Evolution of the Bombardier Beetle

Here I present a HYPOTHESIS for the gradual evolution of the bombardier beetle's defense mechanism. This hypothesis was formulated by Mark Isaak and can be found at

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

The cornerstone of Intelligent Design (ID) is that some structures are Irreducibly Complex (IC) and therefore disprove evolution. They claim that since no means for their evolution exists the default hypothesis must be that they were designed. So far, every structure, system, or complex that was claimed by ID advocates to be IC has proved otherwise with evidence surfacing of their gradual evolution. If a structure is IC then it should be impossible to form a logically and scientifically sound hypothesis for its gradual evolution. Here I do just that, therefore allowing us to reject the ID hypothesis of IC on their own grounds. Talk about beating them at their own game.

In no way does a hypothesis constitute proof. It is a starting point for further scientific investigation and will most likely go through many revisions throughout its life.

To download this video go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?5ekanbnlnm4

If you wish to translate this video you can download the PowerPoint file from:
http://www.mediafire.com/?eyy0xxzrjje

Learn the facts, spread the truth, and most importantly, Think About It.

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• Evolution
• Intelligent
• Design
• ID
• Creation
• Irreducibly
• Irreducible
• Complex
• Facts
• Education
• Hypothesis
• Debate

[CodyAustin3]

Very well done video

[MrValidin]

@JoolsCaesar thats how u can observe it. u can observe chemical processes and all that stuuf but u cant see nor study/know how the chemical processes know what they are doing, i now its weird but its the truth. physical laws in the universe how did that come?? from were did those laws come?

[JoolsCaesar]

@MrValidin No, I denied that it is information because it does not inform anything. If you actually studied it, you would see inevitable chemical processes. There is no understanding by these molecules. A ribisome does not understand that it is matching rna to protein, it's just following the physical laws of the universe.

[MrValidin]

@JoolsCaesar how do u think when ur an embryo that ur cells grow arms, legs, theet, eyes,... and all that stuff? thats using information on how ull need to look when the growing process is complete. but u deny thats dna is information because thats something u cant see.

[JoolsCaesar]

@MrValidin I never even mentioned an "increase" in information. Did you quote the word "increase" from "If an organism's genes increase the likelihood that it will reproduce before it dies"? I know you people are partial to quote mining, but that is insane.

There's no information involved. It's a chain of base pairs. DNA does not inform anything. It's not information. You would need to suggest that protein synthesizers have conciousness and understand DNA for it to be information.

[MrValidin]

@JoolsCaesar " If an organism's genes increase the likelihood that it will reproduce before it dies, those genes will likely be passed on to the next generation (selected)" see thats something u cant proof that those genes got an "increase" of information. its an assumption. therefore its a belief. thats my whole point that u guys just admit that the major theorie of the evolution theorie is just a beliefe nothing more

[MrValidin]

@JoolsCaesar "If a balls rolls of the edge of a table, it's action is not random. The laws of nature select that it will fall to the ground" so the ball gains information or anything that prvios balls did not have then? no its still a ball then. probably a worse ball then therefore because he fell from a height.

[JoolsCaesar]

@MrValidin No you're claiming that selection requires a consciousness. If a balls rolls of the edge of a table, it's action is not random. The laws of nature select that it will fall to the ground. If an organism's genes increase the likelihood that it will reproduce before it dies, those genes will likely be passed on to the next generation (selected). If they harm the organisms chances, it will likely die before passing them on (not selected). No consciousness required. Not random.

[MrValidin]

@JoolsCaesar yea but uts u thats rolling the cie at evolution there isn anyone one selecting. therefore its pure otehrwise u are claiming that natural selection means that nature has a consciousness and selects what he/she wnats to evolve.