> I'm not familiar with that particular example, but I'm familiar with others. My favorite is the
> bombardier beetle, which is able to shoot burning chemicals out its back end a few inches
> (I'm not making this up) as a defense mechanism. The biological system that allows this to happen
> requires two separate chambers for the two chemicals that, when mixed, ignite. There's a
> third chemical that keeps them from being harmful while inside the beetle. Then there's a
> tube leading from each of the chambers to a single tube that leads out. It has been shown
> that this system never could have evolved, because if that system were missing any one
> component, he'd be blowing himself up all the time and never could have possibly survived the
> millions of years supposedly required to evolve the correct pieces.

I've heard about the bombadier beetle.
I've also heard the scientific response to this example, but I can't remember it at the moment.

> I'm sure all of us here could parrot science textbooks till we're blue in the face. Trust me,
> no good will come of it, on either side. Again, let's suffice it to say there are rational reasons
> we should not be so quick to decide we know the truth of Life, the Universe, and Everything, and
> leave it at that.

I agree, which is why I'm not off looking up the bombadier beetle.

I'll do my best to shut up now.

Paul