Welcome to Gaia! ::

Why wouldn't a Creator have used one of these? That is irrelavant it is possible proof for Creationism, if their is a Creator of the Christian origin we wouldn't be able to comprehend His reasons anyway, at least not in this form not till we went to heaven.

BTW I'm gona move this to Creaton Vs. Evolution debate.

If you are putting forwards that argument, you don't need to luck to the platipus. You could look to anything for 'proof'.

Anything 'could' have been designed by a higher being with infathomable reasons. The thing is that that isn't proof. Only if something could only have been produced is that evidence in favour.

If something can be explained by the alternative theory, it can't be seen as proof for the other one.

Anyway, to have scientific 'proof', you need to use scientific method;
Study the phenominon.
Produce a testable hypothesis.
Search for evidence of that hypothesis being true.
Alter hypothesis to produce a workable theory.

In the case of evolution, you have;
Platypus evolved from a marsupial-like ancestor over serveral million years.
Evidence includes DNA, taxodermic and anthroplogical similarities and records.
The hypothesis holds and is possible within the wider theory of evolution.

For Creationism you have;
Platypus was created.
It seems complex, but we can't understand God, so who knows what he was thining?
Hypothesis can't be supported or refuted.

That is bad science.

Um Lilaculuva, Non-Christian people ARE allowed into this guild, provided that they speak and act with diginity and trying to do nothing but prove the truth, though we might not like it.

With that being said, no he's a clear Evolutionist, but because he does not debate with the typing skills of a monkey on crack or with the mannerism of a spoiled 5 yr old on tantrum, he's allowed to stay here as long as he wishes.

Also, what kind of open-minded people would the Evolutionists label the Creationists as if we will not listen to the scientific facts as well? I believe that God created us also through scientific methods. TANSTAAFL did not call the Bible a lie, but merely only a theory. I understand that you'll be offended, but this subforum IS for debates and all things proven true are welcomed.

Debate with proves and back up sources, not with prejudice on the person's background, please.

sorry XD my bad but when I go into a debate section I'm very serious about what I say.

With that being said, I would like to ask if TANSTAAFL has any explination for how the bombideir beetle was to have evolved over millions and millions of years. In case you were not aware, the bombideir beetle shoots out two chemicals that mix as they come out of it's tail and react to cause a chemical burn on the surface that it touches that equals ruoughly 245 degrees. Needless to say, if these chemicals were mixed within the beetle it would dissinagrate. Obviously that is not the case, so if evoultion takes millions of years why do we have bombideir beetles?

Secretory cells produce hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide (and perhaps other chemicals, depending on the species), which collect in a reservoir. The reservoir opens through a muscle-controlled valve onto a thick-walled reaction chamber. This chamber is lined with cells that secrete catalases and peroxidases. When the contents of the reservior are forced into the reaction chamber, the catalases and peroxidases rapidly break down the hydrogen peroxide and catalyze the oxidation of the hydroquinones into p-quinones. These reactions release free oxygen and generate enough heat to bring the mixture to the boiling point and vaporize about a fifth of it. Under pressure of the released gasses, the valve is forced closed, and the chemicals are expelled explosively through openings at the tip of the abdomen.

The scenario below shows a possible step-by-step evolution of the bombardier beetle mechanism from a primitive [here meaning a form from which a modern form is decended, not a creature less suited to its environment or in any way inferior for its time] arthropod.

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.

Note that all of the steps above are small or can easily be broken down into smaller steps. The bombardier beetles' mechanism can come about solely by accumulated microevolution [here refering to the ID version of microevolution - something we have observered and that is considered undeniably possible by all who have looked at such things - the definition changes often as we expand our understanding of mechanisms and the basics of the theory]. Furthermore, all of the steps are probably advantageous, so they would be selected. No improbable events are needed. As noted, several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in living populations.[Seperate species came across the same tricks, or seperated from the liniage at when those developments were around, but didn't go in the same direction as the BB]

i only have two questions for you:
1: are you a Christian?
2: if you are don't you know that you are saying that the Bible is a lie?