I see you still couldn't answer the question because you know the Mimic Octopus, Cheetah, Woodpecker, Butterfly, the Elephant's trunk the Giraffe's neck, the bombardier bettle, snake's venom all take a shit on the theory of evolution. Again even the narrator in the 2nd video of the Mimic Octopus was baffled- because anyone with a half brain knows that a mimic octopus could not have evolved all those trait- because too many complex things are going on- it was designed my friend- end of story- admit you have lost this debate and go google some more non sense you found on a pro evolution website or blog. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911What you say: The bombardier beetle cannot be explained by evolution. It must have been designed.
Response:(More here.)
In fact, 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:More gems...
a. 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.
b. 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).
c. 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.
d. More catalases and peroxidases are produced, generating oxygen and producing a foamy discharge, as in the bombardier beetle Metrius contractus (Eisner et al. 2000).
e. As the output passage becomes a hardened reaction chamber, still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, gradually becoming today's bombardier beetles.
You say....the giraffe
Response: The different features could have (and almost certainly would have) evolved both simultaneously and gradually. Partial valves would have been useful for reducing blood pressure to a degree. An intermediate heart would have produced enough pressure for a shorter neck. A smaller net of blood vessels in the head could have handled the lesser pressure. As longer necks were selected for, all of the other components would have been modified bit by bit as well. In other words, for each inch that the neck grew, the giraffe's physiology would have evolved to support such growth before the next inch of neck growth.
You say... Why doesn't this asshole animal over here evolve what that prick animal over there has? He sure could use it!
Response: Different organisms make their living in different ways, so a trait that is beneficial for one organism may not be benefical for another. For example, if the ability to eat a certain kind of hard seed is beneficial for one bird, it may not be beneficial to another for the simple reason that the first bird has a monopoly on those seeds already.
Beneficial traits have drawbacks, too. They usually cost extra energy to grow and use, and often they have other costs. If a trait's advantages do not outweigh its disadvantages, it will not evolve. The existence of an organism that already has the trait often means it is not worth it for another organism to evolve it.
I could hit every point with a copy & paste from this site, or you can do your own research to figure out what you believe. I'm not arguing that the start of life is unknown, and perhaps some dick in the clouds did start SOMETHING, we'll know eventually. That's what science is for, exploring the unknown. Instead of trying to fill in every gap with GOD like some sort of religious mad lib. Evidence suggest the asshole sure as hell didn't design anything, unless you want a warm and fuzzy feeling by calling it "god's plan"
