124 c
4 2-Chloro-1,4-benzoquinone 0.97 142, 144 c
5 2-Ethyl-1,4-benzoquinone 0.18 136, 108 c
6 2-Methoxy-3-methyl-1,4-benzoquinone 0.03 152, 122 c
7 Tridecane 0.80 184 c
8 Tetradecane 7.63 198 2933, 2865, 1463
9 7-Pentadecene 1.00 210 c
10 Pentadecane 100.00 212 2933, 2865, 1463
11 6,8-Pentadecadiened 0.30 208 c
12 5,7-Pentadecadiened 4.20 208 c
13 5-Methylpentadecane 0.45 226, 169, 168 c
14 4-Methylpentadecane 0.24 226, 183, 182 c
15 3-Methylpentadecane 2.10 226, 197, 196 c
16 Hexadecadiene (non-conjugated) e 0.27 222 c
17 Hexadecenee 0.63 224 c
18 Hexadecane 1.68 226 c
19 6,8-Hexadecadiened 0.66 222 c
20 7,9-Hexadecadiened 2.04 222 c
21 (6Z,9Z)-6,9-Heptadecadienef 12.24 236 3017, 2933, 2868, 1460
22 (Z)-8-Heptadecenef 8.66 238 3015, 2933, 2866, 1460
23 Heptadecane 4.17 240 c
24 5,7-Heptadecadiened 2.10 236 c
25 7,9-Heptadecadiened, g 7.32 236 c
26 (7Z,9Z)-7,9-Heptadecadiened, f 37.60 236 3034, 3009, 2965, 2934, 2867, 1460
27 Nonadecane 0.46 268 c
28 7,9-Nonadecadiened 0.37

LOL! You hardly need a degree in chemistry to see that these compounds are closely related to each other structurally. Your list boils down to: Benzoquinones, Pentadecenes, Hexadecanes, Heptadecanes, and Nonadecanes. Not a very long list now, is it?

 

[Belk]

Nothing can occur that is not sourced by something equal or greater.


It's the law.

Conservation of energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newton's Three Laws of Motion

And if you follow your link and read further down the page you will find that science did not stop progressing with newton. GR refined the simple Newtonian physics and QM further refined our understanding. There is nothing there that states what you are saying. You are misrepresenting what science states in order to fit your preconceived conclusions.

Conservation of energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia