A conundrum

[Dr.Strangelove]

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.

[far-out]

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.

[Linn]

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

He evolved an acid toleration?

[Dr.Strangelove]

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.

[mith]

I don't think it's acid, I believe it's heated steam...and the the term you should look up is exaptation.

[far-out]

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.

[AstusAleator]

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

[far-out]

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.

[mith]

argument from personal incredulity

I can't think of a way for it to happen, therefore it's impossible.

[Dr.Strangelove]

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.

[canalon]

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.

[mith]

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