For those who believe in evolution, how did the bombardier beetle evolve, and what from?

Question

For those who are not familiar with the intricacies of the bombardier beetle, here is an exerpt from Wikipedia:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bombardier Beetles are ground beetles (Carabidae) in the tribes Brachinini, Paussini, Ozaenini, or Metriini—more than 500 species altogether—that are most notable for the defense mechanism that gives them their name: They can fire a mixture of chemicals from special glands in their abdomen.

Bombardier beetles store two separate chemicals (hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide). When they are threatened, the two chemicals are squirted through two tubes, where they are mixed along with small amounts of catalytic enzymes and undergo a violent exothermic chemical reaction. The boiling, foul-smelling liquid partially becomes a gas (flash evaporation) and is expelled with a loud popping sound.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back to my question: How did the bombardier beetle evolve without exploding itself many times? These chemicals are highly explosive and if mixed improperly would destroy itself. Not only that, but how did the beetle know to evolve the proper chemicals?

Answer 1

Maybe you should try asking in the Biology section.

Evolution has nothing to do with religion.  

Answer 2

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardi...

Answer 3

Does it really matter?  There are tons of facts that support both sides.  I'm a Christian...I believe in Evolution AND Creation.  How bout that?  

There are some things people can't explain and never will.  I'm a Christian not because there's scientific facts, but because it feels right and makes me a better person.  I don't bother myself with the science behind everything.

Call me ignorant...but remember that EVERYBODY is ignorant.  Just accept it.

Answer 4

lol You think someone on Y!A has the answer to this highly technical question?

And do you believe that not having the answer proves something other than we don't know?

This is logically fallacious, but common.

Christian: How did the <whatever> come to be?

Nonbeliever: I don't know.

Christian: Well, then! That proves that God did it!

Utterly ridiculous, but essentially what your question is about.

Answer 5

If it's already been written, why not just sen you to the source. This not the same as quoting the Bible because one is science (and thus justified by evidence) and the other is fiction - theism/creationism. If you really want more, ask in the biology section.

Answer 6

Lol - those chemicals are not explosive, they just produce a little bit of exothermic energy in a bombadier beetle because the chemicals are so diluted.

Some one has given you some **** information  

Answer 7

You need to drag yourself away from webites of lies like AIG and look into Talk Origins.

Answer 8

1. Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [Dettner, 1987]

2.  Some of the quinones don't get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful. (Quinones are used as defensive secretions in a variety of modern arthropods, from beetles to millipedes. [Eisner, 1970])

3. Small invaginations develop in the epidermis between sclerites (plates of cuticle). By wiggling, the insect can squeeze more quinones onto its surface when they're needed.

4. The invaginations deepen. Muscles are moved around slightly, allowing them to help expel the quinones from some of them. (Many ants have glands similar to this near the end of their abdomen. [Holldobler & Wilson, 1990, pp. 233-237])

5. A couple invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis.

6. In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear. (See Eisner, 1970, for a review.) This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone.

7. Cells that secrete the hydroquinones develop in multiple layers over part of the reservoir, allowing more hydroquinones to be produced. Channels between cells allow hydroquinones from all layers to reach the reservior.

8. The channels become a duct, specialized for transporting the chemicals. The secretory cells withdraw from the reservoir surface, ultimately becoming a separate organ.

This stage -- secretory glands connected by ducts to reservoirs -- exists in many beetles. The particular configuration of glands and reservoirs that bombardier beetles have is common to the other beetles in their suborder. [Forsyth, 1970]

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

10. Hydrogen peroxide, which is a common by-product of cellular metabolism, becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. The two react slowly, so a mixture of quinones and hydroquinones get used for defense.

11. Cells secreting a small amount of catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, outside the valve which closes it off from the outside. These ensure that more quinones appear in the defensive secretions. Catalases exist in almost all cells, and peroxidases are also common in plants, animals, and bacteria, so those chemicals needn't be developed from scratch but merely concentrated in one location.

12. More catalases and peroxidases are produced, so the discharge is warmer and is expelled faster by the oxygen generated by the reaction. The beetle Metrius contractus provides an example of a bombardier beetle which produces a foamy discharge, not jets, from its reaction chambers. The bubbling of the foam produces a fine mist. [Eisner et al., 2000]

13. The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction.

14. Still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, and the walls toughen and shape into a reaction chamber. Gradually they become the mechanism of today's bombardier beetles.

15. The tip of the beetle's abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible, allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions.

Answer 9

Stop nit picking.

That one has already been answered, as have all the creationist 'disproofs' of evolution.

Why don't you do something contstructive for your cause like, I don't know, formulate a coherent scientific theory of creationism. But What's that you say, you're all scientifically illiterate? well then, shut the **** up.

Answer 10

No idea, but I'm sure one of those helpful links posted by some other people might help you, or, I don't know, you could help yourself to a book.

"Do you guys not understand it enough to explain it to me or are you going to post links just like you accuse Christians of posting Scripture?"

The difference is, they are giving you links to science, not self asserting babble from a magic book.

"Did I ever say it gave credibility to a Creator?"

You did post it in R&S instead of a much more appropriate section like "Biology", for example. Why else would you do that?

Answer 11

Actually, the reaction these beetles use is only explosive because of the presence of catalytic enzymes. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardi... has all the details.

Answer 12

Beats me.  I am not a scientist, nor do I claim to be.  I believe Evolution has happened, and I have seen evidence for it,but that does not mean I have all the answers.  You see, we are not afraid to admit we don't know it all.  And just because we don't everything, we don't see the need to claim a God must have done it.  

Answer 13

A great question. There is a great DVD series on more creatures such as this one. You might want to check it out:

"Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution"

You can buy it on Ebay or Amazon...

Or rent it from christiancinema.com

Answer 14

Dawkins did a demonstration on this, he mixed the two chemicals together and absolutely nothing happened.

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/Worl...

Answer 15

There is no knowing in evolution it is a matter of adaptation.  This question is irrelevant and has no bearing upon evolution.  It is merely an attempt by someone who does not understand the process to try and discredit the process through that lack of understanding.

The beetle adapted the same way poisonous reptiles and insects adapt, by building a defense/offense mechanism within themselves.  A mechanism destructive to the host will destroy the creatures and therefore it will not continue.  No one is saying that there weren't failed versions of the bombardier beetle -- such a statement would be fundamentally stupid.  But, because we have successful surviving bombardier beetles demonstrates the nature of evolution and adaptation -- successful adaptations continue while unsuccessful ones die with the host.

You can substitute any poisonous creature or even creature with a ideal survival mechanism -- ability to survive underwater for long periods of time on a single breath is an alternative example -- for the bombardier beetle.  The process is the same -- those that were not successful in their adaptation die.   Those that were successful in their adaptation live.

Answer 16

You know... I really dont know but it is fascinating isnt it... I will have to do some research...

Until then, how does finding something that is not explained at the moment give credibility to a creator. The whole point of science is to find a thing not explained and attempt to explain it. Not to find a thing not explained and simply say, god did it... case closed.

Silly

*Edit*

No... but many many others have... thus I pose that question...

sorry to offend

Answer 17

How do you know many didn't die when the species was new, this actually PROVES evolution, those with inferior genotypes died off.

The beetle did NOT know to evolve these chemicals, no more than Giraffes decided to grow their necks.

Answer 18

The idea that someone had the imagination to think up and create this bug is stupendous. I don't know which one is more possible.

I don't have a clue how it happened but I lean towards evolution.

Answer 19

This one has already been covered exhaustively...with references...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardi...

Also..if you bother to post the rest of the wikipedia article..it explains  as well.

quote

"The young Earth creationist Duane Gish, assistant director of the Institute for Creation Research, described the bombardier beetle in his 1977 book Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards, claiming they could not conceivably have evolved the various components needed to make the system work, as the components appeared to him to provide no benefit in themselves and therefore the entire system would have to be created at once.

He stated that the hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone would explode on contact, and that the beetle adds an inhibitor to keep this from happening. Then, when threatened, the beetle "squirts in an anti-inhibitor" to start the reaction. As we now know, this is not quite accurate as the beetle instead uses catalysts to cause the reaction to start. Gish blamed a problem of translation leading him to misunderstand his German source, but continued to use his description in debates.

At the end of 1980 the National Center for Science Education, a non-profit organization in Oakland, California, affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which defends the teaching of evolutionary biology and opposes the teaching of religious views in science classes in public schools, described the error as well as describing how the mechanism could have gradually evolved through natural selection.[1] This description of the process was used in publications by other authors, from 1981 to 1990.[2][3]"

It's too easy....creationists NEVER come up with anything original.

Answer 20

How the h**l am I supposed to know? I'm not a biologist or coleopterist.

Do you have any idea how annoying it is to have creationists assume that every person who thinks that scientists might actually know what they are talking about, given their years of study in their fields, must themselves have advanced degrees in biology, astronomy, and physics? If you wanted a real answer to this question, you would have asked it in the relevant natural science category. Or at least you would have quoted the entire wikipedia article, including the link which provides the answer to your question http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/article...

Now why would you ignore the answer that wikipedia links to? Why would you selectively quote the article on the bombardier beetle, giving the impression that there is no answer? Why would you ask what appears to be a complex biological question in the religion section?

"Do you guys not understand it enough to explain it to me or are you going to post links just like you accuse Christians of posting Scripture?" Of course I don't understand it enough to explain it to you. Are you saying that you don't know scripture well enough to explain it? Sorry, but there seems to be a little bit of a difference between not understanding the evolutionary history of a certain kind of beetle and not understanding the sentences that you claim to base your life on.

Answer 21

This is a chemical reactions.  Specifically, an oxidation, which requires two things, a carbon source and an oxygen source.

The carbon are hydroquinones, ubiquitous molecules that all arthropods produce.

The oxidizer is hydrogen peroxide with the enzyme catalase, a very common waste product and its neutralizing enzyme found in virtually all life.  

The oxidation of hydroquinone releases a large amount of energy.  The "explosion" is caused by the rapid boiling and expansion of the solution.

In short:

Many beetles already have an organ for shooting quinones at predators.  They smell and taste nasty and thus are a common defense.

The addition of cells secreting hydrogen peroxide and catalase results in a small explosion within the beetle.  The result is a hot, pressurized liquid that is very good at convincing predators to not eat the beetle.

All cells have H2O2 and catalase.  The only thing really needed was on to secrete it.  From there natural selection would improve the process.