How does the theory of evolution explain....?

Uhm...how does that even?

Nonsensical chemistry, the bombardier uses hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone that simply turn brown when combined in a test tube. They are unstable, they do change composition but they do not spontaneously explode.

Test this easily for yourself as both chemicals are readily available. Hydroquinone is used in photographic development so is sold at a good photography store and hydrogen peroxide is available at a drug store.

In the insect the hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone are a mixture collected in a reservoir near the chitin lined chamber that exits by the anus. What happens it when the insect is agitated it secretes the mixture along with lots of the enzymes that decompose the hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone releasing the oxygen, water and quinones to react inside the chitinous chamber. This is an exothermic reaction that rapidly tries to expand propelling the fluids out the chitin lined anus.

There is no inhibitor, there is a catalyst to promote the reaction.

Hydrogen peroxide is a normal metabolic byproduct in insects and other animals that is eliminated to prevent oxidative damage.

Various quinones are used for defense by insects; some harden the cuticle while others provide a vile taste. Hydroquinone is the source of the odor that makes stink bugs stink.

Clearly having hydroquinone available to repel predators is used by a number of insects.

Eliminating these together was one step. They are protective whether they react together or not.

The chance mutation of an enzyme that catalyzed the decomposition was another step. The moment it appeared it was useful even if the beetle just left a hot smelly puddle to distract the predator. Later those beetles with the variation to aim and spray the hot fluids were adaptions of shape. Small incremental mutations ratcheted the generations through the steps to create this version of a carabid beetle.

SPRAY MECHANISM OF THE MOST PRIMITIVE BOMBARDIER BEETLE

http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/abstract/203...

You are using Behe's ideas of Intelligent Design to try to refute evolution. The basic idea is that if I can't explain specifically how it evolved, it must have been created by God or by some Intelligent Designer. Many of Behe's and other's specific examples of "irreducibly complex systems" have been completely torn apart both by biologists and by the court system in the US. The courts concluded several years ago that Behe's ideas are not science. Scientifically, every example that I'm aware of that Behe (and others) used have been addressed, and the argument that they cannot have evolved by the accepted mechanisms of mutation and selection have been totally refuted.

So, I am not an insect expert, and have no knowledge of the evolution of this system. That's a long way from saying that it could not have evolved.

All of this was argued in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case. The Wikipedia page for this trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_A... has a very nice summary of the judges ruling under the section "Decision".

Also, NOVA did a wonderful show about this case and its outcome, about Intelligent Design, etc. Their website has a lot of very good information: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent...

This is an older example from one of Behe's texts that was used to emphasize his idea of "irreducible complexity". That such a configuration could not be created through small steps, each one useful. There are two problems with this argument.

The first problem is that just because it's not obvious how it could be done does not mean that it wasn't done.

The second problem is that all of the dramatic examples used in this manner (like the bacterial flagellum) have had steps proposed that do match mechanism reasonable for an evolutionary path. This of course should not be interpreted as a belief that the proposed path was actually taken. But since one reasonable path exists, the original argument fails.

The talkorigins site has a treatment of possible evolutionary steps for the Bombardier beetle.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

Actually, you are in error. There is no COMBUSTION going on. Combustion requires three things, the fire triangle of AIR, FUEL and IGNITION. What this beetle has is simple CHEMISTRY. Two chemicals are combined in a chemical reaction which in this case, is exothermic, yielding HEAT which vaporizes some of the liquid. There is nothing for evolution to explain. Evolution accepts that there are infinite possibilities of chemicals to make anything. When there are infinite possibilities, NO explanation is required for any particular combination. Life as we know it represents a minuscule portion of all that has gone before. We see NONE of the evolutionary failures. ALL we see are the FEW evolutionary success stories! Evolution equates to survivability. If you evolve in a manner to live longer, your offspring are also likely to live longer. If a mutation enhances your survivability, you live a little longer. Living longer means more likely to have offspring. Offspring carry your enhanced survivability into their offspring. ANY mutation can have 3 possible outcomes, detrimental, which kills you, or benign which neither helps nor hurts you and beneficial which helps you survive. We, the life living today, represent the end of a long train of evolutionary beneficial or benign mutations. Detrimental mutations likely DIED without offspring. How many failures were there in mutations before ONE survived to be carried forth into offspring and eventually get into the general population? When ALL things are possible, which IS what evolution SAYS is possible, there is no explanation required for any single configuration, living or dead.

humans developed anibiotics to fight bacteria and infections. however some anibiotics are no longer affective in killing the bacteria they once killed. how does the theory of evalution explain this?

Well, evolution doesn't explain anything. It isn't like a mathematical or scientific fact. First you need to discern between micro- and macro evolution. Micro evolution has been observed where animals can vary WITHIN their gene pool to adapt to their environment. This means that all other types of beetles within the same genus can still mate with that specific species. The logical conclusion we can safely make is that there exists(ed) is a 'prototype' genetic code, that contains possibilities for variations of the 'prototype', from which that beetle came. Macro evolution is the non-evidential assumption that animals can go beyond the boundaries of their gene pool to become something totally new. This is purely speculation and is tantamount to religion.