Mageth

Copperheads, water moccasins, and other snakes can definitely emit a stench when disturbed; I can personally attest to that.

In similar behaviors, other animals excrete foul-tasting or irritating substances through their skins (e.g. some toads and frogs), and some even defecate or urinate when picked up as a "scare" or "stink" mechanism (ever pick up a toad or turtle only to get peed on?). The horned toad has evolved a rather unique defense mechanism; it squirts blood from special ducts in its eyes.

So there ar many defense mechanisms available to species other than "running away," and many similar ones that have evolved separately in different species as "good ideas" in the design space available to evolution of life on earth.

scigirl

And people wonder why I like frogs - they are cool!

scigirl

Bubba

Like every other creationist arguement, this is actually an arguement for evolution even if your friend doesn't realize it. If he believes in YEC he believes that all animals were created to live together in harmony. Why would a creator give a highly developed defense mechanism to a creature living in a perfect creation?

Bubba

Camaban

You can see evidence of that in humans.

When we're scared for our lives, we often shit or piss ourselves in fear.

Mageth

<cretinist hoop-jumping>
Originally, the skunk squirted a sweet nectar which was a delightful, refreshing delicacy in the garden of eden. Its current corrupt state is, of course, the result of man's sin, which caused the skunk to devolve into its current stinky state.
</cretinist hoop-jumping>

Autonemesis

Plenty of traits used to be useful, but are not any longer. But because these traits do not hinder survival, they continue to be passed on from one generation to the next.

The human tailbone is an example. We no longer leap through trees like our ancestors, so a tail is no longer needed for balance. A large tail might be a survival disadvantage for a ground-dwelling primate (it gets in the way, it gives a handle for predators to grab onto, etc.). But if natural selection reduces it in size to where it no longer poses a survival liability, then natural selection will no longer act to modify the tail. The trait lives on, even though its purpose has long since passed into the mists of time. Yet, it imposes no liability, so it gets to go along for the ride.

Later, the environment of the animal might change, and the vestigial trait may have relevance for survival again. But the new environment is not like the environment where the trait evolved in the first place. Natural selection will push the evolution of the trait in a different direction than before, and the vestigial tail, or musk gland, or 2nd eyelid, might become something else that has no relation to the conditions that gave rise to the original trait.

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

Veil of Fire

The name for that particular brand of 'argument' is Irreducible Complexity. That should make it easier to do a broad search.

Bible Humper

Damn, this is where I missed the boat. I was thinking that it was all genetic, didn't even consider learned behavior. I was stuck in that "what use is half a wing conundrum <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Step 1: skunk uses musk to mark territory. When frightened, some skunks "lets go" behind it and the irritation to the predator causes it to sometimes leave it alone. Those that do this survive more than those that dont

step 2: Skunks that have more range with their "sprayer" tend to nail predators in the face more who are chasing them. These ones survive more than the others.

Step 3: The more flexible of these skunks are able to turn enough to see behind themselves somewhat. Smart ones figure it out and start aiming. Children learn from this behavior and follow suit. The most flexible skunks aim better so survive more.

Step 4: Eventually, as they become more and more flexible, they become able to bend into a "U" and fire directly in their line of sight, offering the best aim. They teach this to the skunklets and it passes on.

It seemed more baffling during the arguement than it actually is <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" /> but I understand at last.

I'll take a look for that book, Mageth, I haven't read it. I doubt my friend is going to read it though I wonder if he got this idea from the Bombardier beetle Duvenoy mentioned (I've never heard of that thing!) but saw the explanation and so changed to something similar!

Thanks again everyone

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Bible_Humper ]</p>

Bible Humper

Cross-posted with those last 5 (!) responses.

True enough, I don't understand how they rationalize half the things they do. He actually hasn't been a YEC and bible literalist since we were real young. He still feels that their is a God that guides evolution and the big-bang etc, but does more or less accept science otherwise. I don't know quite what you would call him, but he thinks that most religions have some kind of truth to them, especially Christianity and Buddhism. christianity because he was brought up that way, Buddhist since his trip to asia (He went to Thailand and said that was the first time he saw "real" religious people.)

I'll keep that in mind! I doubt this skunk topic will persuade him on its own.

Blinn

Yes, they are! Look me up if you're ever in Ohio... (see my profile)