Talk:Bombardier beetle chemicals would explode if mixed without an inhibitor
From EvoWiki
Comment
Another example of creationist stupidity, that's why I am an atheist, what is the purpose of the argument, intelligent design please!! There is a simple evoloutionary track for the beetle, first the spray must have been hydroquionone pushed out via muscles in the resovoir, then the beetle must have evolved hydrogen peroxide to make it kill other insects as a toxin, then it must have added some form of catalyst, the explosion and heat must have some how damaged the interior of the beetle, so it evolved an extra thick reaction chamber there is a non creationist argument for every creationist argument.
By James Shawyer.
- It can't have evolved an extra thick reaction chamber as a result because the beetle would be dead (the damage of the interior of the beetle) at the first explosion. That's the basis of the argument. Dead beetles don't pass on traits. If it produced the catalyst before the thick reaction chamber, the beetle would be dead. I supposed you could argue the thick reaction chamber could have come first, but why would that happen unless all of these happened at once? There would be no reason for the thicker chamber without the catalyst, and it would probably slow the beetle down because it would be a little extra weight.-Sarah 26 September 2007
- "In point of fact, hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone do not explode when you mix them. They appear to explode because the beetle squeezes them out in extremely rapid bursts." If you actually studied bombardier beetles, you would realize that there is a whole spectrum of beetles, from accurate shooters to those that simply allow the mixture to dribble and foam out of their abdomens. [1] Read this before you continue your argument.--Mr A. 04:21, 27 September 2007 (BST)
Wrong answer
Someone wrote this is the responses section:
- they have both a catalyst and an inhibitor, with just the inhibitor it doesnt do much, with just the catalyst the beetle will explode.
This is nonsense. --tk (t) 10:02, 13 September 2006 (BST)
- I thought I had reverted that already, but the word "Meri_dian" had been blocked by the spam filter. So I had to edit the nonsense out instead of automatically reverting to the last version. --tk (t) 12:10, 13 September 2006 (BST)
- Yeah, I had problems with that, too: I tried to correct some vandalism, and the spamfilter refused to let me because of that.
- And why is it so hard for creationists and their goon followers to learn about Elodea/darkling beetles that secrete largely identical chemical defences, but let it froth overthemselves?--Mr A. 13:43, 13 September 2006 (BST)
Response #3
"Even if this claim were true it wouldn’t prove Creationism or Intelligent Design because all it says is that the bombardier beetle chemicals would explode if mixed without an inhibitor which is just as detrimental to intelligent design and creationism because if this claim was true and intelligent design were true all it would do is show faulty design so in fact if this claim were true it would actually be strong evidence against both Intelligent Design and Evolution."
- It's faulty design because it works? I'm confused here. I'm pretty sure creationism would say the beetle never existed without the inhibitor. So how is it faulty? I'm so confused. I do agree with you that it wouldn't PROVE either. But saying it disproves both isn't making sense to me. - Sarah 26 September 2007
- I'm confused too. This claim needs rewording and I'm not sure where the author was going with it. Perhaps it could be shortened to something like "Even if this claim were true it wouldn't prove Creationism." Zieber 22:23, 23 May 2008 (BST)
I removed it because it misunderstands the whole claim.--Fang 23 02:48, 24 May 2008 (BST)
