Talk:The bombardier beetle is too complex to have evolved (Talk.Origins)

It would've been nice if this was further refuted by answering the "possible" situations that Isaak uses. Or at least demonstrate how imagination was used which would be helpful for the linking this to other people who think that this "Irreducibly complex" was solved. A creationist in Creation Matters Volume 6, Number 6, November / December 2001 named Arthur L. Manning said the following on irreducible complexity

 The bombardier beetle’s defense mechanism is often set forth as an instance of a complex organ which could not have come about by “numerous, successive, slight modifications.” It seems impossible for such an organ to develop in this way because the insect would likely fail to reproduce if the mechanism were present in an incomplete form (he would likely blow himself up!). However, just because we cannot imagine a scenario that would gradually produce such a mechanism does not mean that there is no such scenario. So, even this amazing mechanism fails to meet the impossible demands of Darwin’s theory. His theory is unfalsifiable, and therefore is not scientific.

The second reason that Darwin’s challenge is deceptive is that it diverts the would be disprover’s attention to looking for the impossible (viz., how Darwin’s mechanism could not work), while Darwin is allowed to escape without having himself offered any demonstration of its working (a com- plex organ being formed by “numerous, successive, slight modifications”). To this day no one has demonstrated any complex organ coming into being by observing “numerous, successive, slight modifications” over many generations. If demonstrating how this could not have happened would disprove his theory, then certainly demonstrating how this could happen would have to be considered evidence for the theory.

Just a thought.

--Gil 02:58, 28 December 2006 (EST)

Not sure whether anyone as the time to address the above comment but is the picture of a bombardier beetle really necessary to be included in this response? To me, it just seems out of place.--Gil 02:27, 7 January 2007 (EST)