Santorum: Satan is working on the USA

cbi1972 said:

No, it isn't. Something can be beneficial without being mandatory.

Click to expand...

ok, ill play along... why would the bombardier beetle benefit from two chambers in his abdomen?

Ok we have an evolution thread on front page. Birth Control not far behind. And global warming just down from that. Everybody party, it is a NS board trifecta.

nx4bama said:

ok, ill play along... why would the bombardier beetle benefit from two chambers in his abdomen?

Click to expand...

Other beetles have very similar internal structures. This beetle simply found a way to better leverage the structures. Like the skunk.

cbi1972 said:

Observed Instances of Speciation


That's not how science works.

Click to expand...

I found this quote interesting from your link
The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers that had an observation of a speciation event as the author's main point (e.g. Weinberg, et al. 1992). In addition, I found only one review that was specifically on this topic (Callaghan 1987). This review cited only four examples of speciation events. Why is there such a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation events?

In my humble opinion, four things account for this lack of interest. First, it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question. Many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature. Few of these folks have actually looked closely. To test this idea, I asked about two dozen graduate students and faculty members in the department where I'm a student whether there were examples where speciation had been observed in the literature. Everyone said that they were sure that there were. Next I asked them for citings or descriptions. Only eight of the people I talked to could give an example, only three could give more than one. But everyone was sure that there were papers in the literature.


I didn't read the whole article, but I saw only "speciation events" among plant species

SimplyTide said:

Other beetles have very similar internal structures. This beetle simply found a way to better leverage the structures. Like the skunk.

Click to expand...

and by "similar" you mean what?

nx4bama said:

ok, ill play along... why would the bombardier beetle benefit from two chambers in his abdomen?

Click to expand...

In the plausible explanation in the link I provided earlier, the chambers started out as depressions, which then became reservoirs for storing fluids that assisted in avoiding predation.

nx4bama said:

i know what theory means, but it is still JUST THAT, a theory. In fact, until we witness something evolve before our eyes, it will never meet the scientific definition of a law. Even if we did witness evolution, we'd have to have it repeated more than once.

Click to expand...

there is no "just that" with a scientific theory.

cbi1972 said:

In the plausible explanation in the link I provided earlier, the chambers started out as depressions, which then became reservoirs for storing fluids that assisted in avoiding predation.

Click to expand...

so, the depressions were there and then they evolved a covering over them (for what reason, we'll never know) and then the beetle developed chemicals in the newly formed reservoir. that's an explanation, but not really a plausible explanation. you can probably explain anything i throw at you..... the question will be is it a plausible explanation?

nx4bama said:

But everyone was sure that there were papers in the literature.

Click to expand...

There are papers in the literature. It sounds like you are reading way too much into the fact that there is little focus on providing examples of observed speciation.

nx4bama said:

I didn't read the whole article, but I saw only "speciation events" among plant species

Click to expand...

If you had kept reading, you would have found more.

nx4bama said:

so, the depressions were there and then they evolved a covering over them (for what reason, we'll never know) and then the beetle developed chemicals in the newly formed reservoir. that's an explanation, but not really a plausible explanation. you can probably explain anything i throw at you..... the question will be is it a plausible explanation?

Click to expand...

You still have not read and understood the linked page, or you would know that in this proposed explanation, the chemicals came first:

One plausible sequence (much abbreviated) is thus:

a. Insects produce quinones for tanning their cuticle. Quinones make them distasteful, so the insects evolve to produce more of them and to produce other defensive chemicals, including hydroquinones.

b. The insects evolve depressions for storing quinones and muscles for ejecting them onto their surface when threatened with being eaten. The depression becomes a reservoir with secretory glands supplying hydroquinones into it. This configuration exists in many beetles, including close relatives of bombardier beetles (Forsyth 1970).

c. Hydrogen peroxide becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. Catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, ensuring that more quinones appear in the exuded product.

d. More catalases and peroxidases are produced, generating oxygen and producing a foamy discharge, as in the bombardier beetle Metrius contractus (Eisner et al. 2000).

e. As the output passage becomes a hardened reaction chamber, still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, gradually becoming today's bombardier beetles.

All of the steps are small or can be easily broken down into smaller ones, and all are probably selectively advantageous. Several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in other living species.

Click to expand...

Creationist incredulity knows no bounds when it comes to heretical ideas.

nx4bama said:

and by "similar" you mean what?

Click to expand...

http://theinfinitevariety.wordpress...a-bomb-on-creationists-the-bombardier-beetle/

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

SimplyTide said:

http://theinfinitevariety.wordpress...a-bomb-on-creationists-the-bombardier-beetle/

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

Click to expand...

9. Muscles adapt which close off the reservior, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed.

so, before the muscles adapted, what happened to the poor beetle???

nx4bama said:

9. Muscles adapt which close off the reservior, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed.

so, before the muscles adapted, what happened to the poor beetle???

Click to expand...

Less costly chemicals were produced in smaller quantities.

cbi1972 said:

There are papers in the literature. It sounds like you are reading way too much into the fact that there is little focus on providing examples of observed speciation.

If you had kept reading, you would have found more.

You still have not read and understood the linked page, or you would know that in this proposed explanation, the chemicals came first:

Creationist incredulity knows no bounds when it comes to heretical ideas.

Click to expand...

I appreciate that you are trying to "educate" me, but I am being bombarded with posts regarding evolution. I am unable to read each link in it's entirety. I will make an effort to go back, read, AND understand the link you provided. You WILL have to give me some time, however.

Since a couple of you have thrown links at me with no discussion, here is my contribution

http://www.discovery.org/a/3059

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

nx4bama said:

Since a couple of you have thrown links at me with no discussion, here is my contribution

http://www.discovery.org/a/3059

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

Click to expand...

really, a front group promoting creationism under the guise of intelligent design?

nx4bama said:

Since a couple of you have thrown links at me with no discussion, here is my contribution

http://www.discovery.org/a/3059

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

Click to expand...

The idea of 'irreducible complexity,' which Intelligent Design seems to hang its hat on, is really an expression of incredulity. Many examples have been presented. Many plausible explanations have been offered. Seldom does a proponent of ID exhibit a willingness to understand how evolutionary processes are believed to actually work, typically preferring to couch their "gotchas" in terms that either are factually incorrect (such as the idea that hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide explode on contact) or don't have anything to do with what evolutionists actually believe (such as the idea that chambers and chemicals had to appear simultaneously)

Here's another

Since the giraffe has such a large neck, it has a very large and powerful heart to pump the blood to the brain. Theoretically, the immense pressure of the blood pumped by this massive heart would rupture blood vessels in the brain if the giraffe moved its head downward! In reality, however, the giraffe is able to execute such an action with no damage at all. The way in which it does this is amazing. Valves in the arteries of the neck close whenever the giraffe bends its head down, limiting the flow of blood to the brain. The blood that is not stopped goes into the “rete mirabile,” a sponge-like cluster of vessels under the brain. Since the brain receives the blood indirectly from the rete mirabile, it is not damaged by any high pressures. When the giraffe lifts its head up, the valves open and the rete mirabile brings more blood to the brain. In addition, some valves in the neck veins close to equalize the blood pressure. This prevents the giraffe from fainting from lack of oxygen when it gets up! When we look at this whole system we immediately see that any defect or incompleteness in it would result in serious consequences for the giraffe.

go dig up the federal court decision from kitzmiller v. dover for a good overview of intelligent design just being a revamp of creationism.

nx4bama said:

Here's another

Since the giraffe has such a large neck, it has a very large and powerful heart to pump the blood to the brain. Theoretically, the immense pressure of the blood pumped by this massive heart would rupture blood vessels in the brain if the giraffe moved its head downward! In reality, however, the giraffe is able to execute such an action with no damage at all. The way in which it does this is amazing. Valves in the arteries of the neck close whenever the giraffe bends its head down, limiting the flow of blood to the brain. The blood that is not stopped goes into the “rete mirabile,” a sponge-like cluster of vessels under the brain. Since the brain receives the blood indirectly from the rete mirabile, it is not damaged by any high pressures. When the giraffe lifts its head up, the valves open and the rete mirabile brings more blood to the brain. In addition, some valves in the neck veins close to equalize the blood pressure. This prevents the giraffe from fainting from lack of oxygen when it gets up! When we look at this whole system we immediately see that any defect or incompleteness in it would result in serious consequences for the giraffe.

Click to expand...

"I can't explain it, ergo it must be irreducibly complex" this is not a logical argument. however, it is the premise behind intelligent design.

cbi1972 said:

The idea of 'irreducible complexity,' which Intelligent Design seems to hang its hat on, is really an expression of incredulity. Many examples have been presented. Many plausible explanations have been offered. Seldom does a proponent of ID exhibit a willingness to understand how evolutionary processes are believed to actually work, typically preferring to couch their "gotchas" in terms that either are factually incorrect (such as the idea that hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide explode on contact) or don't have anything to do with what evolutionists actually believe (such as the idea that chambers and chemicals had to appear simultaneously)

Click to expand...

just because you are able to explain how something MIGHT have happened, doesn't mean the probability that all those events would occur even given billions of years is feasible. if you believe that any probability, no matter how unlikely, is still possible, that exhibits an elementary knowledge of probability and statistics. there is a point that even science agrees is impossible. and the 15 step process for the beetle to have the capability of producing an explosion without blowing itself up is accepting that ALL OF THOSE 15 STEPS HAD TO HAPPEN IN THE EXACT ORDER PRESCRIBED..... figure the probabilities on that and get back to me. It is beyond astronomical.... ridiculous, even. It does not matter how many attempts you have, when probability reaches a certain point, it isn't gonna happen. The old adage that "given an infinite supply of monkeys and and infinite amount of time, you would produce the entire works of shakespeare" exhibits a complete lack of understanding of statistical probability. that is what you are asking me to believe about the bombardier beetle. yes, you may be able to write down a series of steps that would have led a regular old beetle to spit fire out its backside, but that does NOT mean it is plausible given the probabilities.