larwils writes:
those of you who support evolution did not appear to respond to the very logical observation that the bombadier beetle could not have evolved as required by the principles of evolution.
First of all there was no logical observation made along the lines you described.
When sidelined challenged creation scientists to present actual scientific study done by creation scientists to support their claims. In response, a creationist did not stick to the thread and instead presented a nature article on the bombardier beetle.
Neither the article, nor the writer applied logic toward the end of knocking evolution, or of supporting creationism (which are two separate topics). That is unless you consider using logical fallacies, as applying logic.
The article described a highly interesting natural phenomenon, which raises many questions. Included within this list of questions (though not even touched on in the article) is most certainly the viable pathways which may have lead to its development.
The writer then made inaccurate comments about the chemicals found in the described phenomenon, as well as how the physical portions had to have developed as a whole or it would have been worthless.
The writer did not even build upon these assertions to make a case proving creation, leaving only an implied argument that if it couldn't have been evolution it must be creation.
Sidelined corrected the writer's incorrect assertions about the chemicals involved in the phenomenon. In fact, if the writer had read the article he himself had quoted, he would have found it said the chemicals used are common biological irritants.
This alone leaves the writer's argument in the dust. The only questions left on development are under what conditions would it naturally have developed storage tanks for these chemicals (this is pretty easy to imagine), how it gained the ability to mix them properly with the necessary catalyst to create the blast, and finally how it "learned" to aim this weapon.
It is totally correct to say that evolutionary theorists have not come up with answers to this. That does not mean that answers along evolutionary lines are impossible to come by. Many scenarios may be advanced. Only they aren't worth much without further evidence. Clearly the bombardier beetle, as a natural phenomenon, is worth a lot more research time.
If you want me to advance scenarios of its development I will, but it is an exercise in thumbtwiddling as long as I am not in possession of such beetles and their possible precursors.
It would also be contrary to the point of this thread which is for creationists to do more than twiddle their thumbs in place of advancing serious scientific inquiry in support of their claims.
I will leave this discussion with a parallel issue which should explain why lack of current scientific explanation does not itself mean a spiritual one is left as the only one.
In the quoted article, the authors present a very real question which science has yet to explain. How does the bombardier beetle protect itself from all the intense heat generated by its chemical weapon? This could be at the point of mixing or when the spray lands on itself.
This, much like what the path of development could have been, remains unanswered. Are we then to rush to a conclusion that it is the miraculous hand of god which protects the beetle every time it uses its weapon against evil-doers of the animal kingdom?
No, given the weight of accumulated scientific evidence that natural phenomenon have natural explanations we are safe in presuming that it is worth investigating what natural mechanisms the beetle uses to protect itself.
Likewise, and hopefully, some scientist at some point will get on the ball and investigate possible evolutionary pathways for this beetle's awesome defense mechanism.
------------------
holmes
™ Version 4.2
