Login

Join for Free!
118482 members


A conundrum

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

A conundrum

Postby Dr.Strangelove » Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:05 pm

I am taking a biology class at my local JC and one of the examples of evolution in the text is the Bombder Beetle, which is unique in that it can shoot a stinging hot acid I belive out of his rear into any predator unlucky enough to try to eat him. In order to keep the acid for eating away at his insides he has a protective casing thing around the gland where he stores the stuff. Now my question is if he evloved the acid first he would be cooked inside out, and if he evolved the protection first there would be no use for it and there for probably wouldn't evolve it in the first place in that case. You see my delema, it seems that nature is full of this and among other things leads me to raise questions about my own belife in evolution. Any positvie coment or critisim is welcome.
Dr.Strangelove
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:50 pm

Postby far-out » Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:00 pm

It is possible that first he evloved ability to accumulate or synthesize acid. Such ancestor bugs survived more often because predators did not eat them. In process of development of the acid glands, a protective thing evolved and this attribute amplified at descendants supported by natural selection.
...there will be fireflies and glow-worms at night to guide you and butterflies in the hedges and forests to greet you...
far-out
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:42 pm
Location: Ukraine, Odessa

Postby Linn » Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:11 pm

I wonder if that is why my Mexican uncle can eat chiles so hot it can give you third degree burns? :lol:

He evolved an acid toleration?
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA


Postby Dr.Strangelove » Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:16 pm

So then how does it decide gee Im getting eaten all the time I think Ill devlope stinging hot acid. Explain how thats supposed to work.
Dr.Strangelove
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:50 pm

Postby mith » Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:17 am

I don't think it's acid, I believe it's heated steam...and the the term you should look up is exaptation.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby far-out » Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:26 am

Dr.Strangelove wrote:So then how does it decide gee Im getting eaten all the time I think Ill devlope stinging hot acid. Explain how thats supposed to work.


In short suppose that there was a mutation in ancestor's genome. It turned out that it was a useful mutation which allowed to store acid from food. So it has not been eliminated as most of mutations and budg has started to transmit it as useful characterisric to their scions. Bugs with lack of this stuff did not survive and so their hereditary characters were not transmitted.

This is very simple explanation and a mere supposition. I hope someone can tell us something else.
...there will be fireflies and glow-worms at night to guide you and butterflies in the hedges and forests to greet you...
far-out
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:42 pm
Location: Ukraine, Odessa

Postby AstusAleator » Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:21 am

What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Postby far-out » Thu Jun 08, 2006 4:13 am

This link says:
There has never been any evidence that bombardier beetles could not have evolved, but just because they couldn't explain exactly how the beetles evolved, lots of people jumped to the conclusion that an explanation was impossible.
...there will be fireflies and glow-worms at night to guide you and butterflies in the hedges and forests to greet you...
far-out
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:42 pm
Location: Ukraine, Odessa

Postby mith » Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:27 am

argument from personal incredulity

I can't think of a way for it to happen, therefore it's impossible.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby Dr.Strangelove » Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:38 pm

Isn't that what the same thing you do when addressing to the creation theroy "there is no scientific evidence of a god so therefore one cannot have possibly have existed" well if there is no scientific proof of evolution, as defined here in the Websters Dictionary:

Main Entry: scientific method
Function: noun
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

You should apply the same rules to both. Acording to this neither evolution or creation can be scientificly proven. And for the record I will not belive in something that has no real proof to back it up and such a infentsamly small chance of happening.
Dr.Strangelove
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:50 pm

Postby canalon » Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:56 pm

This is your right, but remeber that nothing can be proven in science you just use a model until proven wrong or replaced by an improved model. Science is a way of making sense of natural events in organizing them in a logical way.
When you have no answer you call God, some other people don't need to. I don't know how the bombardier evolved its system, but for the moment I don't have any proof that it cannot have evolved, so it is a curiosity that is left for someone with enough time and money to solve. Maybe it will rock the foundation of evolution, and I will be interested to see that. Until now the evolution is based on a logical set of assumptions that does make sense, and mostly do not require external action (ie god(s)) to be explained, and in this satisfies the Occam razor rule.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby mith » Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:58 am

Dr.Strangelove wrote:
You should apply the same rules to both. Acording to this neither evolution or creation can be scientificly proven. And for the record I will not belive in something that has no real proof to back it up and such a infentsamly small chance of happening.


Nothing ever is, good luck with life :)
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Next

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests