Exposing The Lies of Evolution – The Little Bombardier Beetle That Defies Evolution
In all the world, there is one animal that evolutionary scientists hate above all: the bombardier beetle.
The bombardier beetle is a truly fearfully and wonderfully made creation whose simple existence puts to shame one of the biggest lies strict secular evolutionary scientists have tried to force into your society, and that lie is their modified Theory of Evolution.
To the right you see a bombardier beetle. The most fascinating aspect of this little guy has to do with his amazing defense mechanism.
As all scientists know and many will not admit, the bombardier beetle’s defense mechanism is so amazingly complicated and specialized that it could not have possibly evolved. There is no way the theory of evolution could work to explain it.
You see, the tiny components of this beetle’s defense mechanism work so well together, from it’s ‘mixing chamber’ to ‘high rate explosive turret’ as we colloquially call its most amazing structures at the lab, that there would have been no margin for error in this miraculous creature’s supposed evolution.
Fellow native German chemist Dr. Schilknecht first found that the bombardier beeter mixes two potentially dangerous chemicals, hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide (yes, basically the stuff in brown bottles at your local market), which should immediately result in a very violent explosion.
By divine design, this beetle does not produce a reaction that instantly destroys itself but rather uses an inhibitor to modify the should-be reaction and control the reactants in its mixing chamber.
So what happens when this little guy faces a threat, say from a giant spider? This beetle has been equipped with the amazing ability to instantly activate, control and fire the contents of its ‘mixing chamber’, all expelled via the turret I mentioned earlier. Check this design out and tell me if it’s not glorious.
The beetle specifically has a series of tubes that contain two enzymatic catalysts (speed up chemical reactions) that we know as catalase and peroxidase.
These enzymes naturally cause a decomposition reaction to occur with the hydrogen peroxide, and of course this results in a highly spontaneous, exothermic conversion to water and hydrogen gas.
2 H2O2 → 2 H2O + O2
All while a mild oxidation takes place with the hydroquinone, resulting in quinone.
C6H4(OH)2 + H2O2 → C6H4O2 + 2H2O
Needless to say this reaction is very quick and highly explosive, but not to the point to where we have beetles not ‘magically’ evolved enough that their bodies are found blown up.
Now if that wasn’t enough, this amazing beetle’s ‘gunning turret’ allows it to fire its chemical contents at a predator in quick, successive bursts, in any direction! There is no way something so wonderful and neat could have evolved by chance, all starting with a universal big bang.
This beetle’s design is intentional. The culmination of chemicals reactions, stored reactants (inhibitors, catalysts, glands, combustion tubes, omnidirectional ‘turrets’) nervous system to carry all this out, dna to dictate structure of function of everything and more is not random.
There is no margin for error in the incredibly complex bombardier beetle and little in the way of evolutionary thinking to explain its complex, highly modified existence.
A common ancestor for these, without all parts perfected, would have never had a chance to evolve. Here is a video from a good former colleague which delves more into the facts of today’s lesson excerpt.
Read More Eye-opening accounts from the Exposing the Lies of Evolution Series by author and columnist Dr. Pat Heinkel.
- Exposing the Lies of Evolution – Natural Selection vs. God’s Creation
- Sinful
- Suspicious
- Scared
- Sad
- Amused
- Laughing Out Loud
Author: Pat Heinkel
Pat Heinkel is the senior church organist for Shellington Pres., where he also proudly serves as a volunteer firefighter, distinguished lecturer and has the town's (maybe region!) largest collection of Coleoptera. Email Pat
9:38 pm
This is almost as amusing as what your propaganda peddlars said about the banana “the atheists nightmare” lol give me a break. Im assuming u beleive that since you have “dr” before your name that makes you an expert in how the world works. but even if you were a UNBIASED scientist you would realize there is far more evidence to support evolution than your ages old and out of date “someone MUST have made it like that” doctrine
quit trying to poison minds.
Praise or Condemn:
12 
9
10:07 am
Dr. Pat Heinkel is a genius ….. NOT !!! I’m wondering if he gassed his wife a bunch of times during those five years his stomach was turning? You see the main problem here is we’re trying to teach individuals who’s minds have yet to evolve sufficiently to grasp what us “evolutionists” see as the basics. To break it down in terms “designer Christians” can understand, it’s like Mr. Pat Heinkel spraying his poor wife with a wet blast while they’re spooning. There is only one Arse hole (where the spray, and noxious odors are emitted) and he should shut his hole and stick to playing the ivory and leave the critical thinking to a more advanced line.
Arturo~
Praise or Condemn:
2 
2
10:13 pm
Nick, shut the fuck up.
Praise or Condemn:
1 
15
10:14 pm
Oh for heaven’s sake where do I start.
Ok, first off the glaringly obvious: Yet again they act as if these capabilities spontaneously came together, and this explosive reaction arrived overnight in just such a manner as to not kill the beetle. ARGHHHH. This is NOT hot evolution works.
He fails completely to understand the nature of evolution (or the more likely: He understands it perfectly well, but uses a straw man as the framework on which to hang his specious arguments that he peppers with scientific terms in an attempt to create a sheen of validity to his argument.)
Now let’s explore how the bombardier beetle’s ability likely came to be:
1) A genetic mutation in one or many beetles of billions caused them to produce a small amount of said toxic chemical, enough to discourage predators from taking another bite, OR the smell alone was offensive enough to ward some predators off but not all.
2) Those beetles were more likely to survive some predatory attacks, and multiplied.
3) Some beetles produced more than others and thrived, but also tended to suffer the consequences. Eventually separate sacs evolved from mutations and this thrived, ultimately excretion on demand evolved, likely the result of a mutation which is likely triggered by the toxic nature of the substance, which increased the likelyhood of damage and mutation to the DNA.
4) and eventually the nozzle evolved as beetles with slightly more tissue around the exit were more likely to strike their target, and therefore more likely to succeed and survive and grow in numbers. Amongst these, a genetic mutation that occurred likely coded for muscular cell growth as opposed to just soft-tissue, these beetles were even more likely to strike a target and therefore were favored and grew in numbers.
And I’m not even a scientist or biologist. I can’t believe they still try to play this argument, but I suspect people that understand evolution aren’t the target audience here.
At least give us a worth challenge, doctor.
Praise or Condemn:
14 
5
9:51 am
you are willingly ignorant
Praise or Condemn:
5 
7
10:28 am
Willingly Ignorant is YOUR book Bob!
Praise or Condemn:
1 
2
10:29 pm
Show me one piece of verifiable evidence that proves that God exists and created this bug, and I will question the theory of evolution.
Praise or Condemn:
4 
7
12:42 am
Dr Heineken,
There is a saying: “keep your friends close but your enemies closer”.
Of course in reality, evolution and real doctors and scientists are not your enemies, only what you have decided to be your enemies. What I want to point out is that you will not be able to make any constructive arguments unless you actually understand the theory you are trying to disprove. In every other line of text you embarass yourself with one or more misundertandings (in worst case willful distortions of truth) to discredit a thoery that does not fit your preconceived worldview. If you start reading up on what the “evolutionsts” are actually saying including rebutals of the most common 100 creationst arguments you would become a lot wiser – perhaps even so wise as to give up your Donque Hote endavour all together.
I wish you all the luck in becoming wiser…
/ Prince Thrakath
Praise or Condemn:
5 
2
2:48 am
Chemistry is science christwire doesn`t believe in science, ARTICLE FAIL.
Praise or Condemn:
3 
2
2:52 am
Creationists… Sigh.
I believe the argument is indivisable complication (where the complicated parts of said species couldn’t possibly occur from evolution). This was disproved years ago in a Supreme Court case in the U.S. I believe. The scientist disproved indivisable complication because of “dormant genes” that existed in the creature millions of years ago in a earlier species. Mutations occur and the dormant genes sometimes pop up in every generation. There are a great many ways to explain the Bombardier Beetle using evolution as a basis.
Your “DR” title, thick glasses and watery arguments don’t convince me.
Junk science is just junk.
Praise or Condemn:
4 
1
4:52 am
you said the same thing about the bacterial flagellum. the creationist’s argument was then disproved.
how someone can let a mountain of evidence pass them by in favour of a book that was written 2000 years ago is so closed minded it is unbelievable
Praise or Condemn:
2 
2
6:59 am
from
Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design
by Mark Isaak
Copyright © 1997-2003
[Originally Posted: 1997]
[Links and References Updated: May 30, 2003]
website http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
this is a perfect way of showing that it could easily have occured through evolution.
1. Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [Dettner, 1987]
2. Some of the quinones don’t get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful. (Quinones are used as defensive secretions in a variety of modern arthropods, from beetles to millipedes. [Eisner, 1970])
3. Small invaginations develop in the epidermis between sclerites (plates of cuticle). By wiggling, the insect can squeeze more quinones onto its surface when they’re needed.
4. The invaginations deepen. Muscles are moved around slightly, allowing them to help expel the quinones from some of them. (Many ants have glands similar to this near the end of their abdomen. [Holldobler & Wilson, 1990, pp. 233-237])
5. A couple invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis.
6. In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear. (See Eisner, 1970, for a review.) This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone.
7. Cells that secrete the hydroquinones develop in multiple layers over part of the reservoir, allowing more hydroquinones to be produced. Channels between cells allow hydroquinones from all layers to reach the reservior.
8. The channels become a duct, specialized for transporting the chemicals. The secretory cells withdraw from the reservoir surface, ultimately becoming a separate organ.
This stage — secretory glands connected by ducts to reservoirs — exists in many beetles. The particular configuration of glands and reservoirs that bombardier beetles have is common to the other beetles in their suborder. [Forsyth, 1970]
9. Muscles adapt which close off the reservior, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they’re not needed.
10. Hydrogen peroxide, which is a common by-product of cellular metabolism, becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. The two react slowly, so a mixture of quinones and hydroquinones get used for defense.
11. Cells secreting a small amount of catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, outside the valve which closes it off from the outside. These ensure that more quinones appear in the defensive secretions. Catalases exist in almost all cells, and peroxidases are also common in plants, animals, and bacteria, so those chemicals needn’t be developed from scratch but merely concentrated in one location.
12. More catalases and peroxidases are produced, so the discharge is warmer and is expelled faster by the oxygen generated by the reaction. The beetle Metrius contractus provides an example of a bombardier beetle which produces a foamy discharge, not jets, from its reaction chambers. The bubbling of the foam produces a fine mist. [Eisner et al., 2000]
13. The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction.
14. Still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, and the walls toughen and shape into a reaction chamber. Gradually they become the mechanism of today’s bombardier beetles.
15. The tip of the beetle’s abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible, allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions.
Praise or Condemn:
7 
2
7:37 am
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUvLR2yyWuE
Praise or Condemn:
2 
1
10:40 am
zer
Praise or Condemn:
0 
2
4:02 pm
I’m sure glad Noah decided to take a pair of bombardier beetles on the ark with him. Or was it two cocoons? I think that is the scientific theory for fitting all of the insects on Noah’s ark these days.
What? That part of the Bible was just a story? You mean the whole thing from cover to cover is not the absolute true history of the Earth?
Well, damn, I just don’t know what to believe any more.
Praise or Condemn:
1 
1
5:57 pm
Good troll.10/10
Have an internet!
Praise or Condemn:
1 
0
8:06 pm
This website is so gratuitously anti-science, I thought it was a satire at first. If you want to be taken seriously, publish a paper in a respected journal instead of on a far-right religious website. Oh, that’s right. The millions of real scientists around the world are members of a vast and far-reaching conspiracy the likes of which has never been seen to keep you from publishing. With all due respect, get a grip on reality.
Praise or Condemn:
1 
1
4:40 am
im sure it is satire, theres no way. haha. would be even funnier if it was for real though.
Praise or Condemn:
1 
1
4:50 pm
sorry, but you have to many flaws, if you wish to beat the theory of evolution, actively practice it to find flaws, then research them flaws with ALL of the currant knowledge
Praise or Condemn:
1 
1
10:54 pm
Author of article has poor understanding of evolution — the evolutionary ‘mishaps’ die and natural selection favors only the fittest — therefore, you can end up with something of perfection such as this — check out Belgian Blues — these are cow’s that have been genetically perfected over generations, just as an example.
Also, author is really biased, which is the number one reason that this article is no good. But, even past the bias, assuming he is right (humouring him of course), this would be just one example in support of his argument. NOT ENOUGH to refute the Theory of Evolution. So, go do some research for years and collect and study many many specimens and then maybe you can have a solid argument.
Praise or Condemn:
0 
0
4:47 pm
MARDUK, SLAYER OF TIAMAT, IS THE ONLY REAL GOD! MARDUK, SLAYER OF TIAMAT, IS THE ONLY REAL GOD! MARDUK, SLAYER OF TIAMAT, IS THE ONLY REAL GOD! MARDUK, SLAYER OF TIAMAT, IS THE ONLY REAL GOD! MARDUK, SLAYER OF TIAMAT, IS THE ONLY REAL GOD! MARDUK, SLAYER OF TIAMAT, IS THE ONLY REAL GOD! MARDUK, SLAYER OF TIAMAT, IS THE ONLY REAL GOD!
Praise or Condemn:
2 
1
4:49 pm
MARDUK, SLAYER OF TIAMAT, IS THE ONLY REAL GOD!
Praise or Condemn:
2 
1
4:50 pm
They were not composed altogether of flesh and blood. They had shape…but that shape was not made of matter. When the stars were right, They could plunge from world to world through the sky; but when the stars were wrong, They could not live. But although They no longer lived, They would never really die. They all lay in stone houses in Their great city of R’lyeh, preserved by the spells of mighty Cthulhu for a glorious resurrection when the stars and the earth might once more be ready for Them
Praise or Condemn:
2 
0
4:50 pm
the secret priests would take great Cthulhu from his tomb to revive His subjects and resume his rule of earth….Then mankind would have become as the Great Old Ones; free and wild and beyond good and evil, with laws and morals thrown aside and all men shouting and killing and revelling in joy. Then the liberated Old Ones would teach them new ways to shout and kill and revel and enjoy themselves, and all the earth would flame with a holocaust of ecstasy and freedom
Praise or Condemn:
2 
0
4:51 pm
In his house at R’lyeh dead C’thulhu waits dreaming
Praise or Condemn:
2 
0
7:31 pm
This is the most bias peice of crap i’ve read yet….yo idiot this doesn’t refute evolution, it proves it u idiot.
Praise or Condemn:
1 
1
1:43 pm
the death knell to evolutionists is SOFT TISSUE!
there has never been found any MIXED soft tissue. WHY NOT?
Where are the fish with eyes of birds?
Where are the muscles, tendons and ligiments?
Soft tissue is made of different chemicals then bone.
SOFT TISSUE CANNOT CHANGE! PERIOD!
BONE REGENERATES, MUSCLE DOES NOT!PERIOD END OF STORY!
Where are the fossils of apes with men’s muscles?
Where are the fossils of apeas with arm tendons on leg muscles?
I REPEAT! IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY AND THEORETICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR SOFT TISSUES TO EVOLVE! THEY ARE WHAT THEY ARE!
There is no known way to alter soft tissue!
Praise or Condemn:
2 
2
8:07 am
We have LOTS of dinosaur DNA, extracted from the blood of mosquitoes preserved in amber.
Stupid creationists. *facepalm*
Praise or Condemn:
0 
1
10:24 pm
hahaha nice one ron did you come up with that urself or does the big guy have ur back?
either way I’m not religious as you may have guessed, But Atleast I know wrath is a SIN…. Hypocrite.
Praise or Condemn:
1 
1
4:56 pm
IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, WHILE YOU GIVE GOD HEAD, JESUS EATS PUDDING OUT OF YOUR ANUS. MARDUK, SLAYER OF TIAMAT, IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD.
Praise or Condemn:
1 
2
10:41 pm
1-4) No. To produce quinone in this case, the specific reaction I detailed for you has to take place. This reaction is highly volatile and there is not a ‘kinda make’ portion of it. The bombardier beetle had to have this framework since day one. Its design is an all or nothing framework.
Praise or Condemn:
1 
1
11:09 pm
yeah, there is. the answer is not making it all at once. if you make tiny amounts at a time, the still volatile reaction is small enough to contain within the beetle’s not-so-delicate chambers.
This whole argument reminds me of the banana argument a few years back…
Praise or Condemn:
1 
1
2:37 pm
The amount of force and heat produced by the reaction would be minimal and not fatal in trace amounts, and it is not unreasonable to assume that those amounts were sufficient enough early on that they were not immediately fatal to the beetle, but sufficient enough to repel an attack. It is possible that the separate containment sacs had actually evolved for an entirely different purpose, and the were initially crushed during an attack, causing the binary reaction and prompting release. Microscopic amounts of this would be more than sufficient to repel an attacker without killing the beetle (although perhaps injuring it.) Ironically, such a substance would also likely be a catalyst for genetic mutation and accelerate the number of mutations required to reach it’s current state.
As for these aspects all having to exist on day one: Entirely false. All that is required is a genetic mutation providing one of the chemicals to be present initially, and for the presence of that chemical to be genetically advantageous (E.G, smell, taste or poisonous to some of it’s predators.) Once such a mutation became an integral part of the species, in all likelihood on or more additional mutations may have led to the presence of similar chemicals not producing the binary reaction but providing a genetic advantage. During this process it likely became advantageous for these chemicals to be contained in sacs. Eventually, a mutation occurred that added the second portion of your binary reaction, likely in limited quantity, and as quantities increased, beetles with genetic features unable to handle the increased levels of quinone were killed off and the fitter genes thrived. This is one of countless sequences of events that may have occurred to arrive at the current state. Getting there took trillions of beetles and hundreds of millions of possible mutations and it is likely that many were failures along the way, having either failed to produce the binary compounded, producing too much, producing too little, producing the right amount but not having the right tissues in place to handle that amount. But evolution is not random chance, each portion of the equation that succeeded was passed on to the next generation and each improvement led to other improvements.
You attempt to make a straw man argument that evolution requires a singular step to achieve this binary reaction in exactly the manner it is currently delivered is SO overdone it’s not even funny. Irreducible complexity has been brutally dispatched in courts many, many times. When millions of steps to reach the large quantity and volatility were likely required, and countless iterations had to only partially succeed before reaching the current highly successful defense. It is likely that the initial reaction was very small amounts, injured the beetle and was only advantageous because microscopic amounts are sufficient to cause pray to spit the beetle out.
I’m not even a scientist by trade and I was able to explain how the current levels of quinone present in the bomardier beetle could have evolved in several manners, and it’s likely the reality is much more fascinating and circuitous. Using a straw man of evolution as a snap process may not be clear to your viewers, but I know it when I see it. I highly suggest you try arguing this point with an evolutionary biologist.
Praise or Condemn:
2 
1
11:14 am
Quote from Wikipedia:
“Various quinones are commonly produced by cells in the skin of insects to harden their skin into a cuticle, and as they taste bad to predators many insects secrete this to deter predators.”
Do some research first, dumbass.
I tried to believe that this website is greatly using sarcasm, and I still hope that it is, but I’m beginning to think that it is just a website full of moronic brainwashed Christians. You have your beliefs, but others have different beliefs, learn to deal with it.
Praise or Condemn:
1 
1
4:54 pm
Ph’nglui mglw’nafh C’thulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn
IN HIS HOUSE AT R’LYEH DEAD C’THULHU WAITS DREAMING
Praise or Condemn:
1 
1
5:41 am
Yet you imply you have definitive knowledge of DNA, which was written 6000 years ago.
Praise or Condemn:
1 
0
11:06 am
Darwin himself denounce evolution on his deathbed.
Praise or Condemn:
0 
4
1:47 pm
@Adam Nelson:
DNA was written 6000 years ago? Really? That’s funny, because scientists have been extracting DNA from dinosaur bones that are several million years old (as calculated by carbon dating and confirmed with core samples and layering, among other things. Multiple, independent heuristics for measuring the age of an object that all confirm the other’s conclusion of age.
Praise or Condemn:
1 
1
2:44 pm
You may want to read this:
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/longcomments/the_death_of_darwin/
Interesting read.
Also, no matter what he said on his deathbed, his theories were already out in the wild, and have since held under every manner of scientific scrutiny, in fact it has undergone more scrutiny and study than any other, much more than for instance than, gravity.
Praise or Condemn:
1 
1
2:52 pm
Oops… :”pray to let the beetle go” should be “predators” (and even at that it wouldn’t be spelled in that manner.)
Praise or Condemn:
0 
0
11:02 pm
we DO NOT have dinosaur dna. we have their bones and we know when they came to be, but we DO NOT have their DNA.
Praise or Condemn:
0 
0