Talk:Bombardier beetle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia's coverage of arthropods. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Of course "intelligent design" is a euphemism for God, since it says there exists (somewhere, somehow) a designer who creates life - e.g., God. But you are correct, in that my statement comes across as POV-ish, not wikipedia-ian, so I'm not going to try putting it back in. -- DavidWBrooks 18:51, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Not necessarily... could be "superintelligent race of Rigelians". Graft 19:02, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I was vaguely thinking of the Raelians - but if you try, I won't revert. The link to irreducible complexity is the important bit :) Martin

The story of Darwin having tried to collect that beatle sounds unlikely at best. Are there any sources on this one? 84.139.20.7 19:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I can find one reference saying it is a reputed story, with no direct source. I will water it down slightly. - DavidWBrooks 23:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Source: Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin (London: Michael Joseph, the Penguin Group, 1991). ISBN 0-7181-3430-3. see Charles Darwin's education#Beetle collecting. ..dave souza, talk 08:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Plagiarism? 2 Cat 3 Location? 4 location is a good question 5 Intelligent design section 6 Reorganize initial paragraph?

[edit] Plagiarism?

Is it a problem that the entire second paragraph of this article is taken from here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html (Number 2 in the sources)?

[edit] Cat

At 06:35, 9 March 2006, 137.132.3.7 added "Note: It was originally under the category of [Category:catalysts], but as it had no bearing on catalysts, I removed it". ..dave souza, talk 08:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Location?

Where are these little guys usually found?

[edit] location is a good question

I'm wondering if these bombardier beetles are found anywhere near Mt. Ararat... because if Noah did collect two of every kind, he must've collected many kinds of beetles, but the "bombing" beetle might be specific to an area that he couldn't get to. I would love to shoot holes in the Creationists THEORY. I love to find out if there are Bombardiers in Turkey, or more specifically, Mt Ararat. - Deon

I have added the fact that they are found throughout much of the world's temperate grasslands and woodlands; thanks for that suggestion. I don't know about Mt. Ararat, but if you're looking for an anti-Noah argument, there are plenty of other, better species - non-swimming animals in Australia or South America, to begin with. - DavidWBrooks 19:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Mind you, just because they're there now doesn't mean they always were ^_~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Prior to the flood the world's sea level was of course lower, creating land bridges between the continents. Or the land bridges could have been eroded away by the flood itself. Thus all species were able to walk to the Ark. 128.232.228.174 (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC) (PS: I am not a creationist, just pointing out an easy arguement in their favour)

[edit] Intelligent design section

I removed this:

"In one demonstration, documented in the book The Blind Watchmaker, biologist Richard Dawkins mixed together hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide in an artificial environment. No reaction occurred—a catalyst was required. Dawkins' point was that as the beetle's defensive mechanism evolved, the intermediate stages would not explode - the chemicals would not react without a catalyst."

For the following reasons

1. The importance of this to an article about bombardier beetles doesn't seem that great.

2. This doesn't represent evidence in support of intelligent design since intermediate stages occurred under a different set of evolutionary pressures than currently exist.

3. I don't believe (please correct me on this if I'm wrong) that The Blind Watchmaker was not peer-reviewed, and therefore should not constitute 'scientific' evidence. I think its inclusion here makes it seem like accepted science.

4. Without a lot more context (that would seem better placed in an article about intelligent design or evolution), this paragraph just seems to be an afterthought.

Any objections? Rational User 05:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest restoring it, or something similar.

1. Creationists (let's call them) present the Bombardier beetle as an example of something natural selection could not have come up with. People will be coming to this article to find out more about it, so it's a good place for this discussion.
2. Naturalistic explanations that would discredit the ID argument should definitely be added to the section. The Dawkins quote is a start, but I find it unclear.
3. The article is not upholding The Blind Watchmaker as an authoritative biology text. It is used here to present the ID argument.
4. Presenting every ID argument in any ID or evolution article would make that article unmanageably long. Much more context can be given in this article.

I do think that section could be made clearer, but I'm not a biology expert. / edgarde 07:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Both Edgarde and myself seemed to think that this was a paragraph indicating support for the ID explanation from Dawkins [from Edgarde's comment: It is used here to present the ID argument]. However, I would be shocked and amazed if this is the case: Just check out the Dawkins page or read the book (I realized I had this book on my bookshelf this morning and read the appropriate section). Dawkins is an outspoken opponent of ID. I don't think the paragraph should be included if it is so poorly written that 2 people can take it to mean something that the book's writer probably did not intend.

Unless there are serious objections I'm going to re-delete that paragraph and re-write the whole ID section this evening. I actually am a biology expert (Ph.D. in ecology) and I'd be happy to make the section sound better (I didn't have the time last night). 192.35.96.170 15:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC) (this was me Rational User 16:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC))

The wording of the section has been hacked around at various times to give credence to the creationist claims, and the Dawkins demonstration related to a different claim to the one in the children's book. I've reworded it a little and cited TalkOrigins who cite several sources. Any more technical sources or improved wording will be welcome. .. Ta, .. dave souza, talk 18:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I found the following on TalkOrigins.. I'd been reading up on evolution, and came across the beetles being mentioned, and wanted to read more about them. Usually wikipedia doesn't have just one-sided garbage, so I was surprised to see just the ID stuff.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html

"an evolutionary pathway that accounts for the bombardier beetle is not hard to come up with (Isaak 1997). One plausible sequence (much abbreviated) is thus:

1. Insects produce quinones for tanning their cuticle. Quinones make them distasteful, so the insects evolve to produce more of them and to produce other defensive chemicals, including hydroquinones.

2. The insects evolve depressions for storing quinones and muscles for ejecting them onto their surface when threatened with being eaten. The depression becomes a reservoir with secretory glands supplying hydroquinones into it. This configuration exists in many beetles, including close relatives of bombardier beetles (Forsyth 1970).

3. Hydrogen peroxide becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. Catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, ensuring that more quinones appear in the exuded product.

4. More catalases and peroxidases are produced, generating oxygen and producing a foamy discharge, as in the bombardier beetle Metrius contractus (Eisner et al. 2000).

5. As the output passage becomes a hardened reaction chamber, still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, gradually becoming today's bombardier beetles.

All of the steps are small or can be easily broken down into smaller ones, and all are probably selectively advantageous. Several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in other living species."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.29.62 (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2007

It's a good point that ID has been completely discredited as pseudoscience, and NPOV: Pseudoscience together with NPOV: Undue weight require us to avoid giving credence to the "irreducible complexity" argument. Feel free to improve the section. .. dave souza, talk 07:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If ID has been "completely discredited as pseudoscience", then why is there even a debate on the issue? Why are supporters of Darwinian evolution so adamant about their interpretation of how they think things happened in the past (were they there?) if there's no issue to discuss? And why, if there is an issue to duscuss, is Wikipedia taking the approach of labeling ID "pseudoscience" and attacking it in any and every article that could conceivably be used for this purpose, while suppressing any attempt by proponents of ID to explain their views? To me this smacks of systemic bias against Creationism. But I understand that this same bias exists throughout the scientific community, with even well-qualified scientists being ostracized if they admit to any belief in ID. I'm sure very few scientists today would even entertain the idea of considering the merits if ID, nor have they ever done so, being willingly ignorant on the issue.

Anyway, regarding this article, I'd rather see an article on the bombardier beetle used to inform people on the insect, and not used to bash a miniority viewpoint. There are other articles which would be more appropriate for the evolution vs. creation issue that's presented here, and there's more to say about the beetle than what has been said so far. EthanL (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As you point out, the fact that ID has been discredited as pseudoscience doesn't stop creationists from believing it, citing the bombardier beetle as evidence to support their faith, and editing this article to reflect that idea. Science is systemically biased against proving or disproving religious or supernatural explanations, and npov requires us to present unscientific opinions in the context of the scientific consensus. If there's more you feel should be said about the beetle, please add it with sources for the information. Thanks, . .. dave souza, talk 12:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment that this section of the article is EXCEEDINGLY poor. The bombardier beetle is used frequently by creationists/intelligent designists as an example of a complex system the individual parts of which are useless. The minor factual errors of Creationist X (e.g. the chemicals don't actually explode when put in immediate contact) is irrelevant to the point being made. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to attempt lame deconstructions of theories with which we disagree. Somebody please rescue this section of the article. Am I wrong? Must Wikipedia "weigh in" on the creationist, evolutionist fight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.180.2 (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganize initial paragraph?

The initial section, "Defense Mechanism", consists of two parts: an overview paragraph and a more detailed pair of paragraphs. The two parts are divided by a sentence at the end of the first paragraph: "A more detailed description of the process follows:". This seems awkward to me, but I'm not sure of how to improve it.

Perhaps the two parts need to be split into separate sections, the first describing the external manifestation of the defense mechanism, and the second describing the internal organs and chemicals that produce the observed results. --Dan Griscom (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried changing it around a bit - putting a shorter version of the first paragraph in the introductory section, for the casual reader, and leaving the detailed bit in the subsection heading. I'm not sure it works, though. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)