Original research in TJ?

[RufusAtticus]

Preliminary observations of the pygidial gland of the Bombardier Beetle, Brachinus sp. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/tj/docs/v17n1_beetle.asp)

The Bombardier Beetle (Brachinus sp, Metrius sp., Stenaptinus sp.) has been the subject of much discussion by creationists and evolutionists alike. Recent reports demonstrate the sophistication and accuracy with which these carabid beetles deliver a spray of hot quinones and steam to ward off predators. Workers over the last 40 years have reported on the histology and ultrastructure of the pygidial gland and accessory components of these defensive organs. Those reports differ significantly from the present paper. Thus it appears that some distinction exists in the morphology of the enzyme secretion bodies, the chemical reservoirs, the reaction chambers and the actual aiming nozzles of the spray systems within the family Carabidae, even though these beetles use these glands for the same purpose. In this study the pygidial gland and nozzle of one species of Bombardier Beetle is studied under light and electron microscopy (SEM and TEM) and are shown to be quite complex. This complexity could suggest an origin by design.


I have some issues with this paper, but I'm curious if other people see the same things.

[Dr.GH]

Some issues. Holy guano, Bat Man! I am dizzy, the light is failing, I neeed beer, more beer.....

I'll try after several more adult beverages.

Gary

[Valentine Pontifex]

Ready for a shocker, they linked to the appropriate T.O. FAQ in the reference list.

Of course they screwed up the HTML on it and several other links. (They forgot the "http://" and thus browsers interpret the link as relative link to an imaginary location on AiG.)

They also have also admitted Gish's error.

[Doubting Didymus]

O.... okaay....

Having read the article, can someone please point out to me something that has not been said about a thousand times before? Surely anatomical studies of this kind have been made in the past?

As for this:

It may be that we are observing irreducible complexity in the defensive system of these carabid beetles, but, in order to make that claim we would have to show that all of the genes involved in forming the secretion lobes, reservoirs, oscillating valves, reaction chambers, muscles, hydrogen peroxides, hydroquinones, inhibitors and enzymes are all essential for the working Bombardier system. In addition we would have to demonstrate that the system would fail to function if one of these components were removed. If we could succeed in demonstrating this, an argument may be made that the concept of irreducible complexity applies to anatomical structures, just as they do to biochemical complexes, but such an argument is beyond the scope of this study.

Do you know, I'm going blue in the fucking face from shouting that irreducible complexity can be built in small steps. How many times do we have to point this out? The continued failure to recognise that irreducible complexity can be built in gradual steps, and is thus not a problem for evolution, shows me that creationists do not read.

[Albion]

It doesn't matter how many times we point it out; this isn't a rational argument, it's an attempt to sway public opinion. it sounds good if you don't have a clue about the issue, and that's all that matters because most people don't have a clue and will accept what they say. It's the same mindset that had them carry on using Behe's mousetrap example in "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" even though that's been shown not to irreducibly complex, never mind the further issue that irreducible complexity is irrelevant anyway. They're out to gain converts, not to discuss things rationally.

[KC]

My question is: what is original by this work? I can't believe that the discovery of muscle was 'unexpected' and previously unknown. Other than that, they simply did a lab dissection that confirmed what everybody already knew.

KC

[RufusAtticus]

Looks like someone (VP) posted a link to the paper on talk.origins (http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=Xns93E2BFBD3CBE7usenet123mmcablecom%4068.12.19.6&rnum=1).

I came across this article because I am still discussing with Chase Nelson a paper he wants to submit to TJ. This is what I initially said to him.

With all due respect, TJ exists to make creationists feel and look like they’re doing science. But when was the last time someone published original research in TJ? Everything I have seen from TJ is simply a commentary. Their criterion for publication is simply "is the paper for young-earth creationism?" They’re not even peer reviewed, but reviewed by an editorial board. They refuse to publish any article critical of their dogma. In fact, they've been known to not even acknowledge submissions that don't agree with their statement of faith. Sorry, but no scientific journal I’m aware of requires that papers support a statement of faith.

He responded with:
"But when was the last time someone published original research in TJ?"

The last issue, in which one study collected twenty bombardier beetles from Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, CA, and much original work was done. The paper, entitled "Preliminary Observations of the Bombardier Beetle," had the classic "Materials and Methods," "Results," and "Discussion" format. I agree that the majority is commentary, and I believe they should publish both sides personally. However, almost all of the scientific literature publishes pro-evolution, so thus TJ is used to give the other side.

Here are the issues that I identified in the paper.

I read the paper and I have a few comments on it.

1) I think it is sloppy of them to leave the species of beetle that they collected unidentified. A rigorous experiment would have typed the species each of the twenty beetles and provided the exact count.

2) Their use of the term "the Bombardier Beetle" shows their lack of understanding of these organisms. There is no *the* bombardier beetle, because there are multiple taxa which fall under that classification. Their use of it actually contradicts with the information given in the paper.

3) They name many different taxa, but give no actual classification schematic for them. In most papers I've read concerning taxa like these, a figure is often used to tell the reader how they relate to one another. For example, although they mention three families, they don't tell us what families the genera they mention are in. As it is, they present taxa but give no context to put them in.

4) Their surprise at finding bacteria is silly. Bacteria are everywhere.

5) I'm not sure what to make of their finding about muscular tissue. Giving that it was published in TJ, I have serious doubt that any beetle expert reviewed the paper or even any entomologist. Their failure to find references for the muscle tissue could be due it being an obvious feature from an entomologist's perspective. It would be interesting to see what an expert on such beetles has to say.

6) If they really want to argue that BB are evidence for special creation they need to do better than recycle old Gish's incredulity arguments.

[Doubting Didymus]

4) Their surprise at finding bacteria is silly. Bacteria are everywhere.

Yes, I had a giggle at that myself.

A stunning discovery was the presence of many rod-shaped bacteria adhering to or just adjacent to the lumen of the secretory lobes

Good gosh! we looked at something under a microscope, and were stunned, no less, to find bacteria there.

I'm imagining a lot of stunnedness in that particular laboratory.

[Coragyps]

Rufus, you doofus! They're the Bombardier Beetle Kind! Duh! :D

[Jayjay]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
3) They name many different taxa, but give no actual classification schematic for them. In most papers I've read concerning taxa like these, a figure is often used to tell the reader how they relate to one another. For example, although they mention three families, they don't tell us what families the genera they mention are in. As it is, they present taxa but give no context to put them in.
I think it kind of makes sense for creationists not to rely on conventional taxonomy... after all, to them these organisms do not relate to each other at all, correct (sorry, I didn't read the paper)?

On the other hand, they could've said "the mainstream view is..." or simply referred to the huge body of baraminological research at their fingertips.

...Oh waitaminute. :rolleyes:

[MrDarwin]

What would be far more interesting would to be compare bomardier beetles to their nearest relatives, and see whether they have the same or very similar morphological and chemical characters that could be precursors to the bombardier system with only minor evolutionary tweaking. (The fact is, many other carabids produce and employ similar chemical defensive compounds and I'm willing to bet all the elements of this "irreducibly complex" system were already in place.)

Edited to add a link to a very interesting article:
Spray mechanism of the most primitive bombardier beetle (http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/203/8/1265.pdf)

[MrDarwin]

Some of the questions that cannot be answered, because they are not asked in the first place by creationists or IDists are:

Why are there so many different kinds of bombardier beetles?

Why are their bombardier mechanisms all a little different from each other?

Why are some of the bombardier mechanisms more complex than others?

Why is the bombardier mechanism constructed from morphological and chemical components that are also present in non-bombardier beetles (but used slightly differently)?

And of course, one of the biggest of all:

If God designed and intended animals to live in a world without death or predation, why give bombardier beetles such an elaborate defense mechanism in the first place?