I suppose, but even with the compelling examples like the bombardier beetle, someone comes up with a theory of how it could have evolved (took me moments to find a couple on google). No matter how improbable the theory is, throw in a few million years and suddenly it seems plausible, nay believable, if you want to believe enough.

Truly, the theory of evolution can not be falsified because no one was there to observe it. If you start with the premise that evolution is true, no one can convince you otherwise. That's why it's more or less useless to band about supposed proofs in these sort of arguments, because each person interprets the data differently based on their starting premise (worldview).

I appreciate the acknowledgement of a compelling example. At least you haven't discarded objectivity. Some otherwise very intelligent people simply react with vituperation at the mere suggestion that there are compelling evidences of design in nature. I suppose both sides are just as bad in that sense. It's obviously a touchy issue with huge ramifications.