Talk:Bombardier beetle

message: Seriously, a huge vacuum in the article is: I don't know where this bugs are to be found!! Can someone please fill that vacuum? And please don't turn it into some retarded Noah-related argument. Nobody cares about the Genesis myth anymore!! At least if you are a Catholic living outside the States...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.179.155 (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Location?

message: Of course "intelligent design" is a euphemism for God,  since it says there exists (somewhere, somehow) a designer who creates life - e.g., God. But you are correct, in that my statement comes across as POV-ish, not wikipedia-ian, so I'm not going to try putting it back in. -- DavidWBrooks 18:51, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily... could be "superintelligent race of Rigelians". Graft 19:02, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: ID

message: The story of Darwin having tried to collect that beatle sounds unlikely at best. Are there any sources on this one? 84.139.20.7 19:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can find one reference saying it is a reputed story, with no direct source. I will water it down slightly. - DavidWBrooks 23:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Source: Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin (London: Michael Joseph, the Penguin Group, 1991). . see Charles Darwin's education#Beetle collecting. ..dave souza, talk 08:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice story, but unfortunately, a bombardier beetle staying calm when picked up, staying calm when carried around confined in the hand, but going off when it is put in the mouth after some time of being carried around is not going to happen. They fire as soon as they are grabbed or even jostled, the whole point of the behavior is not to get picked up by anything in the first place. And you'll notice when they fire in your hand, it's about as pleasant as extinguishing a match with your bare fingers. What probably happened was that Darwin collected some other ground beetle - they have basically the same secretions, but without the bang. Carry them in your hand, and your hand is gonna smell bad (like the cleaning cabinet in an old mansion) and after a long time your skin is gonna become irritated. But you're not likely to notice anything anytime soon. Put them in your mouth, and you get precisely what Darwin decribed: "some intensely acrid fluid, which [burns your] tongue". He does not say "a bang", "a poppping noise", "a cloud of hot gas" or anything that is indicative of bombardier beetles. Indeed, when discussing this incident from an entomological perspective, he a) simply confirms the beetle in question to be a carabid and b) not peculiar enough to remember to species (which he was regularly able to do with beetles which struck his interest). See here. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's doubtful the insect in question was the bombardier beetle I went ahead and cut the section. Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Darwin's experience

message: Is it a problem that the entire second paragraph of this article is taken from here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html (Number 2 in the sources)? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.97.25 (talk • contribs) 
:Indeed it is; all but the last two sentences. I've tagged it; it should be trivial to rewrite. - Merzbow (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added in this revision by an IP user. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

text: It shouldn't be rewritten, it should be replaced.  This part of the article is biased.  Unless you want to be part of some kind of pointless childish argument, let's stick to the facts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.162.183.190 (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: the paragraph is treating all the species's of bombardier beetle as 1 species, implying that the rare trait. I'm doing a quick draft to replace the section right now.Donhoraldo (talk) 05:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism?

message: At  06:35, 9 March 2006, 137.132.3.7 added "Note: It was originally under the category of [Category:catalysts], but as it had no bearing on catalysts, I removed it". ..dave souza, talk 08:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cat

message: I'm wondering if these bombardier beetles are found anywhere near Mt. Ararat...  because if Noah did collect two of every kind, he must've collected many kinds of beetles, but the "bombing" beetle might be specific to an area that he couldn't get to.  I would love to shoot holes in the Creationists THEORY.  I love to find out if there are Bombardiers in Turkey, or more specifically, Mt Ararat. - Deon
: I have added the fact that they are found throughout much of the world's temperate grasslands and woodlands; thanks for that suggestion. I don't know about Mt. Ararat, but if you're looking for an anti-Noah argument, there are plenty of other, better species - non-swimming animals in Australia or South America, to begin with. - DavidWBrooks 19:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind you, just because they're there now doesn't mean they always were ^_~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Prior to the flood the world's sea level was of course lower, creating land bridges between the continents. Or the land bridges could have been eroded away by the flood itself. Thus all species were able to walk to the Ark. 128.232.228.174 (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  Besides which, the result of a world-wide flood would be a drop of albedo of the planet, likely producing an iceage, which would allow species to move wherever they wanted, so that's no use as an argument. The locations where bombardier beetles are found today would have no bearing on creationism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.154.66 (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  A long belated nit, 217.33.154.66: a drop (decrease) in albedo means the Earth becomes (on average) darker, absorbing more sunlight and reflecting less, which would cause it to become warmer, not colder.  (However, any major change in the ratio of open water to dry land would probably affect cloud cover, as well, which would probably have a much greater effect on the planet's temperature than any change in surface albedo.) NCdave (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  location is a good question 

message: The initial section, "Defense Mechanism", consists of two parts: an overview paragraph and a more detailed pair of paragraphs. The two parts are divided by a sentence at the end of the first paragraph: "A more detailed description of the process follows:". This seems awkward to me, but I'm not sure of how to improve it.
Perhaps the two parts need to be split into separate sections, the first describing the external manifestation of the defense mechanism, and the second describing the internal organs and chemicals that produce the observed results.
--Dan Griscom (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried changing it around a bit - putting a shorter version of the first paragraph in the introductory section, for the casual reader, and leaving the detailed bit in the subsection heading. I'm not sure it works, though. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganize initial paragraph? 

message: I added 2 new sections about the beetle instead of the "controversy" surrounding it. the links I posted for the new sections have ,ore information that I can (or others can) transform into new sections I.E. Physical Description, Reproduction, ETC. I'm going to be busy for the weekend but could expand further on Monday. till then (and after) please others expand this article. if you remove the creationism and refutations this article is a stub and we should treat it as such.Donhoraldo (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but if you're going to add sentences like "The mane distinguishing characteristic of bombardier beetles is the defensive mechanism where they eject a caustic liquid out of one or more orifices in there abdomen" then it's going to be reverted, as I just did. There has to be a certain level of spelling and grammar in an encyclopedia, you know. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: you reverted not only a rewrite of a completely inaccurate section but also 2 new sections. OK the it poorly worded but I did something. don't just revert with ought merit. again I point to the fact that the first paragraph is talking about just a few species of beetle and not the whole 500 that is the topic of this article. the rest you replaced something with nothing. blanking a section because of the quality of writing. that's just removing information from the site and against at least the spirit of Wikipedia.Donhoraldo (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct - I was too hasty. My apologies. It has since been re-arranged by another editor. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: the beetle

message: This claim falls flat. The claimed fallacious article doesn't try to say this is how the defense mechanism evolved exactly step by step, but instead tries to counter the claim that there is no way for the mechanism to evolve. The article counter is this is A plausible evolutionary pathway. Further there is an argument presented that the gaps in the pathway make it religious, But as there are an infinite number of gaps between any 2 points and adding new data only demonstrates this the point is moot. After all by this argument 2 coming after 1 is a religious belief.Donhoraldo (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argument by fiat 

message: Is there a reason that's even up?  Cataloging both sides of the story is one thing, but the section as written is definitely espousing a POV. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to be mistaken about WP:NPOV policy, which under WP:WEIGHT requires that "the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." You may also find Wikipedia:Fringe theories helpful. . . dave souza, talk 21:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Contrary to . . . " in the creationist dispute section. 

message: Intelligent design biochemist isn't Behe title, nor anyone's. However I can understand if some think the accurate statement that he is an intelligent design creationist is not needed. As such I've changed it to intelligent design proponent. As far as it goes if it is needed to have the irrelevant fact of him being a biochemist (as his work on ID doesn't actually involve biochemistry)I advise them to follow the article on Behe and put it in the format ,"American biochemist, author, and intelligent design advocate" or "biochemist, and intelligent design advocate" to save space.Donhoraldo (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Intelligent design biochemist

message: The source lists extant organisms with all necessary intermediate stages for the formation of the defense mechanism. It has been claimed that because this is not necessarily the evolutionary sequence provided in the article we should however use "possible", instead of "all necessary". Even if the beetle didn't evolve along the prescribed lines this does not change the fact that there are extant animals witch use the proposed stages.Donhoraldo (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: possible vs. all necessary

message: I've significantly pared down the section about creationism as giving undue weight to a fringe view. If someone wants to add the beetle as an example to Irreducible_complexity#Stated_examples, then it could be linked to. But this article does not need to go into any more detail than to say a creationist argument exists and is rejected by mainstream science. GDallimore (Talk) 13:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creationism 

message: Of the enzymes mentioned, catalases typically decompose hydrogen peroxide into water and oxygen, and peroxidases catalyze the reaction of hydrogen peroxide with various reducing agents depending on the particular peroxidase.  In this case the reducing agent is hydroquinone, and the reaction product is para-quinone.  Accordingly I have removed hydrogen from the list of reaction products.CharlesHBennett (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gases produced probably don't include hydrogen 

message: It would be nice if someone could come up with (or add) a scale to the pictures of the insect.  I went looking and I couldn't find a picture with a scale that wasn't encumbered by someone else's rights.  Norm Reitzel (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scale would be Nice 

message: There is, in my opinion, still too much about Creationism in this article. It doesn't really belong in the introduction, and the entire "Evolution of the defense mechanism" section reads like passive aggressive spiting towards Creationism. Will try to trim it down a bit. Creationism should be mentioned as a small part of the Evolution section, not 10% of the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilMiner (talk • contribs) 13:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The bombardier beetle is a poster child for Irreducible complexity, so it is entirely appropriate to devote a significant part of this article to the evolution of its defense, and how that contradicts the creationist view. See WP:PSCI for Wikipedia's policy on not whitewashing pseudoscience. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The beetle has a prominent role in arguments for creationism, and that deserves a prominent place in this article. What strikes you as passive aggressive spiting seems to me like a reasonable description of reality. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is absolutely a reasonable description of reality. However, I still don't see how it is justified to list this controversy in the introduction. PhilMiner (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The introduction is meant to summarize the key points of the article. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely. Quite right, Just plain Bill. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

text:  I would argue that WP:PSCI has not yet been honored in these two sections. This portion specifically: "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." 2600:8800:FF06:800:D1FA:3607:92AF:88F4 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much Creationism 

message: In a large concentration of bombardier beetles, scientists speculate that the evolutionary significance of the aggregation behavior is related to predator avoidance. However, after an individual Brachinus sprays to exhaustion, they must wait a day and a half or 24-36 hours to recharge their chemical stores to fire again effectively (WM, pers. obs.). Heirich B, Vogt FD. Aggregation and foraging behavior of whirligig beetles (Gyrinidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1980;7: 179–186.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquilaa27 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defend Mechanism Recharging 

message: Please view the article at https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200616173227.htm.Athula B. Attygalle, Sihang Xu, Wendy Moore, Reilly McManus, Aman Gill, Kipling Will. Biosynthetic origin of benzoquinones in the explosive discharge of the bombardier beetle Brachinus elongatulus. The Science of Nature, 2020; 107 (4) DOI: 10.1007/s00114-020-01683-0  The authors have some comments on irreducible complexity vs. evolution.  LuckySpike (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Research Article About Bombardier Beetles