Many species of beetle proves that this particular beetle was created by God with all his mechanism intact. How can non other beetle have a similar system or a weaker less advance one as suggested by your friend Mr Dawkings
@aurelama1 There are 500 species of beetles that use variations of this defense, some many many times more effective than others. Some have no ejection mechanism and just produce a hot or warm foam.
@fingleur1 The same evidence are there for everyone it only depends what glasses you are wearing when examining them. Evolution over billions of years is not science is a philosophy or a religion and has not been proven and observe. As for me I stay with Jesus that has been proven for thousands of years in billions of successful and fruitful lives.
Remember Darwin has never saved anybody and I will not bet with my life on his theory to be truth.
@aurelama1 When it comes to developing antibiotics, genetically engineering crops to save lives, or understanding and treating cancer or hereditary diseases - there's only set of glasses that is any use - the ones belonging to scientists.
@aurelama1 There are virtually no biologists who aren't 'Darwinians'
Sure there's the odd senile God Botherer here and there but for the most part anyone who examines closely the evidence for evolution accepts a Darwinian explanation.
@fingleur1 Many species of beetle proves that this particular beetle was created by God with all his mechanism intact. How can non other beetle have a similar system or a weaker less advance one as suggested by your friend Mr Dawkings
@tanner1300 after a lifetime of study people who study all the evidence conclude the world is billions of years old. You dismiss them and conclude otherwise after zero research.
@fingleur1 That's where you're wrong. However, It's obvious to me that I'm the only one out of us two actually looking at both sides of the argument here, so I'm afraid I'm done talking to you. You're too stubborn to actually look into it beyond your side of the story. I still have not came to a conclusion as to which THEORY I find most factual, but in the end, all they will EVER be is a theory/hypothesis and not law. SO if its not provable, in life, its not relevant.
@tanner1300 There aren't two sides to the argument. All the evidence says the theory of evolution is correct. You have not a single shred of positive evidence that supports any other 'side' to the argument. Why not? Because there is none.
@fingleur1 Yes there is, and the fact that you're not willing to look at all the evidence shows you're a terrible scientist. Its all there ranging from 4.5 billion years to 10,000, but since you're not willing to look at anything under 3 billion, that means you've made up your mind already. Hence why I'm done talking to you. I've found a better scientist to talk to about this who actually has arguments to disprove and prove other methods as I come up with them. Good day sir.
@fingleur1 theoretical fact. yes. its never actually been proved, and cant be proven until either a time machine is invented or when humans are "intelligent" for another few hundred thousand more years. however, We must hold to the truth that micro and macro are not the same, and "relevant education" is completely redundant, because everyone in America receives a "relevant education" yet a significant percent holds macro evolution to be incorrect, unproven, or lacking evidence
@tanner1300 'Relevant education' isn't redundant. Those people who learn about biology, paleontology, genetics and medicine to a high level just about ALL accept the theory of evolution in full.
The 'significant percent' who don't accept the theory of evolution just happen to be the ones who haven't studied the evidence. There's a thing.
@fingleur1 I'm not debating with you as to what "experts say" I'm just saying my opinion is that Evolution is lacking real proof for me to buy into it. I'm not ignorant, I'm not uneducated, I was pre-med in college. I'm not an expert, i'm doing research to figure out what I believe. I just find there being a lack of legit evidence. The biggest problem I find is that we find human tools and hand prints fossilized with trilobites in various forms in Cretaceous and Cambrian rock. Its just odd to me
@tanner1300 What evidence would you accept? If, say, we were to stamp your genome with a unique marker using a virus, and demonstrate that it's passed to your children and your children's children and their children etc. Then we go away for 500,000 generations and come back and test the population - wouldn't you accept that all the population carrying that marker were as good as certain to be descended from you?
@tanner1300 ...then we observe all those carrying your DNA marker and they all live in the same part of the world as you did, and we observe that all those carrying your DNA marker have features inherited from their parents and that there is a gradient of similarity to you - where the oldest known individuals who lived closest to you are more similar to you - and then less so radiating outwards in time and location ... wouldn't this seal the deal?
@tanner1300 "we find human tools and hand prints fossilized with trilobites in various forms in Cretaceous and Cambrian rock."
No, we don't. This is a claim that, if true, would be of HUGE, MASSIVE scientific importance. Don't fall for conspiracy theories. Look at these claims and look up the source of the claim, find the original source, see what many different experts say about it before you decide to buy into it.
@fingleur1 Well. I did my research already, and it does happen.... but that's irrelevant. I also want to point out that you're neglecting the FACT that Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution are different.. The admitted errors in carbon dating by scientists screams at me. thoery of the earths age scream at me. The Shrinkng sun theory. Moons dust thoery. Magnetic field. Missing Helium. slowing rotation theory. Topsoil theory. Ocean Coral theory. Way too many to proven theories to just "discard"
@tanner1300 When stuff needs doing - when a man needs putting on the moon, when a satellite surveys the earth's magnetic field, when we predict the next sunspot, when we predict the arrival of a comet, when we analyse an ice-core or predict continental drift, when you set your watch by an atomic clock... man turns to the real science that says all these 'theories; of yours are just total cock.
@fingleur1 Satellite surveys are actually how they found that the magnetic field as is might only be less than 10,000 years old. The "real" Science has been admittedly faulty. see uranium-238 evidence. also see "atomic bomb carbon levels". The amount of Carbon 14 increases over time also. also see "mollusk carbon dating flaw". Scientists agree that Carbon 14 dating only reliable to 3-3.5 thousand years. also see Dr. Robert Lee' article.
@fingleur1 I'm trying to be un-bias in my decisions. Considering that I'm still really confused about everything, I'm trying to look at positives and negatives of everything. I've given up on figuring out evolution, I figure if I can come to a conclusion on the age of the earth, then I'll have decided about evolution. Because the bible does talk about dinosaurs. Well the term dinosaur was coined in the 1800's. Prior to that they were called Dragons or "Tanniyn". Bohemoth and Leviathin were types
@fingleur1 So basically What I'm saying is, don't just say these theories are wrong, prove them wrong to me, to help ME decide. Ya know? Help ME to see why these arguments are wrong. Cuz I can't seem to find them on Google.
@tanner1300 Research any one of these creationist lies you'll easily find the truth. Take your Earth's magnetic field issue. Go to Google and research it for yourself.
Google "earth magnetic field change over time" and read stuff - read the references and you'll discover evidence that shows you that the Earth had a magnetic field 3.5billion years ago.
@tanner1300 Also try: "talk origins magnetic field" You'll see it's a complicated subject and your Creationist friends are counting on you not having the stamina to read and try and understand it.
@fingleur1 Just so you know I had a 4.0 in Pre-med and Geology studies in college. I'm not ignorant. I'm also not bias. I've looked at the limited evidence you've given me, and I've look at the evidence a Christian gave me on another video. I just have to admit that the evidence for a 4.54 bil year old earth is shotty at best. I also say that a 5,000 year old theory is lacking evidence. All I'm saying is NEITHER has definitive proof. But at least the creation side isn't lying about theirs.
I have an honest question. if the bombarman beetle first had only not quite warm reaction, then it wouldn't deter its predators, it wouldn't survive more than others? and so it wouldn't have evolved eventually to the boiling stuff it has now? doesn't natural selection etc work because when something new comes out, it works, gives advantage to its host, and then keeps evolving?
@atgblue1 There are thousands of species of beetle that exude cold hydroquinone alone as a deterrent. Just exuding a liquid like saliva can potentially make an animal slippy and therefore have greater fitness than one that doesn't.
If an eye is created by evolution, how does evolution know when the eye is built correctly? How does it know what size it should be? How does it even know what an eye is? Where does the compulsion come from to manufacturer an eye? The eye is built by instructions within DNA, an infinitely complex operation - the question is who wrote the instructions? Something must of.
@feverpitch82 Something must 'have', not must 'of'. And just because YOU don't have all the answers and attribute it to a 'god' doesn't mean it's right. It's just lazy.
@cfc19900 ok dickhead. Firstly I'm not attributing anything to a God, im saying the answer isn't clear. If you want to cling on to what one man says and that makes you feel safe in your own little world - good for you. Secondly, correcting my grammar is basically your way of trying to look superior in the eyes of other people but it's usually a sign of a deep seeded inferiority complex - so shut up short dick.
@feverpitch82 I corrected your grammar so you wouldn't embarrass yourself in the future. And TRYING to 'insult' me shows everything about you. Sad little clown.
Close Dawkins, but no cigar. The "explosive mixture" can only work when both the hydroperoxide and catalyst are mixed. That means both must have been present from the very beginning. Evolution works in small incremental and linear steps without any foresight. Unless each component has a use of it's own, evolution cannot account for the formation of this biological mechanism. And the "explosive mixture" is not the only thing irreducibly complex about the beetle. :)
@fingleur1 Yes but why would the beetle randomly begin to store them in chambers designed to separate the two substances? It doesn't make sense to have one chamber and not the other, and it wouldn't make sense to have one of the chambers without a firing mechanism or exit for the substance to be fired out of. Look at the anatomy of the beetle.
@ubermechazillatron Firstly there are about a million species of beetles that are successful with no such defense mechanism.
There is no reason to suspect that exuding peroxide on its own would not act as a deterrent of sorts. exuding peroxide and catalyst separately from different places would potentially act as a slightly more effective deterrent (if not that exciting).
Over time beetles would have had the ability to refine the process in further gradual steps.
@luishomeroremohsiul LOL WUT?! You didn't even leave a response to me on this video, and the only response left was flawed and I pointed out why. Dawkins doesn't even mention the actual firing mechanism in the beetle (the most complex part), but instead only looks at the substance which the beetle fires.
wait, so a beetle, randomly discharged the "weak" solution, and this weak solution eventually evolved into the strong solution? Sorry, I just don't get WHY a beetle would evolve the weak solution, because if Evolution is true, the bug didn't START with the ability to produce a weak solution. Thinking of practicality, the beetles that DIDN"T have the weak solution would have a higher fitness because NONE of their bodies mixed the solution wrong. Can someone help me understand? :-/ sorry.
@tanner1300 Natural selection only selects between pre-existing variations (which are almost always tiny tweaks around the average) No one beetle appears overnight with ability to manufacture a lot of hydrogen peroxide, just some have the ability to manufacture a teeny bit more than their friends. They have greater fitness so the 'more peroxide' gene becomes more common so over time H2O2 becomes more concentrated.
@fingleur1 Ok. So what do they think the purpose of it was in the beginning? Like did the tiny amount of peroxide actually help them survive or was it for a different purpose early on?
@tanner1300 Hydrogen peroxide is a natural waste product produced in virtually every cell in every organism. It's normally kept under control by a couple of proteins called peroxidases (incidentally one of the catalysys used by beetles).
Cells have been shown to use H2O2 as a signaller when damaged. If a cell is attacked it can release higher levels which triggers an immune response but in old organisms may have acted as a defense too.
@fingleur1 Ok, so basically early on a beetle discharged this waste, and over time it became a defense mechanism. Starting early as a way to discharge a natural occurring waste, which like the beetle crapped himself and boom. LoL I know that's vague and assumptive but I get the point. Thanks!
@ashmerioni. People resort to insults, interrupting and overtaking try and compensate for not having any solid arguments to back up what there saying. Or they just get really angry to try and intimidate people to drop the topic. You've gone there immediately, so u REALLY must have nothing. Sorry buddy, but yr gona have to use yr brain here, not yr emotions
fuck god, i dont believe in a rabid asshole that lives in a cloud and control my life, fuck jesus, i dont believe is semi-gods that do magic tricks, fuck the holy spirit, i dont believe in fairy tales and fuck the christians that live in a age of science and information never seen in human history, and they keep believing in a stupid self-contradictory book that was writen by humans 2000 years ago. ! wake up, you morons ¡
@ashmerino God gave us free will, which is why there is why we can murder each other. The Christians hold onto a belief based on events they have gone through, not just because a book tells them to. The bible isn't self-contradictory, I've read it, and surprisingly its not. However, you're just setting science back 3,000 years by name calling like that.
@tanner1300 Not really boom at first. If a tiny bit of peroxide mixed with some hydroquinone was even slightly above beetle body temperature then it'd be more effective as a deterrent releasing more aromatic compounds from the stable hydroquinone.
This then ratcheted up the gradient to what we see now. There are 500 different types of bombardier beetle too - all with their own take on the same process.
@tanner1300 if you read the old testament, god is a jackass thirsty of blood that kill without mercy, if you read the new testament, god is a jackass that self proclaimed kind, good and mercyful, this is very contradictory in my opinion. And by the way, christians dont belive in "historically proven events", they belive in fary tails; like a jew-zombie-semi-god, a woman that have childrens without having sex, 5000 years universe, ets,etc,etc
@ashmerino wow, don't really get that rant, guess a bit of bias entered in there. I was merely telling you what Christians believe man. However, I do have to admit that the Christians I know are a lot more polite than you. That alone seems worth it to check out for me. Thank you ashmerino, you've brought me closer to God.
@tanner1300 lol i am polite, i never tell you that your a dumbass for your beliefs, i only telling you that the christianity by itself is idiotic, also i dont show sacred respect when i talk of "fantasy concepts"(jesus,virgin,buda,wotan,zeus,etc) and no one should
@ashmerino all I know is that the Christians I know are the most real, genuine people I know. Even if its not real, its worth looking into because the rest of the world only gives a care about themselves. That in itself makes me not really care about science.
@tanner1300 Do you think being 'real and genuine' are characteristics that can only apply to Christians? Can moslem or hindu or atheist or sikh or jain or buddhist communities not contain caring genuine people?
@fingleur1 I'd have to disagree I'm afraid. I've always found equally warm and genuine people in every culture and religion wherever I've been.
My Hindu, Sikh and Muslim friends here where I live are no different in terms of their humanity and their values to any Christian community I've ever met.
@tanner1300 what? you cant judge other people cos you know a bunch of cool christians, in fact estern religion care more about people, christians dont have the monopoly of truth and goodwill, and you dont even need to be religious to care about people, in fact religious people only do good because they think that they will have a reward in the end (heaven, virgins, etc), not because they are good people
@ashmerino I can do what I want. And actually no, we are good to people because we want everyone to know the feelings we feel from God. Oh man, when I first gave my life to Christ, NOTHING else in the world mattered. I want everyone to feel that. I do it because I love everyone. I do it because God loves everyone. I do it because Jesus loves everyone. I do it because I don't want to be selfish and horde this euphoric love I get from God. I want everyone to feel the love I've had.
@fingluer1. Don't make the mistake of falling into the whole 'religion is evil and science is good' cos yes, science didn't start the crusades, but religion didn't build the atomic bomb either. Whether science is a force for good or not depends on the disposition of the scientist, the same can be said of religion. The good/evil debate isn't about the institution but the individual
@MartianManhunter187 I agree with you. I got involved with building a Sikh temple near me a few years back - an incredible display of human solidarity and cooperation brought about by a shared religion. Science couldn't touch it.
I just wish all religions were confident enough to stop denying scientific fact and make the most of the good they can do. If institutions stifle education then it is about the institution.
@Pooplepooplenow. It's ironic, yr on here criticizing others for flogging there beliefs, but in doing that, yr actually flogging yrs.
Even people who believe in nothing at all, will directly or indirectly try to convince people of their 'non' belief. It's just human nature, so it's rather pointless to get upset about it. Personally I enjoy those kind of discussions
@Pooplepooplenow And the next time you want to benefit from the medicines or technology that science brings maybe you'll stop and think for a moment whether on not you do really care about what scientists say?
Maybe you'd love to go under the knife of a surgeon who boasts about being ignorant of biology?
You see it does matter because every time we allow an ignorant god botherer to hinder the work of science it actually costs lives.
@Pooplepooplenow And the next time you want to benefit from the medicines or technology that science brings maybe you'll stop and think for a moment whether on not you do really care about what scientists say?
Maybe you'd love to go under the knife of a surgeon who boasts about being ignorant of biology?
You see it does matter because every time we allow an ignorant god botherer to hinder the work of science it actually costs lives.
He talked about ONE of the FOUR factors that makes the beetles weapon work. Wheres his explanation of the other three? Or does he just overlook them?
1- the chemicals
2- the separate pouches for each chemical
3- the firing compartment of each pouch
4- the insequencial firing pattern
It needs all 4 for the weapon to work. PS all these parts need to be together at the same time and in the right order to work, which we can class as a 5th factor
@MartianManhunter187 There is much literature available for you to find and read on the subject.
If you google "Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design" and find the talkorigins page that covers the subject you'll find a step-by-step potential route for evolution.
The crucial point is that all those points don't have to be there all at once to form some sort of defense. Some beetles just exude hydroquinone alone. Hydrogen peroxide is commonly produced etc.
DrMontague... you cant even philosophically be consistant with your own beliefs. For instance how can you claim what God did to the people in the OT was evil when you have no absolute standard to base what is evil or wrong in the first place? If you believe in telative truth, then how can you claim anything as evil or bad?
Ohh please let me answer this one. Lets see the reason why many of those priests believe in evolution is because they listened to man along time ago over God's word. Lets look at the state of the catholic church today specifically in Europe. It has failed our culture many times over. See ken hams video on reclaiming the culture.
To mix two (or three) chemicals is the easy part. But how do you generate (evolve) hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide are the difficult parts. How about catalyst? It needs all three chemicals at right density to explode. How can this beetle survive for million years without a defense system ? Who said these chemicals evolved from low to high density? It is random, so it could be from very strong to weak. Then it couldn't be survive either. You need more FAITH to believe in Evolution than God!
@jim123wang Why don't you do some research. You'll find all these chemicals are produced by many beetles that don't use this method of defense. You probably understand how they can survive. Understanding complex biological systems requires you to put in a small amount of effort but it's worth it.
Your proof is a single beetle? What about the million other animals and plants that prove evolution? If a single person created everything, and you believe it so much, then why do you need any proof? Seems like there is some doubt there...
How do glass bottles mixing various quantities of combustible chemicals nullify intelligent design? You have taken upon yourself a great accountability Mr Dawkins. So many young minds turned away from their Creator. Better if you had tied a millstone around your neck and jumped into the ocean.
@Info101 ...because Intelligent Design is a fraud, a hoax - it's creator has admitted as much. It has been examined, tested, tried and has been found out.
Read the transcript of the Dover trial and see for yourself - Intelligent Design has as much validity as Astrology or Tarot. in short, it's a load of bollocks.
@Info101 Dawkins will pay heavily the day he meets his creator and our savior Christ. The teaching of evolution has turned so many away from true science to believe another but false religion. The difference is their little god is called time and random chance.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
That is the worst attempt of a debunk I have seen in a long time. Any creationists would agree that adding a gradual catalyst is possible over time. That does not address how the Bombardier Beetle evolved it though. Furthermore how would the Beetle know to evolve a lining to protect its inner organs, add the right concentration of all 3 fluids and retain the exact chamber dimensions to house the ingredients for this defense mechanism. Was this seriously suppose to be a debunk? LOL!
@cctman You've explained that you don't understand these evolutionary processes, so rather than rant about your lack of understanding on the internet - exercise yourself by using the Internet to find answers to your questions.
@fingleur1 I'll tell you what... why don't you impress me and try replying to my response above. Explain to me the evolutionary process and how the lining can evolve over millions of years. Please enlighten me!
@cctman There is natural variation in the temperature handling capabilities of beetles back-ends. Those with more flame-retardent arses have greater fitness, leading to an increase of frequency of the genes that code for said phenotype in the population.
I have a 10 year old that could have told you that!
@cctman Why don't you Google the question you ask? Search youtube 'evolution of the bombardier beetle'. But here is a difficult question that stumps theists: why is the god you believe in evil, after all he drowned babies and children in his flood. It would have been a sickening sight if were true. Perhaps you would have enjoyed watching such a spectacle esp.since you approve of your god's evil actions.
@DrMontague No this is not a difficult question for theists to answer at all. You simply fabricated your "evil god" statement because of your feelings, much in the same way as evolution is a fabrication. You then used that deception as your excuse to 'rabbit' on and show your arrogance. It is clear that you have no factual knowledge or understanding of the historical account of the flood. To see who the 'laughing stock' really is, you need look no further than your mirror.
@Pendu068 I have read your bible and studied it's content here's an example of god's evil e.g. :Kill Homosexuals "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB). Are you claiming this is untrue or that I have misinterpreted this evil?
@Pendu068 Gen 7:11-12 And God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth. . on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.' Are you claiming that the flood story in the OT is not accurate or misinterpreted?That god didn't wipe put his creation or kill babies and children
You cannot enlighten people like yourself because people like you are deluded and would rather believe in ancient myths. There is nothing to stop you researching the evolution of the bombardier beetle yet you will steadfastly refuse to do any intellectual research on the subject. Instead you ask people to explain it to you so you can rubbish their answers out of pig headed ignorance. It's an old creationist tactic of time wasting. Creationists are simply a laughing stock.
@DrMontague I viewed this tripe for the first time today and was stunned that Dawkins could present such hogwash. By the way, I have studied the myth of evolution alchemy and blind faith about this beetle and I have never come across such fantasy before. The faith required to believe evolution surpasses anything like that required to understand the science of creation. Your arrogance in thinking it your right to insult the truth of science is only surpassed by your own stupidity.
@Pendu068 No doubt yo will tell children that a stork brings new babies to their mothers If evolution is tripe then why would accredited universities such as Oxford,Cambridge, Harvard et al , have biology dept. that specialize in evolutionary biology.? Why would Ken Miller who is a Roman Catholic and a evolutionary biologist accept evolutionary theory. Why would Prof. John Polkinghorne is an Oxford physicist prof. and priest accept evolutionary theory.?
@DrMontague You're right. We really should give equal time to the stork theory of childbirth in class. At least teach the controversy and allow children to make their own minds up.
Dawkins is a master of manipulating the evidence.
He states that the two compounds, hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone are stable when mixed. What he failed to mention is there is a third ingredient that is needed. That's right, the beetle mixes these two compounds simultaniously with a watery, catalyzing enzyme that kicks off the fireworks.
Using black powder as the catalyst allows Dawkins to simulate safe, gradual transitions. Unfortunately, the beetle doesn't use black powder.
@onearcsecond No, the beetle produces catalases and peroxidases in the output passage of the chamber where hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone are combined first. He does explain in that talk that his catalyst is different to the one used by the beetle in question but the effect is the same.
I am sure you have studied biology enough to know that mutations almost always lead to deformation or deficiency of that organism. In addition to it's mind-boggling chemical weaponry, this beetle also has a special heat retardant lining in the 'combustion chamber' to protect it's other organs. I am not preaching God here, but I hope we can admit this is still a big prob for evolution and certainly for punctuated equalibrium. Yes?
@onearcsecond I've certainly studied sufficient biology to know that mutations + natural selection + inheritance is something completely different to just mutations alone.
@onearcsecond Yes, evolution is just brilliant, isn't it? Do you know how many species of Bombardier beetles there are? Got to love that God geezer, he sure does make a mean beetle or two, or three, or four ...
I find it amazing that those who are in favour of evolution against creation, are 99% of the time offensive. Why the need to resort to cursing and taking the mick just because someone disagrees with the majority held view? BTW Richard Dawkins didn;t explain how these two solutions and the catalyst can evolve step by step. He then concludes by arguing that creation is impossible because it cannot be done? I thought God could do anything?
@jdantzie There are beetles who deter their predators by simply exude hydroquinone alone. This is a deterrent on its own. Adding a few more molecules of hydrogen peroxide may make it marginally more effective. Add a small amount of catalases and peroxidases and it becomes marginally more effective still.
If you want I can send you plenty of information about the evolutionary steps involved. I was going to say it's not rocket science, but it actually probably is.
Amazing!!!! THe very test Richard Dawkings uses to refute creationist arguments is the very undoing of this THEORY! While the beetle was "GRADUALLY EVOLVING A SOLUTION that would not destroy it," THE SOLUTION itself would not have been able obviously been able to destroy any predators or food for the beetle to it, thus the beetle becoming extinct BEFORE it had TIME TO EVOLVE to what we have today. Is this not reasonable?
how come evolution has had so many different theories? I mean started with the big bang, now they're looking for some type of other intelligent life... just saying, i mean there's another one saying how life started through a single cell that evolved, do you know how that cell started, because by random chance is like saying dna or rna just came along by chance. BTW they are some of the most complex structures ever discovered... like trying to spell a word by drop scrabble letters on a board
Are you joking? He has effectively said nothing here on the supposed subject. He said nothing about how a beetle such as this could evolve. "Step by step..." WHAT ARE THE STEPS??? Where is the evidence for those steps?? Why should I believe a word he says? Because of his credentials? He first shows a completely irrelevant example, shows another irrelevant example about varying degrees (who didn't know that??), and that proved his point? Right.
You don't have to. You can read the scientific journals for yourself and question the authors directly if there are any points that you feel need clarification. If you don't then there are thousands of qualified scientists who will read the evidence and raise questions on your behalf.
the only real problem with creationists and evolutionists is that no one has the same world views, my church went over this so until you are all on the same page you'll never convince anyone anything, and its very difficult to explain
@strtg3y3r Evolution is very easy to explain, and the majority of Christians accept the obvious fact that the Biblical account of creation is just allegorical.
If you're not prepared to do that, then keep it to yourself and discuss talking snakes with your friends in private.
@UltraEpicLoser Your name speaks for itself. Lay off the pomegranate seeds. Religion is also an idea created by man doofus. And so is technology. So no more ancient greek stupidity will occur. But you knew this deep down really you just wanted a reaction
Evolution is an idea created by man to explain certain, but not all circumstances. Sounds like a religion to me. It is a very good idea, at this time, but so was Hades stealing Persephone to explain seasons,
this guy basicly says that the "defense mechanism" is usles until he gets to the last stage where it actualy works. The whole premise in "evolution" is that the mutation helps the organism survive and mate so they spread the mutation! yet here he says that the mutation was usless untill its at its full stage so there would be no way for the mutation to spread in its early stages! it would have died off without spreading it! this is so stupid the kids watchin it could figure out the flaw!
now im just playing devils advocate here, but did he just say that the catalyst that he used was not the one the beetle uses? Why didn't he use that? Is the real catalyst really that dangerous he has to use a totally different one?
The reactivity is affected by the concentration of the hydrogen peroxide, it has absolutely nothing to do with the catalyst used.
"In the chemistry case, if particles collide with enough energy they can still react in exactly the same way as if the catalyst wasn't there. It is simply that the majority of particles will react via the easier catalysed route"
What I find amazing is the people that can't see a creator, can turn and buy into the idea of complex groups of systems all coming together by chance, to form a working function over and over and over again in just one species. Not to mention in every other species as well. Talk about your leap of faith.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Richard Dawkins the Strawman lying fool, why he didnt use the same catalyst that the bombardier beetle uses, because in all cases you get fire, if the catalyst mixed wrongly you would get exploded beetles
@MrTmapp A different catalyst will not create a different reaction. Pick up a chemistry textbook if you find this hard to believe. Or if that is too much of a burden you could start by reading the Wikipedia article on catalysis.
@qartarsauce Any number of catalysts can have different results when added to the same substrate. One difference for example is the rate of the reaction. A faster reaction would lead to a different result, possibly more heat, or less heat, or louder, brighter... the list goes on an on.
@Grovonator You are misunderstanding what was meant by 'different'. It is the same chemical reaction; a different catalyst will cause the reaction to occur at a different rate but it will generate the same amount of energy (heat, sound, and light) over a different period of time. The same light energy over a shorter period of time will appear brighter, longer will appear dimmer, etc. In this case it still wont result in fire or explosions, which was the original notion I was rebutting.
Darwins theory says that a species evolves and adapts for survival, not just to do it. So, if the beetle could have survived without the defense mechanism then it would have never gotten one, cause it wouldn't need it. So its self contradictory
The beetles evolved as it's surroundings evolved, obviously as other animals evolve a defence mechanism becomes necessary otherwise the species becomes extinct, it is not contradictory.
In this demonstration he just proved creationism over Evolution. What a Idiot! He's usually pretty bright. He is maintaining that the defense mechanism gradually over time evolved up to a point of potency. if you apply evolution to his theory the bug would have been eaten by predators well before it had a chance to evolve to full potency levels. It never would have survived. It had to start from full potency protection. Sorry Dawkins not everyone is 12 like your audience.
@abynormil1 Right, because all the thousands of other species of beetles that don't have chemical defenses are all extinct? And the bombardier beetle couldn't possibly survive like any of those normal, non-squirting beetles like we see in our yards everyday. Why on earth would the bombardier beetle have to start from full-potency protection? It could easily survive without that adaptation, just like practically every other beetle in existence.
@Hightemplarl Different beetles have different survival mechanisms. For instance, the tiger's beetle speed and aggression defend it well enough in it's environment to allow it to survive. Beetles who burrow underground or in the leaf litter cover themselves well enough in their environment to survive. Besides, the adult beetle stage is relatively short. The majority of beetles' lives is in the larval stage, which means they're always undeground or protected in tree trunks and rotting logs.
@Cacterpus You're right. I dunno how I managed to type that, but I meant to illustrate that not using the *same* catalyst as the beetle or not mentioning which catalyst the beetle uses doesn't change anything about the validity of his claim.
When he added the catalyst to the 'weak' hydrogen peroxide solution, the reaction wasn't as violent as the 'strong' solution as I can see. If the bombardier beetle doesn't produce enough hydrogen peroxide for its reaction, its defence mechanism would still not be effective enough against predators even though it might have some effect on them
@Cacterpus What catalyst does the beetle use, & how does it produce it? How did those cells develop? For that matter, how did the cells that produce the other two chemicals develop? It isn't an issue of chemistry, it is an issue of biology. Unless you have a rudimentary understanding of the depth of biological complexity you can not grasp the difficulty of developing multiple different cell types all meant to accomplish a single task by accident, not including the muscle groups for aiming.
@telebluesful Christianity and Islam are the same. Bronze age mythology propagated by goat herders and barbarians, whose central divinity is the Mesopotamian god of war.
@grimordwow Would you care to elaborate on that? I have never seen the two linked in such a way & I am curious how you came to that particular conclusion. If you have any references to books etc that would be helpful. If not, that is OK too.
Its hard to believe how uneducated some of the people commenting this video are.
Do your own research on the god damn beetle and see for yourself how it evolved. The true and unmanipulated(by uneducated theists) information is available, you must only choose not to ignore it.
Looking at most of the comments.. Are people really that stupid?
They claim Dawkins lied because he didn't mention what catalyst he used nor used the catalyst the beetle uses.. Even though he was disproving creationists saying that the two chemicals together (without catalyst) explode violently?
Even though he was showing how the wrong mixture doesn't resolve into exploded beetle but only in a less likely to survive beetle?
I say the universe was created in a fist fight between Zeus and Thor!
Creationism is like saying Zeus did it if we couldn't yet explain lightnings. Thing is that we really do know like lightnings happen and we can predict when one will occur. Yet still the creationists come and say "No, Zeus did it."
Its sad to see that people would rather believe this world was made by chance and that they came from lower life forms(animals) instead of from a designer who made you human on purpose above all other things(animals). a chimp is 100% chimp,a human is 100% human. DNA is only similar because we are made from earth elements. But humans are different than all animals. why would you let yourself believe or let anyone tell you you came from a lower life form? Everything was created with a purpose.
Many species of beetle proves that this particular beetle was created by God with all his mechanism intact. How can non other beetle have a similar system or a weaker less advance one as suggested by your friend Mr Dawkings
aurelama1 1 day ago
@aurelama1 There are 500 species of beetles that use variations of this defense, some many many times more effective than others. Some have no ejection mechanism and just produce a hot or warm foam.
fingleur1 23 hours ago
@fingleur1 The same evidence are there for everyone it only depends what glasses you are wearing when examining them. Evolution over billions of years is not science is a philosophy or a religion and has not been proven and observe. As for me I stay with Jesus that has been proven for thousands of years in billions of successful and fruitful lives.
Remember Darwin has never saved anybody and I will not bet with my life on his theory to be truth.
aurelama1 21 hours ago
@aurelama1 When it comes to developing antibiotics, genetically engineering crops to save lives, or understanding and treating cancer or hereditary diseases - there's only set of glasses that is any use - the ones belonging to scientists.
fingleur1 21 hours ago
@fingleur1 Hope you are not implying that all scientists are Darwinians believers.
aurelama1 19 hours ago
@aurelama1 There are virtually no biologists who aren't 'Darwinians'
Sure there's the odd senile God Botherer here and there but for the most part anyone who examines closely the evidence for evolution accepts a Darwinian explanation.
fingleur1 7 hours ago
@aurelama1 Like 90% are.
MegaBlueZOMBIE 2 hours ago
This beetle would have been deth without this strong deterant and deth creature don't usually evolve ...
aurelama1 3 days ago
@aurelama1 How many species of beetle are there without an exothermic defense mechanism? 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10,000, 100,000 or about a million?
Answer that question, and then tell me why the bombardier beetles would be extinct if they also didn't have an exothermic chemical defense.
fingleur1 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fingleur1 Many species of beetle proves that this particular beetle was created by God with all his mechanism intact. How can non other beetle have a similar system or a weaker less advance one as suggested by your friend Mr Dawkings
aurelama1 1 day ago
wow Dawkins did not explain anything about how the bombardier beetle evolved! he only tackled one aspect of it and he still got that wrong.
sethblatt 4 days ago
@tanner1300 after a lifetime of study people who study all the evidence conclude the world is billions of years old. You dismiss them and conclude otherwise after zero research.
You're a fool.
fingleur1 1 week ago
@fingleur1 That's where you're wrong. However, It's obvious to me that I'm the only one out of us two actually looking at both sides of the argument here, so I'm afraid I'm done talking to you. You're too stubborn to actually look into it beyond your side of the story. I still have not came to a conclusion as to which THEORY I find most factual, but in the end, all they will EVER be is a theory/hypothesis and not law. SO if its not provable, in life, its not relevant.
tanner1300 4 days ago
@tanner1300 There aren't two sides to the argument. All the evidence says the theory of evolution is correct. You have not a single shred of positive evidence that supports any other 'side' to the argument. Why not? Because there is none.
fingleur1 3 days ago
@fingleur1 Yes there is, and the fact that you're not willing to look at all the evidence shows you're a terrible scientist. Its all there ranging from 4.5 billion years to 10,000, but since you're not willing to look at anything under 3 billion, that means you've made up your mind already. Hence why I'm done talking to you. I've found a better scientist to talk to about this who actually has arguments to disprove and prove other methods as I come up with them. Good day sir.
tanner1300 2 days ago
What a joke this guys is.
oopscanada 1 week ago
keys are in differences of macro evolution and micro evolution. they are NOT the same. But some believe they are.
tanner1300 2 weeks ago
@tanner1300 When you say 'some' I think you actually should have said 'everyone with a relevant education'.
You do accept that scientific consensus holds evolution to be true, fact, yes?
fingleur1 2 weeks ago
@fingleur1 theoretical fact. yes. its never actually been proved, and cant be proven until either a time machine is invented or when humans are "intelligent" for another few hundred thousand more years. however, We must hold to the truth that micro and macro are not the same, and "relevant education" is completely redundant, because everyone in America receives a "relevant education" yet a significant percent holds macro evolution to be incorrect, unproven, or lacking evidence
tanner1300 2 weeks ago
@tanner1300 'Relevant education' isn't redundant. Those people who learn about biology, paleontology, genetics and medicine to a high level just about ALL accept the theory of evolution in full.
The 'significant percent' who don't accept the theory of evolution just happen to be the ones who haven't studied the evidence. There's a thing.
fingleur1 2 weeks ago
@fingleur1 I'm not debating with you as to what "experts say" I'm just saying my opinion is that Evolution is lacking real proof for me to buy into it. I'm not ignorant, I'm not uneducated, I was pre-med in college. I'm not an expert, i'm doing research to figure out what I believe. I just find there being a lack of legit evidence. The biggest problem I find is that we find human tools and hand prints fossilized with trilobites in various forms in Cretaceous and Cambrian rock. Its just odd to me
tanner1300 2 weeks ago
@tanner1300 What evidence would you accept? If, say, we were to stamp your genome with a unique marker using a virus, and demonstrate that it's passed to your children and your children's children and their children etc. Then we go away for 500,000 generations and come back and test the population - wouldn't you accept that all the population carrying that marker were as good as certain to be descended from you?
fingleur1 2 weeks ago
@tanner1300 ...then we observe all those carrying your DNA marker and they all live in the same part of the world as you did, and we observe that all those carrying your DNA marker have features inherited from their parents and that there is a gradient of similarity to you - where the oldest known individuals who lived closest to you are more similar to you - and then less so radiating outwards in time and location ... wouldn't this seal the deal?
fingleur1 2 weeks ago
@tanner1300 "we find human tools and hand prints fossilized with trilobites in various forms in Cretaceous and Cambrian rock."
No, we don't. This is a claim that, if true, would be of HUGE, MASSIVE scientific importance. Don't fall for conspiracy theories. Look at these claims and look up the source of the claim, find the original source, see what many different experts say about it before you decide to buy into it.
fingleur1 2 weeks ago
@fingleur1 Well. I did my research already, and it does happen.... but that's irrelevant. I also want to point out that you're neglecting the FACT that Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution are different.. The admitted errors in carbon dating by scientists screams at me. thoery of the earths age scream at me. The Shrinkng sun theory. Moons dust thoery. Magnetic field. Missing Helium. slowing rotation theory. Topsoil theory. Ocean Coral theory. Way too many to proven theories to just "discard"
tanner1300 1 week ago
@fingleur1 moon's receding from earth theory. Sea Salt level theory. There's significantly less proof that its older.
tanner1300 1 week ago
@tanner1300 When stuff needs doing - when a man needs putting on the moon, when a satellite surveys the earth's magnetic field, when we predict the next sunspot, when we predict the arrival of a comet, when we analyse an ice-core or predict continental drift, when you set your watch by an atomic clock... man turns to the real science that says all these 'theories; of yours are just total cock.
fingleur1 1 week ago
@fingleur1 Satellite surveys are actually how they found that the magnetic field as is might only be less than 10,000 years old. The "real" Science has been admittedly faulty. see uranium-238 evidence. also see "atomic bomb carbon levels". The amount of Carbon 14 increases over time also. also see "mollusk carbon dating flaw". Scientists agree that Carbon 14 dating only reliable to 3-3.5 thousand years. also see Dr. Robert Lee' article.
tanner1300 1 week ago
@fingleur1 I'm trying to be un-bias in my decisions. Considering that I'm still really confused about everything, I'm trying to look at positives and negatives of everything. I've given up on figuring out evolution, I figure if I can come to a conclusion on the age of the earth, then I'll have decided about evolution. Because the bible does talk about dinosaurs. Well the term dinosaur was coined in the 1800's. Prior to that they were called Dragons or "Tanniyn". Bohemoth and Leviathin were types
tanner1300 1 week ago
@fingleur1 So basically What I'm saying is, don't just say these theories are wrong, prove them wrong to me, to help ME decide. Ya know? Help ME to see why these arguments are wrong. Cuz I can't seem to find them on Google.
tanner1300 1 week ago
@tanner1300 Research any one of these creationist lies you'll easily find the truth. Take your Earth's magnetic field issue. Go to Google and research it for yourself.
Google "earth magnetic field change over time" and read stuff - read the references and you'll discover evidence that shows you that the Earth had a magnetic field 3.5billion years ago.
fingleur1 1 week ago
@tanner1300 Also try: "talk origins magnetic field" You'll see it's a complicated subject and your Creationist friends are counting on you not having the stamina to read and try and understand it.
fingleur1 1 week ago
@fingleur1 Just so you know I had a 4.0 in Pre-med and Geology studies in college. I'm not ignorant. I'm also not bias. I've looked at the limited evidence you've given me, and I've look at the evidence a Christian gave me on another video. I just have to admit that the evidence for a 4.54 bil year old earth is shotty at best. I also say that a 5,000 year old theory is lacking evidence. All I'm saying is NEITHER has definitive proof. But at least the creation side isn't lying about theirs.
tanner1300 1 week ago
Comment removed
fingleur1 1 week ago
that awkward moment when children can PWN any ID zealot..
luishomeroremohsiul 3 weeks ago
I have an honest question. if the bombarman beetle first had only not quite warm reaction, then it wouldn't deter its predators, it wouldn't survive more than others? and so it wouldn't have evolved eventually to the boiling stuff it has now? doesn't natural selection etc work because when something new comes out, it works, gives advantage to its host, and then keeps evolving?
atgblue1 4 weeks ago
@atgblue1 There are thousands of species of beetle that exude cold hydroquinone alone as a deterrent. Just exuding a liquid like saliva can potentially make an animal slippy and therefore have greater fitness than one that doesn't.
fingleur1 4 weeks ago
If an eye is created by evolution, how does evolution know when the eye is built correctly? How does it know what size it should be? How does it even know what an eye is? Where does the compulsion come from to manufacturer an eye? The eye is built by instructions within DNA, an infinitely complex operation - the question is who wrote the instructions? Something must of.
feverpitch82 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@feverpitch82 If you take the time to learn what the theory of evolution is, and what it says, I think all your questions will be answered!
fingleur1 1 month ago
@feverpitch82 you have a lot of reading to do my friend... answers, tangible, provable, unmystical answers await you. or not.
luishomeroremohsiul 3 weeks ago
@feverpitch82 Something must 'have', not must 'of'. And just because YOU don't have all the answers and attribute it to a 'god' doesn't mean it's right. It's just lazy.
cfc19900 3 weeks ago
@cfc19900 ok dickhead. Firstly I'm not attributing anything to a God, im saying the answer isn't clear. If you want to cling on to what one man says and that makes you feel safe in your own little world - good for you. Secondly, correcting my grammar is basically your way of trying to look superior in the eyes of other people but it's usually a sign of a deep seeded inferiority complex - so shut up short dick.
feverpitch82 3 weeks ago
@feverpitch82 I corrected your grammar so you wouldn't embarrass yourself in the future. And TRYING to 'insult' me shows everything about you. Sad little clown.
cfc19900 3 weeks ago
@cfc19900 zzzzzzzzz
feverpitch82 3 weeks ago
@feverpitch82 Are you retarded? Get some help.
cfc19900 3 weeks ago
I wish I had had a teacher like Dawkins, especially dressed in such a fabulous shirt!
andrewnorris2 1 month ago 3
Close Dawkins, but no cigar. The "explosive mixture" can only work when both the hydroperoxide and catalyst are mixed. That means both must have been present from the very beginning. Evolution works in small incremental and linear steps without any foresight. Unless each component has a use of it's own, evolution cannot account for the formation of this biological mechanism. And the "explosive mixture" is not the only thing irreducibly complex about the beetle. :)
ubermechazillatron 1 month ago
@ubermechazillatron Both hydrogen peroxide and peroxidase are chemicals produced as part of very basic cellular metabolism
fingleur1 1 month ago
@fingleur1 Yes but why would the beetle randomly begin to store them in chambers designed to separate the two substances? It doesn't make sense to have one chamber and not the other, and it wouldn't make sense to have one of the chambers without a firing mechanism or exit for the substance to be fired out of. Look at the anatomy of the beetle.
ubermechazillatron 1 month ago
@ubermechazillatron Firstly there are about a million species of beetles that are successful with no such defense mechanism.
There is no reason to suspect that exuding peroxide on its own would not act as a deterrent of sorts. exuding peroxide and catalyst separately from different places would potentially act as a slightly more effective deterrent (if not that exciting).
Over time beetles would have had the ability to refine the process in further gradual steps.
fingleur1 1 month ago
@ubermechazillatron i hate to break it to you, but with just a little research, i tore your argument to shreds..
luishomeroremohsiul 3 weeks ago
@luishomeroremohsiul LOL WUT?! You didn't even leave a response to me on this video, and the only response left was flawed and I pointed out why. Dawkins doesn't even mention the actual firing mechanism in the beetle (the most complex part), but instead only looks at the substance which the beetle fires.
ubermechazillatron 3 weeks ago
wait, so a beetle, randomly discharged the "weak" solution, and this weak solution eventually evolved into the strong solution? Sorry, I just don't get WHY a beetle would evolve the weak solution, because if Evolution is true, the bug didn't START with the ability to produce a weak solution. Thinking of practicality, the beetles that DIDN"T have the weak solution would have a higher fitness because NONE of their bodies mixed the solution wrong. Can someone help me understand? :-/ sorry.
tanner1300 2 months ago
@tanner1300 Natural selection only selects between pre-existing variations (which are almost always tiny tweaks around the average) No one beetle appears overnight with ability to manufacture a lot of hydrogen peroxide, just some have the ability to manufacture a teeny bit more than their friends. They have greater fitness so the 'more peroxide' gene becomes more common so over time H2O2 becomes more concentrated.
fingleur1 2 months ago
@fingleur1 Ok. So what do they think the purpose of it was in the beginning? Like did the tiny amount of peroxide actually help them survive or was it for a different purpose early on?
tanner1300 2 months ago
@tanner1300 Hydrogen peroxide is a natural waste product produced in virtually every cell in every organism. It's normally kept under control by a couple of proteins called peroxidases (incidentally one of the catalysys used by beetles).
Cells have been shown to use H2O2 as a signaller when damaged. If a cell is attacked it can release higher levels which triggers an immune response but in old organisms may have acted as a defense too.
fingleur1 2 months ago
@fingleur1 Ok, so basically early on a beetle discharged this waste, and over time it became a defense mechanism. Starting early as a way to discharge a natural occurring waste, which like the beetle crapped himself and boom. LoL I know that's vague and assumptive but I get the point. Thanks!
tanner1300 1 month ago
@ashmerioni. People resort to insults, interrupting and overtaking try and compensate for not having any solid arguments to back up what there saying. Or they just get really angry to try and intimidate people to drop the topic. You've gone there immediately, so u REALLY must have nothing. Sorry buddy, but yr gona have to use yr brain here, not yr emotions
MartianManhunter187 2 months ago
fuck god, i dont believe in a rabid asshole that lives in a cloud and control my life, fuck jesus, i dont believe is semi-gods that do magic tricks, fuck the holy spirit, i dont believe in fairy tales and fuck the christians that live in a age of science and information never seen in human history, and they keep believing in a stupid self-contradictory book that was writen by humans 2000 years ago. ! wake up, you morons ¡
ashmerino 2 months ago
@ashmerino God gave us free will, which is why there is why we can murder each other. The Christians hold onto a belief based on events they have gone through, not just because a book tells them to. The bible isn't self-contradictory, I've read it, and surprisingly its not. However, you're just setting science back 3,000 years by name calling like that.
tanner1300 1 month ago
@tanner1300 Not really boom at first. If a tiny bit of peroxide mixed with some hydroquinone was even slightly above beetle body temperature then it'd be more effective as a deterrent releasing more aromatic compounds from the stable hydroquinone.
This then ratcheted up the gradient to what we see now. There are 500 different types of bombardier beetle too - all with their own take on the same process.
Nature is really quite wonderful.
fingleur1 1 month ago
@tanner1300 if you read the old testament, god is a jackass thirsty of blood that kill without mercy, if you read the new testament, god is a jackass that self proclaimed kind, good and mercyful, this is very contradictory in my opinion. And by the way, christians dont belive in "historically proven events", they belive in fary tails; like a jew-zombie-semi-god, a woman that have childrens without having sex, 5000 years universe, ets,etc,etc
ashmerino 1 month ago
@ashmerino wow, don't really get that rant, guess a bit of bias entered in there. I was merely telling you what Christians believe man. However, I do have to admit that the Christians I know are a lot more polite than you. That alone seems worth it to check out for me. Thank you ashmerino, you've brought me closer to God.
tanner1300 1 month ago
@tanner1300 lol i am polite, i never tell you that your a dumbass for your beliefs, i only telling you that the christianity by itself is idiotic, also i dont show sacred respect when i talk of "fantasy concepts"(jesus,virgin,buda,wotan,zeus,etc) and no one should
ashmerino 1 month ago
@ashmerino all I know is that the Christians I know are the most real, genuine people I know. Even if its not real, its worth looking into because the rest of the world only gives a care about themselves. That in itself makes me not really care about science.
tanner1300 1 month ago
@tanner1300 Do you think being 'real and genuine' are characteristics that can only apply to Christians? Can moslem or hindu or atheist or sikh or jain or buddhist communities not contain caring genuine people?
fingleur1 1 month ago
@fingleur1 Not at all. However, its not typical.
tanner1300 1 month ago
@fingleur1 I'd have to disagree I'm afraid. I've always found equally warm and genuine people in every culture and religion wherever I've been.
My Hindu, Sikh and Muslim friends here where I live are no different in terms of their humanity and their values to any Christian community I've ever met.
fingleur1 1 month ago
@tanner1300 what? you cant judge other people cos you know a bunch of cool christians, in fact estern religion care more about people, christians dont have the monopoly of truth and goodwill, and you dont even need to be religious to care about people, in fact religious people only do good because they think that they will have a reward in the end (heaven, virgins, etc), not because they are good people
ashmerino 1 month ago
@ashmerino I can do what I want. And actually no, we are good to people because we want everyone to know the feelings we feel from God. Oh man, when I first gave my life to Christ, NOTHING else in the world mattered. I want everyone to feel that. I do it because I love everyone. I do it because God loves everyone. I do it because Jesus loves everyone. I do it because I don't want to be selfish and horde this euphoric love I get from God. I want everyone to feel the love I've had.
tanner1300 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tanner1300 "God loves everyone."
So why does God kill millions of innocent children with his viruses, parasites and bacteria?
fingleur1 1 month ago 6
@tanner1300 sounds kinda gay.
cfc19900 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
ashmerino 2 months ago
@fingluer1. Don't make the mistake of falling into the whole 'religion is evil and science is good' cos yes, science didn't start the crusades, but religion didn't build the atomic bomb either. Whether science is a force for good or not depends on the disposition of the scientist, the same can be said of religion. The good/evil debate isn't about the institution but the individual
MartianManhunter187 2 months ago
@MartianManhunter187 I agree with you. I got involved with building a Sikh temple near me a few years back - an incredible display of human solidarity and cooperation brought about by a shared religion. Science couldn't touch it.
I just wish all religions were confident enough to stop denying scientific fact and make the most of the good they can do. If institutions stifle education then it is about the institution.
fingleur1 2 months ago
@Pooplepooplenow. It's ironic, yr on here criticizing others for flogging there beliefs, but in doing that, yr actually flogging yrs.
Even people who believe in nothing at all, will directly or indirectly try to convince people of their 'non' belief. It's just human nature, so it's rather pointless to get upset about it. Personally I enjoy those kind of discussions
MartianManhunter187 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pooplepooplenow And the next time you want to benefit from the medicines or technology that science brings maybe you'll stop and think for a moment whether on not you do really care about what scientists say?
Maybe you'd love to go under the knife of a surgeon who boasts about being ignorant of biology?
You see it does matter because every time we allow an ignorant god botherer to hinder the work of science it actually costs lives.
fingleur1 2 months ago
@Pooplepooplenow And the next time you want to benefit from the medicines or technology that science brings maybe you'll stop and think for a moment whether on not you do really care about what scientists say?
Maybe you'd love to go under the knife of a surgeon who boasts about being ignorant of biology?
You see it does matter because every time we allow an ignorant god botherer to hinder the work of science it actually costs lives.
fingleur1 2 months ago
@finglur1. Ok I'll take a look at it. Thanx
MartianManhunter187 2 months ago
He talked about ONE of the FOUR factors that makes the beetles weapon work. Wheres his explanation of the other three? Or does he just overlook them?
1- the chemicals
2- the separate pouches for each chemical
3- the firing compartment of each pouch
4- the insequencial firing pattern
It needs all 4 for the weapon to work. PS all these parts need to be together at the same time and in the right order to work, which we can class as a 5th factor
MartianManhunter187 2 months ago
@MartianManhunter187 There is much literature available for you to find and read on the subject.
If you google "Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design" and find the talkorigins page that covers the subject you'll find a step-by-step potential route for evolution.
The crucial point is that all those points don't have to be there all at once to form some sort of defense. Some beetles just exude hydroquinone alone. Hydrogen peroxide is commonly produced etc.
fingleur1 2 months ago
DrMontague... you cant even philosophically be consistant with your own beliefs. For instance how can you claim what God did to the people in the OT was evil when you have no absolute standard to base what is evil or wrong in the first place? If you believe in telative truth, then how can you claim anything as evil or bad?
cctman 3 months ago
Ohh please let me answer this one. Lets see the reason why many of those priests believe in evolution is because they listened to man along time ago over God's word. Lets look at the state of the catholic church today specifically in Europe. It has failed our culture many times over. See ken hams video on reclaiming the culture.
cctman 3 months ago
What is wrong to the extreme is that Dawkins presents this tripe to a group of young children. This cult of evolution has gone too far.
Pendu068 3 months ago
To mix two (or three) chemicals is the easy part. But how do you generate (evolve) hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide are the difficult parts. How about catalyst? It needs all three chemicals at right density to explode. How can this beetle survive for million years without a defense system ? Who said these chemicals evolved from low to high density? It is random, so it could be from very strong to weak. Then it couldn't be survive either. You need more FAITH to believe in Evolution than God!
jim123wang 3 months ago
@jim123wang Why don't you do some research. You'll find all these chemicals are produced by many beetles that don't use this method of defense. You probably understand how they can survive. Understanding complex biological systems requires you to put in a small amount of effort but it's worth it.
fingleur1 3 months ago
"Evolution escapes the taint of impossibly long odds"??? "through geological long times".....That is a good one....
comms35 3 months ago
Your proof is a single beetle? What about the million other animals and plants that prove evolution? If a single person created everything, and you believe it so much, then why do you need any proof? Seems like there is some doubt there...
tokyomadii 3 months ago
How do glass bottles mixing various quantities of combustible chemicals nullify intelligent design? You have taken upon yourself a great accountability Mr Dawkins. So many young minds turned away from their Creator. Better if you had tied a millstone around your neck and jumped into the ocean.
Info101 3 months ago
@Info101 ...because Intelligent Design is a fraud, a hoax - it's creator has admitted as much. It has been examined, tested, tried and has been found out.
Read the transcript of the Dover trial and see for yourself - Intelligent Design has as much validity as Astrology or Tarot. in short, it's a load of bollocks.
fingleur1 3 months ago
@Info101 Dawkins will pay heavily the day he meets his creator and our savior Christ. The teaching of evolution has turned so many away from true science to believe another but false religion. The difference is their little god is called time and random chance.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
cctman 3 months ago
That is the worst attempt of a debunk I have seen in a long time. Any creationists would agree that adding a gradual catalyst is possible over time. That does not address how the Bombardier Beetle evolved it though. Furthermore how would the Beetle know to evolve a lining to protect its inner organs, add the right concentration of all 3 fluids and retain the exact chamber dimensions to house the ingredients for this defense mechanism. Was this seriously suppose to be a debunk? LOL!
cctman 3 months ago
@cctman You've explained that you don't understand these evolutionary processes, so rather than rant about your lack of understanding on the internet - exercise yourself by using the Internet to find answers to your questions.
fingleur1 3 months ago
@fingleur1 I'll tell you what... why don't you impress me and try replying to my response above. Explain to me the evolutionary process and how the lining can evolve over millions of years. Please enlighten me!
cctman 3 months ago
@cctman There is natural variation in the temperature handling capabilities of beetles back-ends. Those with more flame-retardent arses have greater fitness, leading to an increase of frequency of the genes that code for said phenotype in the population.
I have a 10 year old that could have told you that!
fingleur1 3 months ago 15
@cctman Why don't you Google the question you ask? Search youtube 'evolution of the bombardier beetle'. But here is a difficult question that stumps theists: why is the god you believe in evil, after all he drowned babies and children in his flood. It would have been a sickening sight if were true. Perhaps you would have enjoyed watching such a spectacle esp.since you approve of your god's evil actions.
DrMontague 3 months ago
Comment removed
Pendu068 3 months ago
@DrMontague No this is not a difficult question for theists to answer at all. You simply fabricated your "evil god" statement because of your feelings, much in the same way as evolution is a fabrication. You then used that deception as your excuse to 'rabbit' on and show your arrogance. It is clear that you have no factual knowledge or understanding of the historical account of the flood. To see who the 'laughing stock' really is, you need look no further than your mirror.
Pendu068 3 months ago
@Pendu068 Which part of the theory of evolution don't you understand?
fingleur1 3 months ago
@Pendu068 I have read your bible and studied it's content here's an example of god's evil e.g. :Kill Homosexuals "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB). Are you claiming this is untrue or that I have misinterpreted this evil?
DrMontague 3 months ago
@Pendu068 Gen 7:11-12 And God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth. . on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.' Are you claiming that the flood story in the OT is not accurate or misinterpreted?That god didn't wipe put his creation or kill babies and children
DrMontague 3 months ago
You cannot enlighten people like yourself because people like you are deluded and would rather believe in ancient myths. There is nothing to stop you researching the evolution of the bombardier beetle yet you will steadfastly refuse to do any intellectual research on the subject. Instead you ask people to explain it to you so you can rubbish their answers out of pig headed ignorance. It's an old creationist tactic of time wasting. Creationists are simply a laughing stock.
DrMontague 3 months ago
@DrMontague I viewed this tripe for the first time today and was stunned that Dawkins could present such hogwash. By the way, I have studied the myth of evolution alchemy and blind faith about this beetle and I have never come across such fantasy before. The faith required to believe evolution surpasses anything like that required to understand the science of creation. Your arrogance in thinking it your right to insult the truth of science is only surpassed by your own stupidity.
Pendu068 3 months ago
@Pendu068 No doubt yo will tell children that a stork brings new babies to their mothers If evolution is tripe then why would accredited universities such as Oxford,Cambridge, Harvard et al , have biology dept. that specialize in evolutionary biology.? Why would Ken Miller who is a Roman Catholic and a evolutionary biologist accept evolutionary theory. Why would Prof. John Polkinghorne is an Oxford physicist prof. and priest accept evolutionary theory.?
DrMontague 3 months ago
@DrMontague You're right. We really should give equal time to the stork theory of childbirth in class. At least teach the controversy and allow children to make their own minds up.
fingleur1 3 months ago 10
Dawkins is a master of manipulating the evidence.
He states that the two compounds, hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone are stable when mixed. What he failed to mention is there is a third ingredient that is needed. That's right, the beetle mixes these two compounds simultaniously with a watery, catalyzing enzyme that kicks off the fireworks.
Using black powder as the catalyst allows Dawkins to simulate safe, gradual transitions. Unfortunately, the beetle doesn't use black powder.
onearcsecond 4 months ago
@onearcsecond No, the beetle produces catalases and peroxidases in the output passage of the chamber where hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone are combined first. He does explain in that talk that his catalyst is different to the one used by the beetle in question but the effect is the same.
fingleur1 4 months ago
@fingleur1
I am sure you have studied biology enough to know that mutations almost always lead to deformation or deficiency of that organism. In addition to it's mind-boggling chemical weaponry, this beetle also has a special heat retardant lining in the 'combustion chamber' to protect it's other organs. I am not preaching God here, but I hope we can admit this is still a big prob for evolution and certainly for punctuated equalibrium. Yes?
onearcsecond 4 months ago
@onearcsecond I've certainly studied sufficient biology to know that mutations + natural selection + inheritance is something completely different to just mutations alone.
fingleur1 4 months ago
@onearcsecond Yes, evolution is just brilliant, isn't it? Do you know how many species of Bombardier beetles there are? Got to love that God geezer, he sure does make a mean beetle or two, or three, or four ...
fingleur1 4 months ago
I find it amazing that those who are in favour of evolution against creation, are 99% of the time offensive. Why the need to resort to cursing and taking the mick just because someone disagrees with the majority held view? BTW Richard Dawkins didn;t explain how these two solutions and the catalyst can evolve step by step. He then concludes by arguing that creation is impossible because it cannot be done? I thought God could do anything?
jdantzie 4 months ago
@jdantzie There are beetles who deter their predators by simply exude hydroquinone alone. This is a deterrent on its own. Adding a few more molecules of hydrogen peroxide may make it marginally more effective. Add a small amount of catalases and peroxidases and it becomes marginally more effective still.
If you want I can send you plenty of information about the evolutionary steps involved. I was going to say it's not rocket science, but it actually probably is.
fingleur1 4 months ago
Amazing!!!! THe very test Richard Dawkings uses to refute creationist arguments is the very undoing of this THEORY! While the beetle was "GRADUALLY EVOLVING A SOLUTION that would not destroy it," THE SOLUTION itself would not have been able obviously been able to destroy any predators or food for the beetle to it, thus the beetle becoming extinct BEFORE it had TIME TO EVOLVE to what we have today. Is this not reasonable?
11thhourministry 4 months ago
@11thhourministry Is this not reasonable?
No. And if you understood the theory of evolution, and even just a small amount of general science you'd know why.
Did you stop watching the video before RD explained this?
fingleur1 4 months ago
how come evolution has had so many different theories? I mean started with the big bang, now they're looking for some type of other intelligent life... just saying, i mean there's another one saying how life started through a single cell that evolved, do you know how that cell started, because by random chance is like saying dna or rna just came along by chance. BTW they are some of the most complex structures ever discovered... like trying to spell a word by drop scrabble letters on a board
strtg3y3r 4 months ago
Are you joking? He has effectively said nothing here on the supposed subject. He said nothing about how a beetle such as this could evolve. "Step by step..." WHAT ARE THE STEPS??? Where is the evidence for those steps?? Why should I believe a word he says? Because of his credentials? He first shows a completely irrelevant example, shows another irrelevant example about varying degrees (who didn't know that??), and that proved his point? Right.
BDCHCR 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BDCHCR "Why should I believe a word he says?"
You don't have to. You can read the scientific journals for yourself and question the authors directly if there are any points that you feel need clarification. If you don't then there are thousands of qualified scientists who will read the evidence and raise questions on your behalf.
fingleur1 4 months ago
the only real problem with creationists and evolutionists is that no one has the same world views, my church went over this so until you are all on the same page you'll never convince anyone anything, and its very difficult to explain
strtg3y3r 4 months ago
@strtg3y3r Evolution is very easy to explain, and the majority of Christians accept the obvious fact that the Biblical account of creation is just allegorical.
If you're not prepared to do that, then keep it to yourself and discuss talking snakes with your friends in private.
fingleur1 4 months ago
@UltraEpicLoser Your name speaks for itself. Lay off the pomegranate seeds. Religion is also an idea created by man doofus. And so is technology. So no more ancient greek stupidity will occur. But you knew this deep down really you just wanted a reaction
ResistanceAintFutile 4 months ago
Evolution is an idea created by man to explain certain, but not all circumstances. Sounds like a religion to me. It is a very good idea, at this time, but so was Hades stealing Persephone to explain seasons,
UltraEpicLoser 5 months ago
@UltraEpicLoser So. is Chemistry a religion? How about Geology?
fingleur1 4 months ago
this guy basicly says that the "defense mechanism" is usles until he gets to the last stage where it actualy works. The whole premise in "evolution" is that the mutation helps the organism survive and mate so they spread the mutation! yet here he says that the mutation was usless untill its at its full stage so there would be no way for the mutation to spread in its early stages! it would have died off without spreading it! this is so stupid the kids watchin it could figure out the flaw!
bobwatters 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HawleyluYah By definition faith is believing without or inspite of evidence
"complex groups of systems all coming together by chance, to form a working function over and over and over again in just one species"
We observe this, we dont take it on faith, we already know that this happened, your argument is called "From personal incredulity"
ie, I cant believe building 7 of the World trade centres fell by itself directly downwards - therefor it must have been controlled demolition
shandcunt 5 months ago
I have this DVD at home, "Growing up in the universe" - no shit dawkins has been trying to get this across to people for at least 30 years now
Gotta love people like that, persistents in the face of adversity
shandcunt 5 months ago
now im just playing devils advocate here, but did he just say that the catalyst that he used was not the one the beetle uses? Why didn't he use that? Is the real catalyst really that dangerous he has to use a totally different one?
DaMahurien 6 months ago
@DaMahurien
The reactivity is affected by the concentration of the hydrogen peroxide, it has absolutely nothing to do with the catalyst used.
"In the chemistry case, if particles collide with enough energy they can still react in exactly the same way as if the catalyst wasn't there. It is simply that the majority of particles will react via the easier catalysed route"
FamilyGuyRS 6 months ago
What I find amazing is the people that can't see a creator, can turn and buy into the idea of complex groups of systems all coming together by chance, to form a working function over and over and over again in just one species. Not to mention in every other species as well. Talk about your leap of faith.
HawleyluYah 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
Richard; how do you explain the Platipus?
drail80s 7 months ago
Richard Dawkins the Strawman lying fool, why he didnt use the same catalyst that the bombardier beetle uses, because in all cases you get fire, if the catalyst mixed wrongly you would get exploded beetles
MrTmapp 7 months ago
@MrTmapp A different catalyst will not create a different reaction. Pick up a chemistry textbook if you find this hard to believe. Or if that is too much of a burden you could start by reading the Wikipedia article on catalysis.
qartarsauce 7 months ago
@qartarsauce Any number of catalysts can have different results when added to the same substrate. One difference for example is the rate of the reaction. A faster reaction would lead to a different result, possibly more heat, or less heat, or louder, brighter... the list goes on an on.
Grovonator 5 months ago
@Grovonator You are misunderstanding what was meant by 'different'. It is the same chemical reaction; a different catalyst will cause the reaction to occur at a different rate but it will generate the same amount of energy (heat, sound, and light) over a different period of time. The same light energy over a shorter period of time will appear brighter, longer will appear dimmer, etc. In this case it still wont result in fire or explosions, which was the original notion I was rebutting.
qartarsauce 5 months ago
Comment removed
qartarsauce 5 months ago
@MrTmapp
its getting hot, but there is no fire involved.... please get your facts straight
Kiesel 6 months ago 3
Darwins theory says that a species evolves and adapts for survival, not just to do it. So, if the beetle could have survived without the defense mechanism then it would have never gotten one, cause it wouldn't need it. So its self contradictory
amrblackstar 7 months ago
@amrblackstar
The beetles evolved as it's surroundings evolved, obviously as other animals evolve a defence mechanism becomes necessary otherwise the species becomes extinct, it is not contradictory.
FamilyGuyRS 6 months ago
Dawkins arguments and presentation are weak.
irvinetustin 8 months ago
@irvinetustin
maybe your understanding of the needed science is just not well enough to comprehend?
Kiesel 6 months ago
In this demonstration he just proved creationism over Evolution. What a Idiot! He's usually pretty bright. He is maintaining that the defense mechanism gradually over time evolved up to a point of potency. if you apply evolution to his theory the bug would have been eaten by predators well before it had a chance to evolve to full potency levels. It never would have survived. It had to start from full potency protection. Sorry Dawkins not everyone is 12 like your audience.
abynormil1 8 months ago
@abynormil1 Right, because all the thousands of other species of beetles that don't have chemical defenses are all extinct? And the bombardier beetle couldn't possibly survive like any of those normal, non-squirting beetles like we see in our yards everyday. Why on earth would the bombardier beetle have to start from full-potency protection? It could easily survive without that adaptation, just like practically every other beetle in existence.
snowmonkeyplum 8 months ago
@abynormil1 So why have about 400,000 other beetle species survived? By your logic, any beetle without the defense mechanism would not survive.
Hightemplarl 7 months ago
@Hightemplarl Different beetles have different survival mechanisms. For instance, the tiger's beetle speed and aggression defend it well enough in it's environment to allow it to survive. Beetles who burrow underground or in the leaf litter cover themselves well enough in their environment to survive. Besides, the adult beetle stage is relatively short. The majority of beetles' lives is in the larval stage, which means they're always undeground or protected in tree trunks and rotting logs.
S0XF0X 7 months ago
Wow, how long ago was this filmed? Ive only ever seen Dawkins with grey hair, awesome!
Vildasnaga 8 months ago
Oh my God this is the biggest junk science I have seen in a long time.
otaku8489 8 months ago
this guy is a pseudoscientific fool
zenithar6666 8 months ago
@Cacterpus You're right. I dunno how I managed to type that, but I meant to illustrate that not using the *same* catalyst as the beetle or not mentioning which catalyst the beetle uses doesn't change anything about the validity of his claim.
Thanks
tiaxanderson 8 months ago
When he added the catalyst to the 'weak' hydrogen peroxide solution, the reaction wasn't as violent as the 'strong' solution as I can see. If the bombardier beetle doesn't produce enough hydrogen peroxide for its reaction, its defence mechanism would still not be effective enough against predators even though it might have some effect on them
AndromedaChao2 8 months ago
@Cacterpus Thanks. I already found what looks to be an interesting article on endosymbiosis. Have a pleasant evening.
Comoloid 8 months ago
@Cacterpus That is interesting - can you recommend any reading material on that subject so I can learn? If not, I will resort to good old google.
Comoloid 8 months ago
@Cacterpus Always with the insults. How typical. Grow up. If you must result to insults to make your point then you must not really have one.
Comoloid 8 months ago
@Cacterpus What catalyst does the beetle use, & how does it produce it? How did those cells develop? For that matter, how did the cells that produce the other two chemicals develop? It isn't an issue of chemistry, it is an issue of biology. Unless you have a rudimentary understanding of the depth of biological complexity you can not grasp the difficulty of developing multiple different cell types all meant to accomplish a single task by accident, not including the muscle groups for aiming.
Comoloid 8 months ago
@telebluesful Christianity and Islam are the same. Bronze age mythology propagated by goat herders and barbarians, whose central divinity is the Mesopotamian god of war.
grimordwow 9 months ago
@grimordwow Would you care to elaborate on that? I have never seen the two linked in such a way & I am curious how you came to that particular conclusion. If you have any references to books etc that would be helpful. If not, that is OK too.
Comoloid 8 months ago
Its hard to believe how uneducated some of the people commenting this video are.
Do your own research on the god damn beetle and see for yourself how it evolved. The true and unmanipulated(by uneducated theists) information is available, you must only choose not to ignore it.
Filiforme 9 months ago
Looking at most of the comments.. Are people really that stupid?
They claim Dawkins lied because he didn't mention what catalyst he used nor used the catalyst the beetle uses.. Even though he was disproving creationists saying that the two chemicals together (without catalyst) explode violently?
Even though he was showing how the wrong mixture doesn't resolve into exploded beetle but only in a less likely to survive beetle?
I say the universe was created in a fist fight between Zeus and Thor!
tiaxanderson 9 months ago
Creationism is like saying Zeus did it if we couldn't yet explain lightnings. Thing is that we really do know like lightnings happen and we can predict when one will occur. Yet still the creationists come and say "No, Zeus did it."
DonnZ0r 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@telebluesful what do Muslims have to do with the price of tea in China?
runfayalife 9 months ago
young Dawkins in colorful shirts is TIGHT ! XD
NScott45 9 months ago
@telebluesful I guess its a question of value. Bibles are worthless, hence they're basically given away. Dawkin's books are actually worth something.
DieFatorLiveThin 9 months ago
Its sad to see that people would rather believe this world was made by chance and that they came from lower life forms(animals) instead of from a designer who made you human on purpose above all other things(animals). a chimp is 100% chimp,a human is 100% human. DNA is only similar because we are made from earth elements. But humans are different than all animals. why would you let yourself believe or let anyone tell you you came from a lower life form? Everything was created with a purpose.
Joshlee111 10 months ago 2