Just for interests sake, here's a very young Richard Dawkins already on the sift explaining the (apparent) bombardier beetle conundrum.

http://videosift.com/video/Dawkins-on-the-Evolution-of-the-Bombardier-Beetle

Ignore, for a moment, the factual errors (eg the bombardier beetle does not produce an explosion). The important thing to understand, in my opinion, is that many of these are good questions to ask.

How could the bombardier beetle's defense mechanism have evolved? Now I know this question has been addressed in detail already, but assume it's being asked for the first time. The answer to this question is going to be enlightening, one way or another. Either biologists will provide an answer (enlightening) or we will find a gaping hole in our understanding of evolution (enlightening). These are both positive outcomes and nobody should be criticized for asking, even today when the answer is readily available to anyone with internet access.

There are things that should be criticized, however. First and foremost: unwillingness to listen to an answer. It does you no harm to hear even a false answer as long as you apply due skepticism. This goes for people of all walks, opinions and beliefs.

Second, you should be criticized if you think disproving natural selection (or any attempts to do so) would be evidence for God. That is a non-sequitur. If natural selection was disproven tomorrow, all that proves is that we don't know how we got the diversity of life we see around us.

God is not the null hypothesis. You have to provide evidence to support the existence of God, not just shoot down any "competing" ideas.

Except QualiaSoup's argument doesn't rest on ad hominem attacks. You're pointing to the single use of a word, "pseudoscientific," which in context (about 4:23) was used as "Some anti-evolutionists repeat an argument put forward by Michael Behe - an advocate of the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement..." (and again, no mention of the word fraud, that was your own addition). That is simply not an ad hominem fallacy, since he is not attacking Behe's character. Perhaps it's just you who interprets it as such? If we're going to debate semantics here, the word "pseudoscience" has a formal definition (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pseudoscience) that, while pejorative, is still not an ad hominem attack against Behe. QualiaSoup used it as an adjective to describe intelligent design, suggesting that it does not conform to the principles of the scientific method. Which is a true statement. It doesn't. QualiaSoup is not questioning Behe's wealth or IQ or sexuality or what Behe's mother did last night or any other personal quality completely unrelated to the issue at hand. Ad hominem = "to the man" - Behe the man is not under attack. Behe's beliefs/opinions are.

Behe's scientific knowledge and work can absolutely be isolated from his pseudoscientific beliefs/advocacy. Isaac Newton sought ways to perform alchemy, does that mean his contributions to fundamental physics are invalid or that it's an ad hominem attack against him personally if I were to say that alchemy is pseudoscience?

Also, would it help put your mind at ease that QualiaSoup isn't blowing smoke out of his ass if a noted and widely published evolutionary scientist like Richard Dawkins made the exact same argument years ago?

>> ^bmacs27:

There was a reason I put pseudoscientific in quotes, and left fraud out of quotes. Calling him pseudoscientific implies he is a fraud, as he claims to be a scientist. It is ad hominem. An appeal to accomplishment is a valid response to an argument that rests on ad hominem attacks.
Further, as far as logical fallacies go, particularly within science, an appeal to expertise hardly seems inappropriate. In fact happens all the time. That's why courts employ expert witnesses, and we accept the recommendations of grants reviewed by peers not laymen. While there is of course always room for arguments from evidence, in the absence of such we generally defer to the intuitions of experts.
There are plenty of arguments that suggest the biochemical mechanisms of phototransduction could have evolved. Why not make them?

Irrefutable evidence of intelligent design.>> ^MrLips:

Where did that fucking shirt evolve from?

>> ^MrLips:

Where did that fucking shirt evolve from?

Dawkinses have evolved such shirts as a way to camouflage themselves in their natural habitat, the cushions of old ladies' couches.

Your video, Dawkins on the Evolution of the Bombardier Beetle, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^ant:

I get sprayed a lot like that.


Skit skit.

Dawkins explains the evolution of the Bombardier Beetle. http://videosift.com/video/Dawkins-on-the-Evolution-of-the-Bombardier-Beetle

Your video, Bombardier Beetle - Master Of Chemical Warfare!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

The Bombardier is one of the cases of irreducible complexity that creationists cite.


I've gotta say it's very hard to conceive of how this creature evolutionized over time. However just because we can't imagine it doesn't mean there isn't a perfectly logical creator involved.

Rays, sharks, electric eel, echidna...

>> ^HenningKO:

>> ^marinara:
i don't think electolocation is unique, but i'm too lazy to google it.

Sawfish


Also, the bombardier beetle doesn't spray acid, just boiling hot quinones.