When we look closely, we find that there are many systems found only in the woodpecker that make him a most unusual bird.
These birds lay eggs on ice because there is no material there from which to make nests. To keep the egg from freezing, the emperor penguin has a fold of feathered skin hanging down from its belly. The female rolls the egg up onto her feet, and then covers it with that fold of skin. Immediately the male comes to the female and takes the egg onto his feet, hiding it beneath his fold of feathered skin.
The female then leaves, hurrying back to the water where she feeds for nearly two months, while the male penguin just stands, waiting for that egg balanced on his feet to hatch.
And just when the egg does hatch, the female returns. She is just in time. She picks out her own mate and chick from the hundreds of thousands of penguins standing on the ice, and feeds the chick half-digested fish. This feeding literally saves his life. If the female were only a day or so late, the chick would die!
Now the male is free to hurry off to sea. He gorges there for two weeks. But then he too returns to his check. Now it is the fatherís turn to arrive just in time. Although thousands of chicks now stand together, the male penguin recognizes his offspring and feeds it from the fish stored in his crop and stomach.
For the rest of the winter, the parents take turns going off to fish and bringing back food for their youngster. If at any time a parent was a day or so late, the chick would die. What an amazing design! Each bird has an apron of feathered skin to warm the egg. Each takes its turn standing with its back to blizzards and sleet. And each takes its turn traveling to the sea and back with food-always arriving just in time to feed the chick before it starves!
Patterns like this, which occur again and again in the animal world, are evidence of careful planning and design. How hard it is to imagine that the Theory of Evolution can offer a reasonable explanation for such complex patterns of behavior; how easy to see the hand of God!
When the mallee fowl of Australia nests, it digs a great pit. It fills the pit with decaying leaves and piles sand on top of them. Then the female digs a tunnel in this material and lays her eggs. The eggs are kept warm by the heat produced by the decaying leaves!
But the bird does not leave her eggs. Instead she stays near her nest and, several times a day pokes her beak into the sand. She does this to test the heat in the nest. Her tongue is such a good thermometer that she can tell a change of as little as 1/10 of a degree.
If the sand is tool cool, the mother bird piles on more sand. If it is too hot, she scrapes sand away. Finally, after a very long time, the young mallee birds hatch and dig their way up out of the mound.
How can the bird tell just what temperature the eggs need? How did she know how to build her unusual nest? How does it happen that her tongue is a sensitive thermometer? Even if mutation and natural selection could account for this birdís tongue, how could chance mutations "teach" a bird to use its tongue in such a way or build a next of decaying leaves?
In fact, it is hard to believe that feathers could just happen. Each feather is a marvel of engineering design. Check out the marvelous components of the feather:
Thus bird feathers not only have the worldís first zippers built in, but the whole complex design is necessary to enable the wing to flare and hold air as it flies. The idea that this specialized, complicated structure somehow just happened to evolve from reptile scales is very strange if not ridiculous (not to mention completely lacking of any evidence whatsoever).
In one test of this incredible ability, a number of Manx shearwaters, which nest off the coast of Wales, were tagged and released at different points far beyond their usual range. One was turned loose in Boston, some 3,200 miles from home.
In just twelve and a half days the bird returned to its nest, having traveled about 250 miles a day, starting from a place thousands of miles from where it had ever been before. Whatís more, based on the known speed of the bird, it must have flown directly home, across the open ocean. How? No one knows. But the navigation system of this and other birds seems better than any mechanical system human beings have ever developed!
But from the beginning, bats have found their way by airborne sonar! Bats fly at night. Rather than rely on sight to locate the tiny insects they eat, bats have a very sophisticated sonar system. They use sounds humans cannot hear, which vibrate between 50,000 and 200,000 times a second. The bat sends out these sounds in short clicks, making twenty or thirty each second. The batís hearing is so sensitive that from the echo of each sound the bat can tell exactly where trees and other obstacles are. It can also tell the location of the tiniest flying insects.
During the day millions of bats sleep in many of the large caves in our Southwest. If you go into such a cave and shine a bright light there, the air will suddenly be filled with hundreds of frightened, swirling bats. But not one bat will strike you. And not one bat will strike another, even though the air is filled with them!
How can the bats, terrified and flying packed together in a tightly enclosed space, keep from striking each other or the walls or you? Why donít they become mixed up as hundreds of thousands of sonar signals all sound at the same time? No one can tell! The perfection of the batís sonar system is beyond our capacity to understand, but not beyond the capacity of our God to provide.
Perhaps the first kite was flown by young spiders. Many of them, when they come out of their cocoons, climb to the top of a blade of grass and face the wind. They lift up their backs, and spin a tiny silken thread. This thread is drawn out by the slightest breeze. As the thread grows, the wind pulls on it. The baby spider clings to the grass until the thread is long enough, and then suddenly lets go-to sail into the air!
When the spider lands in a new territory, it spins its web and begins its new life. But flying can be dangerous for spiders. Some have landed on ships hundreds of miles from shore, carried there on their silky kites.
But human beings did not invent the first cooling system. Every living warm-blooded creature has many mechanisms for temperature control. The fast-running gazelle of Africa must often spring to escape its enemies. This sprint raises the body temperature of the gazelle. In order for the gazelle to survive, its brain must be kept cooler than the rest of its body.
To keep the brain cool, the gazelle has its own special cooling system, built right into its head. Gazelles and similar animals have hundreds of small arteries that divide and pass through a large pool of blood lying next to its breathing passages. The air that is inhaled cools this nasal pool, so the blood passing through the tiny arteries in it is cooled, too. Then the tiny arteries come together in a single blood vessel that carries blood to the brain.
How well does this system work? Scientists have measured temperature differences in gazelle, which ran for five minutes at twenty-five miles an hour. The body temperature went up from 82 degrees Fahrenheit to 93 degrees Fahrenheit! But the temperature of the brain never even reached 86 degrees, which is safe for this animal.
Without this system of cooling its brain, the gazelle simply could not survive.
There are many more examples of engineering design in the animal world. As we learn more about them, each discovery helps us be more comfortable with our faith. Are we foolish to believe in God? Hardly! It seems much more foolish to think that such marvels-on which the very lives of the animals involve hinge-could "just happen" by an Evolution whose processes canít really be explained by even one evolutionist.
For example, most termites are tiny insects with whitish, soft bodies. They must have a dark, moist place to live. Some termites placed in the open air will die within a few hours.
There are many termite groups that build different kinds of mounds. The Macrotermes of Africa build great castlelike mounds in which as many as several million termites can be secure. Inside such mounds are "gardens" where the termites grow fungus for food.
Inside these castle mounds are many other wonders.
This air-moving system is so effective that the temperature inside the termite mound is kept at a steady 64 degrees Fahrenheit all year round-no matter what the temperature is outside. And the moisture needed by the insects is constantly circulated through the whole mound.
In the center of the castle the queen termite lays up to 30,000 eggs a day! These eggs are tended by workers until they hatch.
Each type of termite produces a specific pheromone that carries messages through the castle. One of the special messages will determine what type of termite the queen will produce. For example, if many soldiers are killed defending the castle, there be less of the soldier smell ) (soldier pheromone) in the castle. The queen will then produce eggs that will develop into soldiers!
The complicated social structure and the use of pheromones to carry the messages that control the life of a termite colony are only a few examples of the countless wonders it is impossible for the Theory of Evolution to explain. But they are not the slightest problem for those who believe in creation.
But worker bees have another fascinating method of communicating with each other. Workers are those who go out searching for nectar. When a bee finds a flower filled with nectar it carries all it can back to the hive and then performs an intricate dance to tell other workers where the nectar was found.
The dance of the bee has been carefully studied. When a bee returns, it lands on a flat platform in front of the entrance of the hive. It dances a circle then cuts across the circle, while buzzing excitedly. The track it makes as it cuts across the circle points directly to the target flower! The workers who have carefully watched the performance then fly in the direction indicated.
The first bee then goes inside the hive, to dance some more. If the bee goes just a short way inside the hive, the flower will be near. The farther inside the hive the bee goes before it dances again, the further away the flower is. Again the bee dances in a circle. But this time the circle is made on the wall of the hive, for there is no flat floor on which to dance. When the bee dances on the wall, it also cuts across its circle. But now the angle of its dance shows watchers where the new flower is in relation to the sun.
If the flower can be found by flying directly toward the sun, the bee will cross the circle going straight up or down. If the flower is to the right of the sun, the bee will cut across the circle at just the angle that others must fly to find it.
Other workers in the hive watch closely, and then when they leave the hive, they remember the dance and always fly away in just the right direction.
Who taught the bees to dance? Who taught them to understand just what each dance means? How could such complicated behavior have just happened?
Nobel prize winner Alber Szent-Gyorgyi (1977) wrote of a much simpler relationship. He studied how a young herring gull could peck at a red spot on its parentís beak to get the adult to spit up food. While the action seems simple, this Nobel prize winner says "it involves a whole series of most complicated chain reactions with a horribly complex underlying nervous mechanism." Asked what the odds are that this behavior pattern could develop by chance, Szent-Gyorgyi says it "has the probability of zero."2 Compare that "simple" example to the example of the beeís dance?
These ants march in columns, attacking and eating any living thing in their path. In some parts of the world it is dangerous to tie up an animal because if a column of army ants comes by, it will bite the animal to death and eat it.
The army ants march in a long column, with soldier ants at the head. Worker ants follow, many carrying the larvae of the next generation. These larvae give off a pheromone message. As long as the message-scent is given off, the army keeps on marching.
But when it is time for the larvae to hatch into ants, the army halts. The soldiers and workers find a place between tree roots or stones and literally create a living nest from their own bodies.
This living nest of clinging ants has rooms where the birthing infants can be placed. It has passageways along which others can travel and a chamber for the queen. The queen begins to swell, and within a week she starts to lay eggs. In a few days there are some 25,000 eggs in the living nest. At the same time, the birthing ants in other rooms emerge, to become the workers who will carry the just laid eggs!
The army, with its 25,000 new recruits, many carrying the eggs of its next generation, marches off again, ready to attack, kill and eat.
Even the largest of animals run from army ants. The individual ant may be small. But enlisted in an army, the marching ant is one of the most feared of jungle creatures.
No-and for an interesting reason. While there are millions of kinds of insects, all have one common trait that limits their size. Insects have no lungs. Instead, they have breathing tubes that run the length of their bodies. These tubes draw oxygen from the air. While some insects have ways to pull air into the tubes, the longer the tube the less effective they are in providing the oxygen all living animals need.
Simply put, the way insects breath means that they cannot grow to giant size and live! Larger insects would never be able to absorb the amount of oxygen they would need to keep them alive.
As Christians, we clearly see the hand of God here. The Lord did not create Earth to be mastered by insects, but to be a home for humankind. In his wisdom he designed insects with a built-in limitation that guarantees they will never supplant human beings as masters of his world.
Some insects however, seem to enjoy eating wood. Termites actually live almost exclusively on wood. Yet itís a known fact that termites cannot digest cellulose either!
How can termites, who eat wood, live on a food they canít digest? Well, wood-eating termites have tiny organisms called flagellates in their intestines. These tiny animals can live only in the absence of free oxygen. If they are left in the open air, they quickly die. What these organisms can do, however, is digest wood! So when the termite eats his meal, it'í the tiny animals living inside his body that digest it for him.
In experiments where termites were exposed to extra oxygen to kill the flagellates, they continued to eat wood but they were unable to digest it. Then they were reinfected with the flagellates, the were again able to digest cellulose.
This is just one of the many examples of a symbiotic, or mutual relationship. The termite could not live without the flagellate because it would be unable to digest the wood it eats and would starve to death. The flagellate, out of the intestine of the termite, would be poisoned by oxygen and die. Together, each lives. Separated, each will die!
For obvious reasons this is very difficult for evolutionists to explain. Clearly, the termite could not have existed before the flagellate developed. And the flagellate could not have developed in the open air, away from the dark safety of the termiteís intestine. So how could either one every have existed without the other?
Yet to claim that each evolved from some other kind of animal, and evolved just in time to save each otherís life, is ridiculous. When existence itself requires that two creatures live in a specialized, complicated relationship, the Theory of Evolution seems less reasonable than ever.
Itís especially fascinating to look at the world God created and discover how many different kinds of mutual and symbiotic relationships there are. Each is a quiet witness to Godís wonderful design.
No light from the sun can reach deeper in the ocean than about 375 feet. At that depth the water temperature is close to freezing. Only recently have scientists discovered that over 2,000 species of fish and as many kinds of other living creatures swim in depths that light never reaches.
But over half of these fish have their own light! Yet the fish do not produce the light themselves. Instead they have special pouches, near the eye or on the tail or a fin. In each pouch is a colony of thousands of bacteria. These bacteria give off a chemical glow.
It might remind you of the way a flashlight contains batteries that provide the power for the light, just as the bacteria provide the fishís light.
What is even more interesting is that the fish are equipped with shutters, as we are with eyelids. When the fish choose, they can close their shutters and turn off their lights! And when they choose, they can open the shutters, just as you or I might switch on a flashlight.
No one is sure of the purpose of the bacterial flashlights carried by deep-sea fish. One suggestion is that the lights might help males and females find each other and mate. Another is that the lights may be a lure to attract small fish that serve as food.
But whatever the purpose, we again have an unusual symbiotic relationship. The bacteria could never survive outside the pouches maintained for them by the fish. And it is likely that in some way not yet understood the tiny living flashlights make a life or death difference to their fish hosts.
Later the plant will produce a great number of seeds. When the moth egg hatches, the larvae will eat some of these seeds. The rest of the seeds will be scattered, and some will grow to become new yucca plants.
This is yet another incredible example of two living creatures that could not live without the other. The plant can only be pollinated (fertilized) by this moth. And the moth egg can only be deposited in the plant. Neither one could exist without the other.
Instead, orchids have many different ways to draw just the right insect to them. One orchid, which grows on Grand Bahama Island, has flowers that look just like a particular male insect. The real male insect sees this counterfeit in his territory! Angrily he attacks the flower and in the process is covered with pollen. This is repeated as he attacks other counterfeit males, spreading the pollen from flower to flower!
Another orchid, called the Ophyrs, is pollinated only by tiny wasps. The flower has a pheromone, a chemical smell, that is just like the pheromone of a female wasp. The counterfeit smell is so attractive that sometimes male wasps will fly right by female wasps to visit the orchid!
Another orchid has flowers that look just like female wasps, even to their shiny eye spots, wings, antennae and hairs! Again odor attracts the male wasp, who tries to mate with the flower. In the process the wasp is covered with pollen, which he will then take to another blossom.
Botanists who study plants, have identified at least 65 different chemical compounds that orchids blend to attract insects. In most cases each kind of orchid will have its own smell, intended to attract just one kind of insect!
Orchids are often designed to make sure that once an insect is attracted it will pick up or leave pollen. Several orchids trap the bees they attract. The bees panic, but the flower encloses them in a roomlike structure for up to an hour and a half. When the bees calm down, they discover a narrow tunnel that is the only way out of a trap. As a bee crawls up the tunnel it must rub against the sides-and is covered with the orchidís pollen.
In the case of the special relationship between orchids and insects, there is no special beneifit to the insect. The orchid is the one who needs the insect. How amazing that different kinds of orchids have just the right odors and just the right shapes to attract the one insect that will pick up their pollen and carry it to other orchids of the same kind.
Another moth, in South America, has a large round mark on each side of its head. When frightened, it waves its head from side to side-and looks just like a wide-eyed snake.
In our own country, the monarch butterfly is safe from birds and other enemies. Quite simply, the monarch tastes bad to them. On the other hand, the viceroy butterfly has an attractive taste. But the viceroy butterfly looks so much like the monarch that most birds are fooled and leave the viceroy alone!
Not all mimics are attractive. One African plant mimics rotten meat in order to attract flies. The plantís flowers are wrinkled and brown and covered with hairs that look like decaying animal skin. The smell too is of rotting meat. The plant even warms its flower to the temperature of rotting meat. The flies are fooled so completely that the not only come to the flower but even lay their eggs on it, as they would have on actual rotting meat.
There are many examples of mimicry in the plant and animal world. In fact, there are so many, and these are so helpful to the mimics, that one text written by an evolutionist says, "It is tempting to think that mimics deliberately copy the models." He then goes on to say that, of course, we cannot suppose intelligence had anything to do with it. It must have been "a matter of chance."3 He was correct, of course, that the insects and plants involved did not deliberately copy their models themselves. But the notion that the complicated patterns seen in mimicry just happened is even harder to imagine.
How sad that the writer, who realizes that mimicry seems to call for intelligent planning, fails to recognize mimicry as evidence of God. These examples do show intelligent planning. They give evidence of design, and design is evidence of the existence of our creator God.
College students just 25 years ago were shown pictures of animals and fossils and told that the evolution of the horse was a fact and that all intelligent people MUST believe in Evolution.
Today no evolutionist thinks that the "short-necked creature not much bigger than a domestic cat" is realted to the modern horse at all. The fossil called Eohippus, or Dawn Horse, is no considered to be a close relative to the rock rabbit!
Why do paleobiologists no longer believe in the "evolutionary history" of the horse? One reason is that fossil bones of horses have been found in the same rock strata where the Dawn Horse was found. These horses were the ancestors of the modern horse!
There are other reasons, too. The fossils that evolutionists linked in their series actually came from all over the world, not just America. As for size, some modern horses (like Shetland ponies) are no larger than the smaller "horses" found in the fossil record.
But why did evolutionists ever think fossils from different parts of the world should be linked together in the first place? Part of the reason is that they were tricked by their own theory. Simply put, evolutionists fit the fossil bones of different animals into a series and said they were horses, because the bones fit their Theory of Evolution!
It is almost as if you were outside one day and found a tennis ball, a soccer ball and a basketball in a weedy field. You noticed that each ball is hollow, and each has an increasingly thicker skin. Youíre really excited, and figure that each evolved from some common ancestor! Then you spend the rest of your life trying to figure out how that could possibly have happened. You invent story after story to explain that evolution, and even though the evidence is against each suggestion you make, many people believe you. They donít seem to realize that finding the balls lined up in a particular order does not prove descent at all.
But when evolutionists arrange fossil sequences, like that of the supposed horse ancestors, they go even further. They use their theory to arrange the bones. Since evolutionists used their theory to arrange the bones of the suppose4d ancestors of the horse, no one should ever have assumed the arrangement proved the theory. Yet they assumed just that, until more evidence forced them to admit they were wrong!
Is similarity proof of evolution? Evolutionists were not trying to trick people when they said they had traced the ancestry of the horse. In fact, they tricked themselves! So we need to ask an important question. Why did they think the fossil remains traced the evolution of the horse? The answer is that each fossil skeleton was similar in many ways to others and similar to the skeleton of the modern horse. In biology there is a special name for similarities in the way animal parts are structured. When, for example, the front leg or arm bones of animals are similar, they are said to be homologous. For many years, evolutionists have claimed that homology is strong evidence for their theory.
It was the idea that homology proves relationship that led scientists to believe in the supposed evolutionary history of the horse. But they were wrong. Somehow homology was not such good evidence for the Theory of Evolution after all!
Why is homology not good evidence for Evolution?
The flaw in the evolutionists argument is the notion that Evolution is the only explanation for similarities. If that were true, it might be a good argument. But creationists have a much better explanation. What is the explanation? Simply that God developed a basic plan and used this plan in created living things. There are many reasons to think this is the best possible explanation for homology.
Think, for instance about houses. Of all the different styles of houses, nearly all have kitchens, living rooms and bedrooms. They have heating systems, roofs, doors and windows. Now clearly all these similarities do not mean that houses evolved from some common ancestor. The similarities show that houses were designed to meet the same basic needs.
You see the same thing in the animal world. Homology is really evidence that God, an intelligent being, has consciously designed animals to meet common needs!
For an animal to survive there are certain things it must be able to do. It must eat, move, reproduce, breath, etc. So when God created living creatures, he developed a common design to meet them, just as architects use a common design when planning a house!
Yet there are many amazing variations on the basic plan God used in designing living creatures. And itís far more difficult for the evolutionist to explain the variations than it is for a creationist to explain the similarities.
In essence, homology is to be expected. The similarities are not evidence for the Theory of Evolution at all. Similarities demonstrate Godís skill as the great Designer and Giver of life!
Similarity of function is actually a problem for the Theory of Evolution. For instance, flying demands amazingly complex and specialized structures and instinctual skills. Yet such diverse creatures as birds, bats and many insects all fly. Evolutionists have not been able to explain the evolution of flight or even guess how it could occur. Whatís more, this complex ability is found over and over in the animal world where there is no evolutionary connection possible between the flying creatures! Simply put, homologous appearance is more of a problem for the Theory of Evolution than a proof of it! Homology is a much better evidence of a Designer who used a similar plan to construct very different kinds of animal life.
Evolutionists canít explain the homologous shape of sea mammals and fish by saying that they evolved from a common ancestor. No evolutionist thinks for a moment that they did! So perhaps homologous structures shouldnít be used as evidence for Evolution at all!
But why stop with blood? Why not look at other similarities on a chemical level? If we do look beyond blood, we make some interesting discoveries. For instance, the active chemical produced by the thyroid gland is exactly the same in a sheep and a human being. Does that mean sheep are ancestors of humans?"
Recently scientists have been able to analyze the amino acids in animal proteins. One important protein in animals is cytochrome c. It is often used as evidence for the Theory of Evolution, since unlike other proteins, it fits fairly closely to evolutionistsí notion of evolutionary descent. Yet when cytochrome c differences are analyzed we find that rattlesnakes are more closely related to human beings than to another reptile, the snapping turtle! Human beings are closer to the Peking duck than to another mammal, the horse!
On species of tree frog is even more involved. Every week the female visits the pools where her young are growing. She then lays an unfertilized egg (from which no tadpole could hatch) in the water. The tadpole lives on these eggs for the six or eight weeks it takes to turn into a frog.
If we look in the sea, we find more wonders. The largest living animal on Earth is the blue whale. It can weigh as much as twenty-five elephants! Yet it is one of a group called baleen whales, which have no teeth at all.
Instead of teeth, these whales have baleen, which are like curtains of horn that hang down from the roots of their mouths. The only thing these giant whales eat is krill, which are tiny, shrimplike animals that swarm in the sea.
The way these whales are able to eat only this one item on their diet is by rushing through the schools of krill, sucking them in with great mouthfuls of water and then straining them with their baleen.
If the krill are not thick enough in a given area then the whale dives down deep. Then it will spiral upward, forcing the krill towards the center of the spiral concentrating them in one place where it can open its mouth and suck them in.
Itís hard to imagine how the Theory of Evolution could explain the baleen that allows whales to feed on krill and krill alone. How much more likely that God designed the whale and the krill on which it feeds.
What type of biological system could not be formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications"?
Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. That is a system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on.8
There are countless examples of biological systems that are irreducibly complex, and even the very simplest of these are so complex that it literally boggles the mind. Darwin, in his primitive, 19th century science, didnít recognize this because things like cells were viewed as "black boxes". That is something that performed a known function but whose inner workings were a mystery. We have since made incredible advances in our study of biochemistry and what we have discovered is that the very simplest cells (there are no simple cells) are incredibly complex and irreducibly so.
Add to this the nature of mutations (the supposed mechanism for natural selection to occur) and things just get worse for Darwin.
Here are just a very few examples of irreducibly complex biological systems:
Prior to battle, specialized structures called secretory lobes make a very concentrated mixture of two chemicals, hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone. The mixture is sent into a storage chamber called the collecting vesicle that is connected to, but ordinarily sealed off from, a second compartment called the explosion chamber. The two compartments are kept separate from one another by a duct with a sphincter muscle. Attached to the explosion chamber are a number of small knobs called ectodermal glands; these secrete enzyme catalysts into the explosion chamber at the right time to stimulate the chemical reaction that causes the explosion.
The components of this incredible system are:
It only gets worse for Darwin. Cilium contains tubulin, dynein, nexin, and several other connector proteins. If you inject these into a cell that lacks a cilium they do not automatically assemble to give a functioning cilium. Much more is required to obtain a cilium in a cell. Cilium contains over two hundred different kinds of proteins; the actual complexity of the cilium is enormously greater than what we have already considered.
To summarize, as biochemist have begun to examine apparently simple structures like cilia and flagella, they have discovered staggering complexity, with dozens or even hundreds of precisely tailored parts. It is very likely that many of the parts we have not considered here are required for any cilium to function in a cell. As the number of required parts increases, the difficulty of gradually putting the system together skyrockets, and the likelihood of indirect scenarios plummets. Darwin looks more and more forlorn. This problem will only get worse. Darwinian theory has given no explanation for the cilium or flagellum. The overwhelming complexity of the swimming systems push us to think it may never give an explanation.
As the number of systems that are resistant to gradualist explanation mounts, the need for a new kind of explanation grows more apparent. Cilia and flagella are far from the only problems for Darwinism.
When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (A picosecond is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single human hair.) The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The proteinís metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein, called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from GDP.)Ö
Thereís a lot more but I wonít subject you to it. Needless to say, vision is an extremely complex biological system that canít be explained by gradual, adaptive changes.
When a pressurized blood circulation system is punctured, a clot must form quickly or the animal will bleed to death. If blood congeals at the wrong time or place, though, then the clot may block circulation. Furthermore, a clot has to stop bleeding all along the entire length of the cut, sealing it completely. Yet the clotting must be confined to the cut or the entire blood system might solidify. Consequently, the clotting of blood must be tightly controlled so that the clot forms only when and where it is required.
Roughly 2 to 3 percent of the protein in blood plasma consists of a protein called fibrinogen which makes fibers that form clots. But fibrinogen is only the potential clot material, like a weapon waiting to be unleashed. Almost all of the other proteins involved in clotting control the timing and placement of the clot. Fibrinogen is a rod-shaped molecule that resembles a set of barbells with an extra set of weights in the middle of the bar.
Normally fibrinogen dissolves in plasma. It floats around, minding its own business until a cut causes bleeding. Then another protein, called thrombin, slices off several small pieces from two of the three pairs of protein chains in fibrinogen (now called fibrin) so that it now has sticky patches exposed on its surface. These patches are complementary to portions of other fibrin molecules and allow large numbers of fibrins to aggregate with each other. These do not stick randomly but form long threads that cross over each other making a pretty protein meshwork that entraps blood cells. This is the initial clot. This meshwork covers a large area with a minimum of protein; if it simply formed a lump, much more protein would be required to clog up an area (an efficient design).
If the only proteins involved in clotting were thrombin and fibrinogen, the process would be uncontrolled. Thrombin would quickly clip all the fibrinogen to make fibrin and a massive clot would form.
The body commonly stores enzymes in an inactive form for later use. The inactive forms are called proenzymes. When a signal is received that a certain enzyme is needed, the corresponding proenzyme is activated to give the mature enzyme. This is what happens in the clotting process.
A protein called Stuart factor cleaves prothrombin, turning it into active thrombin. Of course, even this isnít enough to clot blood in a controlled fashion. Stuart factor also exists in an inactive form that must be activated. This is whatís known as a cascade. It actually goes on to get infinitely more complicated and I wonít bore you with the details. I think I have made the point that this is an irreducibly complex biological system that we simply couldnít live without in all its complexity.
Clearly, if something was not put together gradually, then it must have been put together quickly or even suddenly. This is strong evidence or intelligent, purposeful design.
The scientific disciplines that were part of the evolutionary synthesis are all nonmolecular. Yet for the Darwinian theory of evolution to be true, it has to account for the molecular structure of life. It quite simply does not.
Billions of years ago, an incredible big bang came from nothing and nowhere, and sent a massive rock spinning through space.
As it cooled, a brown, sweet bubbly liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum crept out of the water and shaped itself into a can (which thankfully is just the right shape for the human hand), formed itself a lid, then a tab on the lid.
Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky and clung to the can, forming itself into the words, "COCA COLA Classic, Trademark, Original Formula, 12 FL OZ (355 ML)."
You may be feeling somewhat insulted, and so you should. Such irrationalism is beneath your intellectual dignity. You know that if the Coca-Coca can has a design, there must be a designer; if it is made, there must be a maker. The alternative, that it happened by accident, is unreasonable, illogical and unintelligent to say the least. Now, to bring what Iím saying to a point, take a look at any ordinary banana.
See also how the fruit has been made with a non-slip surface.
Note how the banana has been made with an outward indication of the inward condition of the contents-green-too early; yellow-just right; black-too late.
Now look at the top of it and see how, like the Coke can, it has been made with a "tab," so that it can be opened simply.
Notice that there are perforations on the wrapper, so that it will peel into four pieces and hang gracefully over the hand. This wrapper is environmentally sound, being made of a completely biodegradable substance, in time turning back into banana-growing soil.
Notice how the fruit is of a perfect size and shape for the human mouth, with a point at the top, for ease of entry.
It tastes good and is full of bodybuilding calories, and is easy for the stomach to digest.
And whatís more, the maker of the banana has even curved it towards the face to make the whole eating process much easier.
The apple has an advantage over the banana in that you may eat its "wrapper".
On the inside, you will find a chewy mouth-watering substance, which is pleasant to the taste buds and beneficial for the body.
When you get to the core of the substance, you will find something most of us take for granted. So that you wonít be disheartened when the apple is gone, the manufacturer has, completely free of charge, placed small black seeds in the middle. When these are placed into the soil, they form themselves into trees that produce more apples! (Itís self-replicating)
Mr. Bozart is right. If we accept Evolution as truth, then the gospel becomes totally unnecessary because thereís no original sin that we need salvation from. Death is not the result of sin but was simply a mechanism of Evolution.
For many, Evolution is such a stumbling block that they wonít even consider the gospel.
Now teaching creation will not save anyone. But it can go a long way to breaking down a serious barrier that prevents many from coming to Christ. My advice is simply to learn how to defend your faith, including the Genesis account of Godís supernatural creation.
This page created with Netscape Composer