Ok, I take back the exploding part. Still I don’t believe such a system could have evolved through random mutations even after reading a few of the theories you posted. Evolutionist claim that it started with quinones used to harden the shells and somehow hydrogen peroxide got involved resulting finally in a very cool bug defense system.
So my question would be why would the first bug that mutated to store these quinones in a compartment have dominated the natural selection process. Then when the next mutation occurs and a bug develops a second hydrogen peroxide compartment why would that bug survive and pass on that new traite. And the next and the next... The final product is an impressive defense mechanism but I don't see the natural selection explains a gradual process.
I guess I would look at it like the mount rushmore analogy. Three cavemen stumble upon MT Rushmore, one religious, one evolutionist, and one intelligent design advocate. They are all amazed since they do not possess the tools or knowledge to create something that big and complex. The religious caveman says: they must be gods lets worship them. The evolutionist comes up with theories on how the forces of wind and rain eroded the rock just right over billions of years. The intelligence design caveman says someone more advanced and intelligent must have created this.
Ultimately how would any of the three prove their theory. They cannot. The evolutionist cites erosion patterns, and states that given enough time and trillions of mountains on trillions of planets one was bound to come out like that. He even points out other mountains and rocks that vaguely resemble a person or animal as proof. The creationist cites the mathematical improbability and the complexity of it. The religious caveman cites the bible. I think the reason that evolution is appealing because of the three it does not require anything outside of their understanding.
When I look at bugs with weapons systems before we had guns, ants with coordination and communication that we still do not understand and that makes our species look bad, a bacterial flagellum that is more efficient than any engine we have and DNA that looks like software code, I see intelligence. Can I prove it, no. All I can do is point out that in everything that we can observe order does not come out of chaos unless intelligence is involved.
Experiments to produce a living cell from non-living material fail. Even the experiment that tried to prove amino acids could result from random forces in an early earth has been discredited. The day evolution can replicate the creation of a living cell I will reconsider my position. Surely if it happened randomly, we should be able to duplicate with our technology and intelligence.