Sunday, 31 January 2010

The Infinite Loop : An Evolutionary Noose

There are very many of these infinite loops in the biological world - and they cannot be closed or broken into apart from divine creation or intervention.

Here is one of the biggest.

The Cyanobacteria

The cyanobacteria are one of the earliest forms of life known, if not the earliest. They date back to 3.5 BILLION YEARS ago. So they say, anyway.

The cyanobacteria perform 2 functions which are absolutely mind-blowing, when you consider that they are probably the earliest form of life on the planet. They are found in huge bundles called stromatolites in many places on the earth's surface.

They carry out photosynthesis - which means that they possess that most complex system of biochemicals which includes chlorophyll.

Even more staggering, they fix atmospheric nitrogen directly. They convert the totally inert gas directly into biological compounds which other living things can use after the c-b's have died.

Now here's the noose, sorry, loop.

DNA is made up of molecules called nucleotides. Nucleotides can't be made without fixed nitrogen, because nitrogen gas simply does not combine with anything - especially not at temperatures at which life can survive.

Also, amino-acids, that essential component of proteins, cannot be made without fixed nitrogen.

So proteins cannot be made without amino-acids, which cannot be made without fixed nitrogen, which cannot be made without cyanobacteria.

The cyanobacteria cannot reproduce or make proteins without DNA, and both proteins and DNA REQUIRE fixed nitrogen.

So the circle closes permanently.

Without cyanobacteria - no fixed nitrogen is available.

Without fixed nitrogen, no DNA, no amino-acids, no protein can be synthesised.

Without DNA, no amino-acids,protein, or cyanobacteria are possible.

There are several other points here, in addition.

These bacteria also photosynthesise (a process requiring a large number of proteins, both in the execution of the reactions, and in the structure of the membranes of the chloroplasts). Let's say 30 for argument's sake.

They fix nitrogen - and so require that marvellous enzyme nitrogenase, which is really a combination of 2 separate enzymes, proteins to be precise.

None of these, as shown above, can be made without fixed nitrogen.

Nitrogen cannot be fixed without them. So which came first, the chicken or the egg?

But wait, cyanobacteria are facultative anaerobes - meaning that they can respire either aerobically or anaerobically.

The complexity of two respiratory cycles is very high: the Krebs cycle alone requiring about 12 enzymes, and the anaerobic requiring somewhat fewer, say 8.

So in order for the cyanobacteria to survive, about 40 enzymes are already involved - none of which can be made without fixed nitrogen. But the c-b's are doing the fixing! So the noose tightens.

Abiogenesis research is time-wasting. There is no way to break into this loop, which is a prime requirement if life originated from non-life.

Of course, it couldn't, and didn't.

Sunday, 24 January 2010

The Cyanobacteria: Evolution's Ignored Nightmare

INTRODUCTION

THE NITROGEN CYCLE

I am, and have long been, impressed with the great cycles in nature.

We see, inter alia, the carbon dioxide cycle, the oxygen cycle, the rain cycle and the nitrogen cycle.

Of these four, the nitrogen cycle has been of the greatest interest to me, because of its colossal importance to the survival of agriculture in all its forms.

We are faced with a tremendous problem, because nitrogen is one of the least reactive gases known, excepting only the rare gases of group 8 in the periodic table, such as helium. It just doesn't combine with anything under ordinary conditions.

The problem arises, of course, because nitrogen is an essential constituent of proteins and other substances, all needed for life to survive. No nitrogen: no proteins, no enzymes, no life. (By the way, when I say 'essential' I mean that survival is impossible without it.)

So how does nitrogen become available to living organisms? How could it?

The Almighty, as usual, has the answer that works perfectly.

Nitrogen becomes available in 3 ways:

1 Lightning discharges, at 30,000 deg C, force the combination of nitrogen and oxygen, to produce nitrogen dioxide, which dissolves in rain water to form nitric and nitrous acids, which then combine with compounds in the soil to produce nitrates and nitrites - which are utilisable by plants. So that's number one.

2 In the root nodules of leguminous plants, the bacterium Rhizobium leguminosarum has a symbiotic relationship with the plant. It 'fixes' atmospheric nitrogen, making it available to the plant, and in return, the plant provides the bacterium with salts etc for its survival. Curiously, haemoglobin is formed in the nodules too. It's role is not yet known with certainty, but researchers agree that it must have a function there.

Which, of course, drips another drop of poison into the evolutionist's already bitter cup: what on earth is haemoglobin doing in such a place? How does evolutionary biochemistry account for its existence? Well, easy. It can't. So nuts to evolutionary biochemistry.

3 By far, the greatest contribution to nitrogen fixation comes from the cyanobacteria. These bacteria have 'evolved (ho ho!)' the ability to take nitrogen from the air, [I wonder how they figured that little trick out???] convert it into their cellular material, and on dying, decompose and make nitrogen available to the soil. Without them, life would surely perish.

Just as an aside, it wasn't until 1918 that Haber and Bosch received  nobel prizes for inventing the process which took nitrogen from the air to make ammonia, using catalysts and very high temperatures. That's how difficult it is to do industrially. Yet, here were these little bacteria doing it for the last n billion years. At ambient temperature, give or take diurnal variation!!! So who deserves that Nobel Prize?

So in the beginning, not only was lack of oxygen a gigantic problem, but the lack of nitrogen was no less so. In order for the anaerobic organisms, whatever they might have been, to generate oxygen in quantity, they simply HAD to have nitrogen in their tissues (as enzymes etc). With nitrogen as unreactive as it is, then how did they fix it? The advanced nitrogen fixers hadn't 'evolved' yet.

So yet another evolutionary brick wall stares us in the face.


The Cyanobacteria - Evolution's Ignored nightmare
Section 1

I had not realised just how titanic a problem the cyanobacteria present to the theory of evolution. It is obvious that the Creator knew what was required for the continuance and maintenance of His Creation, and took all reasonable steps,requiring stupendous intelligence to make sure the Creation got what it needs now, and needed then.

Here is the story of those marvellous little organisms, the Cyanobacteria. Present from the beginning, and exactly the same today as they were then, they furnish us with absolute proof that evolution simply does not work. It doesn’t explain their origin, it hasn’t got the time available for them to originate by the chance combination of nucleotides or whatever, and it cannot explain their stability of design.

Apart from viruses and phages, they are the ‘simplest’ organisms known. And yet, despite their early origin, they possess those most complex substances, DNA, RNA, proteins and most impossible of all for evolution to explain, nitrogenase and chlorophyll. Where did all this complexity come from so early on? The quotes show that they appeared fully formed, and highly complex 3.3 to 3.5 BILLION years ago. The oldest rocks are only 3.8 billion years old – so there isn’t a gap there big enough to allow an evolutionary rat to squeeze through.

Creation is the only explanation of these facts.

Look at this description from JSTOR, which shows the complexity of the organisms.

“Prokaryotic genomes are considered to be ‘wall-to-wall’ genomes, which consist largely of genes for proteins and structural RNAs, with only a small fraction of the genomic DNA allotted to intergenic regions, which are thought to typically contain regulatory signals.” http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...ull/30/19/4264


Section 2

1 Their Extreme Age

"One of the earliest types of bacteria were the cyanobacteria. Fossil evidence indicates that bacteria shaped like these existed approximately 3.3 billion years ago and were the first oxygen-producing evolving phototropic organisms..."

They have the distinction of being the oldest known fossils, more than 3.5 billion years old, in fact! It may surprise you then to know that the cyanobacteria are still around; they are one of the largest and most important groups of bacteria on earth.

The oldest known fossils are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old. This may be somewhat surprising, since the oldest rocks are only a little older: 3.8 billion years old.

2 Their absolute perfection

Cyanobacteria are among the easiest microfossils to recognize. Morphologies in the group have remained much the same for billions of years, and they may leave chemical fossils behind as well, in the form of breakdown products from pigments.

They photosynthesize like all other autotrophic bacteria and are just as efficient.



3 Their Complexity

The cyanobacteria are PROKARYOTES, not eukaryotes like the algae.

They contain chlorophyll, enclosed in chloroplasts.

Although they are truly prokaryotic, cyanobacteria have an elaborate and highly organized system of internal membranes which function in photosynthesis. Chlorophyll a and several accessory pigments (phycoerythrin and phycocyanin) are embedded in these photosynthetic lamellae, the analogs of the eukaryotic thylakoid membranes. The photosynthetic pigments impart a rainbow of possible colors: yellow, red, violet, green, deep blue and blue-green cyanobacteria are known.

Here's a diagram of a chloroplast:



4 Their critical role in life support

The oxygen atmosphere that we depend on was generated by numerous cyanobacteria during the Archaean and Proterozoic Eras. Before that time, the atmosphere had a very different chemistry, unsuitable for life as we know it today.

They were responsible for the initial conversion of the earth's atmosphere from an anoxic state to an oxic state (that is, from a state without oxygen to a state with oxygen) during the period 2.7 to 2.2 billion years ago. Being the first to carry out oxygenic photosynthesis, they were able to produce oxygen while sequestering carbon dioxide in organic molecules, playing a major role in oxygenating the atmosphere.

Cyanobacteria also play a major role in the nitrogen cycle. They are able to convert atmospheric nitrogen into its organic form. All plants use organic nitrogen as a nutrient to promote growth. Without this source of nitrogen, the plants would die. Cyanobacteria are one of the few types of organisms that are able to make this conversion from atmospheric to organic nitrogen.

Sources: Several articles on cyanobacteria.

Thursday, 21 January 2010

Tiktaalik and the Tetrapods

The evolution of tetrapods (4-footed animals) has remained a mystery.

It is absolutely remarkable that evolutionists can even begin to think that fishes evolved into four-footed amphibians, but that is exactly what they think. To be fair, they do admit that the gaps are wide, but they have suddenly become wider.

First, here are a couple of quotes to show that they do admit that the gaps are wide:

“The relationship of limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) to lobe-finned fish (sarcopterygians) is well established,[yeah, Like the coelacanth?] but the origin of major tetrapod features has remained obscure for lack of fossils that document the sequence of evolutionary changes.

(Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin, and Farish A. Jenkins, “A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan,” Nature Vol 440: 757-763 (April 6, 2006))


"It has long been clear that limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) evolved from osteolepiform lobefinned fishes3, but until recently the morphological gap between the two groups remained frustratingly wide. The gap was bounded at the top by primitive Devonian tetrapods such as Ichthyostega and Acanthostega from Greenland, and at the bottom by Panderichthys, a tetrapod-like predatory fish from the latest Middle Devonian of Latvia (Fig. 1)."

(Jennifer A. Clack & Per Erik Ahlberg, "A firm step from water to land," Nature 440:747-749 (April 6, 2006); emphasis added)

It is truly astonishing how presumably competent biologists can fool themselves.

There are so many simply gigantic problems involved in the supposed transition from fish to amphibian or reptile that are simply swept under the carpet, it leads one to wonder where these people got their qualifications.

The veriest child knows that any fish, like its goldfish,left out of water, will shortly die.

Its gills are designed to function in water, and simply cannot do so in the air. Therefore, whichever fish the evolutionist cares to choose as the fancied ancestor of amphibian or reptile had to overcome this basic problem first.

To put it simply, it is just plain stupid to think that could happen.

Every day thousands of fish caught by fishermen die in the air. That's thousands of experiments being carried out to show that no fish can survive out of water. NOT ONE SUCH FISH HAS SURVIVED FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME. Ask any fisherman!

Here's an idiotic statement (typical of this kind of foolish thinking):

"Most scientists believe the amphibians evolved (developed gradually) from the lobe-finned fish. Lobe-finned fish had lungs and enlarged fins supported by bones and muscles. They could use their fins as legs to come out of the water for brief periods. These fins probably developed into amphibian legs.
http://www.worldbook.com/wb/Students?content_spotlight/dinosaurs/creatures_fish

Ever heard such nonsense?

The fish crept out on land for brief periods - and asphyxiated. The faster they asphyxiated, the faster they evolved! It's hard to credit the stupidity of that idea, but because it emerged from some university, it is supposed to be an intelligent concept. The most stupid fisherman could tell those professors that they're wrong, mad, or on mushrooms.

I don't know which. You must choose, dear reader.

But that's not the only problem!

Look at these diagrams of the skeleton of a fish and a tetrapod:



http://www.infovisual.info/02/034_en.html

Let's make the first point here.

Look at the 'pectoral fin' and the 'pelvic fin'.

Do you see that neither of them IS CONNECTED TO THE BACKBONE IN ANY WAY, either directly or indirectly?

OK. That's a typical bony fish.

Now here's the skeleton of a frog, a typical amphibian.



http://www.k-state.edu/organismic/images/frog_skeleton.jpg

See any differences? Yes, of course.

There are bones in the frog's forelimbs, AND THEY ARE CONNECTED TO THE scapula (shoulder blade) WHICH IS A PART OF THE AXIAL SKELETON as it's called.

There is NO connection between the fins of a fish and the axial skeleton.

QUESTION: How the connection ever made?

ANSWER: It wasn't.

Now look at the star performers in the Tetrapod Evolution Circus Parade.




Do you see any connection between these things and the fins of fish? Look back at the fins of the bony fish above, and decide for yourself.

Now suppose, and we'll use Tiktaalik as an example that this fish ever came out on to land. I said 'fish' because that's what the discoverers called it. Here's wiki on the subject:

Tiktaalik is a genus of extinct sarcopterygian (lobe-finned) fish

Give the artists half a chance, and they'd have Tiktaalik flying! Here's a picture of one - just before it dashed back into the water before it dried out! Or is it dead because it dried out?

What reason does it have for being there anyway? After all, its food is in the water and has been for millions of years. Or has it just decided to take a walk to stretch its non-existent legs?



Just listen to Shubin (guess what, he was one of the discoverers of Tikaalik, and is busy hyping it up, with no evidence at all beside his overheated imagination) "It probably had lungs as well as gills, and it had overlapping ribs that could be used to support the body against gravity, Shubin said.

Did you get that? This creature (which, Clack, one of the other discoverers said was more like a fish than anything else) PROBABLY HAD LUNGS AS WELL AS GILLS!

Now what was it doing with both - and most important of all WHY did it have them, and HOW DID IT GET THEM?

There's another serious point which is never mentioned. In most fishes, the pelvic fins are a lot SMALLER than the pectoral fins. In ALL TETRAPODS, the hind limbs are the biggest, usually by a long way. Think of a kangaroo, the most extreme example. How did that arrangement come about?

Marvellous.

But let's now apply the instinct test.

Here's a fish, breathing with gills. It has the instincts to do so.

Here's a creature breathing with lungs AND gills. Allegedly.

Quite apart from the stupidity of a fish evolving the physical structures of lungs - and they are TOTALLY DIFFERENT TO GILLS - which would have filled up with water, drowning the poor brute, where did it get the instincts from TO USE the lungs, if its ancestors had been doing quite well, thank you, with gills before that?

To use our famous little diagram again:

Fish F (using gills) ------ X ------> Tiktaalik (using gills AND LUNGS)

What happened at X?

Tiktaalik was considered to be one of the ancestors of tetrapods, with much blowing of trumpets and evolutionist chortling.

Alas, alas! Woe is them, they are undone!

This very month (Jan 2010) an article was published in Nature which caused one of the editors (Henry Gee) to write this:

The best discoveries are those that overturn current thinking, revealing that what we thought, only yesterday, to have been a coherent and complete picture, is in fact a void that no discoveries can yet fill. Such is the report in tomorrow’s Nature (Nied┼║wiedzki et al., 463, 43-48, 7 January 2010) of footprints left by tetrapods (four legged land vertebrates) eighteen million years older than the earliest known tetrapod fossils, and ten million years older than the fossils of the creatures thought to be the closest relatives of tetrapods. A fairly complete picture of tetrapod evolution, built up over the past twenty years, has been replaced by a blank canvas overnight.

In other words, it's "Back to the drawing board, fellow evolutionist guessers! It was all wrong, dammit!"

You really must read the article. It's here: http://network.nature.com/people/henrygee/blog/2010/01/05/first-footing

But this tetrapod thing was a major plank in the support for evolution, with new 'transitional fossils' being found at a rate of knots every day!

So what's going to happen next month? Where are you going to run, dear evolutionists, if another major plank is blasted next month?

And they will be. Just you wait and see.


NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!


“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus


AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!


Nearly 50,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

Go here for your copy. £4.95

MY NEW BOOK: HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE


NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!


“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus


AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!


Nearly 50,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

140 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here.


Published by phillauren.org

THE EVOLUTION OF FLIGHT

Perhaps I may be allowed a few words on this, the most fatal argument against evolution.

Imagine reptile X no feathers, no wings.

Imagine some mutation (systemic, enormous as per Goldschmidt) and lo and behold, we have the first bird, B -as I said, warmblooded, fully feathered, with wings instead of reptile forelimbs, one way lung circulation instead of bellows arrangement, etc etc.

One may well say, that is a creative act, just taken place, but we'll let that pass.

Diagrammatically:

X (reptile) ----Mutation --------> B (bird, with wings etc)

Now what does B do?

One of 2 things:

a. gets eaten by the parent reptile who thinks it's food

b. attempts to fly off into the distance

BUT IT DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO FLY!!!


As we all know, flight training is a complex affair. If we were to put an untrained person into the cockpit of a fighter aircraft, saying 'Get on with it', disaster is guaranteed.

In order to fly, that bird MUST HAVE THE INSTINCTS REQUIRED. Else disaster is guaranteed. Those instincts are complex, and built into every flying bird.

We know that because young fledglings are shoved out of their parents' nests - AND THEY FLY OR DIE.

So we now have 2 diagrams:

X ------- M-------> B (without flight instincts)---> death/extinction)

or

X----M-----I.I ---->B (with flight instincts) ---> gone to Hawaii.

I.I = instinct implantation.

There can be NO intermediate steps. The bird either knew how to fly, or it died. If we postulate a gliding intermediate, then that too requires training/instinct.

I'm sure you would think twice before leaping off the top of a high tree or cliff if you didn't KNOW how to hang-glide.

So the question before us is, who or what implanted that instinct, and how?

NEWS FLASH!


NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!


“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus


AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!


35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

140 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here.

Published by phillauren.org

THE BUCKET ORCHID



THE BUCKET ORCHID

Darwin in his book 'On the pollination and fertilisation of Orchids' included a description of the pollination of the Bucket Orchid, Coryanthes speciosa.

He was so surprised on receiving the description that until he checked and found that it was a respectable botanist who had made the report, he would not credit it.

The BBC have filmed it happening, and the film is probably available from them.

The orchid's labellum is shaped as a bucket, and above the bucket, on another petal, is a gland which secretes a liquid, probably water, which drips into the bucket and accumulates in it.
There are some photos here:
http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/categ...006/06/29.html

The bucket possesses three remarkable features.

1 Cut into the outer side of the bucket, away from the main flower structure, is a slit, which functions as an overflow: so when the liquid reaches a level about half a centimetre BELOW the upper edge of the bucket, it overflows, so at no time is it ever full to the brim.

2 On the opposite side, inside the bucket, and below the level of the liquid, is what looks for all the world like a little step.

3 The outer lip of the bucket is made of some material which is intensely attractive to the blue euglossine male bee.

The bees come and struggle to get at the lip of the bucket, and of course, in the struggles one falls in sooner or later.

Because the walls of the bucket are smooth, he cannot get a grip EXCEPT at the point where there is the aforementioned step. Wet and bedraggled, he climbs on to the step and out, right into the heart of the flower.

As he enters the tube formed by the other petals, he is suddenly clamped and held for a few moments, unable to move or escape, and on to his back, the anthers are pressed.


On the anthers, there is a glue, which takes exactly the same amount of time to dry, as he is held motionless. It dries, he buzzes off, and goes to another flower where the process is repeated - and so the pollen from the anthers reaches the stigma, thus fertilising the orchid.

Darwin also noted that a phenomenon known as pollinarium bending occurred. The term refers to the manner in which orchid pollinaria start to bend after an 18- to 20-second interval after attaching to a visiting insect. The bending mechanism prevents self-pollination of the orchid.

It so happens that only one species of bee comes to a particular species of Coryanthes.

The probability of these features coming together by chance is astronomically small.

1 The structure of the labellum as a bucket is remarkable in itself

2 The gland above is obviously placed there to produce the liquid for the bucket. Imagine it producing liquid with no bucket there, or a bucket there with no liquid coming!

3 The overflow is there for the designed purpose of preventing the liquid from flowing out, over the top of the bucket. If it could flow over the top, the bee, when he fell in, could simply float out over the edge, and thus defeat the purpose of the exercise.

4 The little step, contrived and placed there for the express purpose of preventing the bee drowning, also forces him to enter the heart of the flower.

5 The flower has a designed clamping action, with a timer built in, exactly matched to the drying time of the glue on the anthers.

6 The anthers stick to his back, and do not impede his flight to another plant after he has dried off.

7 The stigma of the flower is positioned on the top petal of the flower, to make sure that it is in the correct position to receive the pollen when the bee arrives. If it was on the underside of the flower, then it would never receive any pollen.

We won't go into the complexities of anther construction until the post on mitosis and meiosis are completed.

8 The glue on the anthers is exactly right for the purpose, and its chemical composition known, and the manufaturing technique as well.

Having read all that, it is no wonder that Darwin staggered at the description. He said that the orchids employed a 'beautiful contrivance' to avoid self pollination.

The question of how all this evolved clearly didn't arise in his mind, or else he pushed it to the back of it. But who contrived the contrivance?

Explanations?

NEWS FLASH!


NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!


“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus


AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!


35,000 viewers of my articles (update 15th June 2010: nearly 50,000 views!!!) can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here.

Published by phillauren.org

THE FIG WASP

THE FIG WASP

I've put up some amazing things, but this is certainly one of the highest ranking. Judge for yourself.

The fig tree has a tightly closed inflorescence, which means that the hundreds of tiny flowers (florets to give them their proper name) are completely inclosed inside the fig. They can't be seen from the outside.



Each species of fig seems to be pollinated by only ONE species of wasp! There are about 730 species of fig so that would seem to require 730 species of wasp- but not all of these are known as yet.

How do the insects find the flowers?

When the tree is ready for pollination, it releases tree-specific volatile substances which the wasp tracks down to their source. Lo and behold, there's the flower, or the inflorescence, rather.

So the female finds the inflorescence. Thousands die in the search process though, because it's a big world out there.

How do they get in?

When she finds it, there is another big hurdle to cross. The entrance to the inflorescence (called the ostiole) is extremely small, and lined with bracts, which are placed there to keep out the unwanted. They fit tightly, and that makes life very difficult for the unwanted, but no less so for the wasp, to get in.

She, however, has been explicitly designed for this very task.

Her head and thorax (chest) are extremely flattened and elongated: just the job for squeezing past the bracts! ('Remarkably adapted' is the description. Ho ho ho!) Her 'teeth', on her mandibular apparatus, point backwards, and she's got teeth on her hind legs, also pointing backwards. They do so in order to prevent her from slipping out!



Her wings very often break off in the struggle to get in - so once in there, there's no way back.

Once inside, she sets about, in complete or nearly complete darkness, to pollinate the stigmas, and to lay eggs in some of the ovules. She distinguishes between those ovules which are going to become seeds, and those which are not.

Those ovules whose styles are too long for her ovipositor to reach the ovule, she simply pollinates.

Those ovules her ovipositor can reach, she leaves unpollinated, so they will only contain her larvae.

This makes certain that the plant will survive, and that her larvae will have food to eat.

What happens then? She dies. Her young never see her alive, and can't copy her actions - but they do exactly the same as she did.

As the eggs develop and hatch out into larvae, the eat the endosperm of the ovules they have been laid in, and they grow into adulthood.

The males mate with the females, and amazingly, chew a hole in the wall of the maturing or matured fig SO THAT THE FEMALES CAN GET OUT.

Then they die.


The females in the meantime, load up with pollen, or get covered in it, and then set off to find another flower inflorescence.

EVOLUTIONARY DIFFICULTIES

1 How do we explain the fact that the young never see the adult in action - and yet they do exactly the same as she does?

2 How do the males know that unless they dig a hole, the females won't get out, the plants won't get pollinated, and their own species will die out?

3 How is it that only the fig wasp pollinates the fig flowers? Without the wasp, as with the bucket orchid, the fig will die out, and without the fig, the wasp will die out?

4 How did the female 'develop' the elongated and flattened shape that enables her to get into the ostiole?

5 How is it thar her ovipositor length has become the determining factor in whether the ovules get pollinated or not? If it was too long, then no pollination would take place. If it was too short, then the eggs would not be laid. So who or what determined that length?

6 How did this relationship, as specific and complicated as it is, ever get started?

7 Where did the plant get the necessary chemical knowledge to produce the volatile substances which attract the wasps, and how did it know that it would attract them anyway?

8 Where did the insects get the brain to figure out that if they followed the scent, they would find a fig they could pollinate?

It happens, that once the fig is pollinated, and the females have left the fig, its colour and smell change, and it becomes attractive to the fruit eating community like birds, bats, monkeys etc etc.

Does God take thought for wasps? And figs? And birds? And monkeys? Obviously, He does!

Here's another account: http://figs4fun.com/Links/FigLink006a.pdf

The common fig is a member of the genus Ficus. Ficus is a large genus with some 2000 tropical and subtropical tree, shrub and vine species distributed around the whole world.

The fruit of all ficus species isthe syconium, an enlarged, fleshy and hollow peduncle bearing closely massed tiny flowers on its inner wall. The true fruits are tiny drupelets which develop from these flowers.

The problem is these flowers are borne on the inside of the syconium. They never open to the outside world like respectable roses, cabbages and oak trees.

How do they get pollinated?

That's their weird sex life. Hold on for this is complicated.

F. carica and some closely related species come in two basic forms: edible figs and caprifigs. Caprifigs are the host of the fig pollinator Blastophages psenes or fig wasp which lays its eggs in the caprifig's short-styled female flowers.

The male fig wasp grows, mates and dies inside the caprifig fruit in which he is born. The female is more adventuresome.

She leaves the caprifig fruit through its ostiole or eye (picking up a lot of pollen in the process) and flies off in search of a new fruit at the right stage of development in which to lay her eggs.

The kicker is this: female fig wasps lay so many eggs in each caprifig fruit that very few, if any, of the female flowers ever produce seeds. Not good for ficus species survival.

Evolution (or God, if you prefer) provided a solution: the edible fig.

The plant and fruit look just like those of the caprifig, but have two important differences: no male flowers, and the female flowers have long styles which prevent the fig wasp from laying her eggs.

If she enters the fruit of an edible fig, she searches desperately for, but finds no suitable female flowers. As she does, she scatters the pollen she picked up leaving the caprifig. And, this pollenizes (or caprifies) the edible fig. When caprified, each fruit will produce several hundred to several thousand seeds per fruit, depending on the variety.

Not so great for the individual fig wasp, but good for the ficus species. Overall, the situation benefits both figs and fig wasps. There are plenty of caprifigs to nourish the fig wasps and plenty of edible figs to produce fig seeds which develop into fig and caprifig plants.

NEWS FLASH!


NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!


“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus


AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!


35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.






CDR Version






Published by phillauren.org

THE MIRACLE OF ILLOGIC

THE MIRACLE OF ILLOGIC


NEWS FLASH!


NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!


“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus


AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!


35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.






CDR Version






Published by phillauren.org


I am always amazed when I hear of some anthropologist finding a crude, brutishly made, blunt, prehistoric stone axe. Because, immediately, they leap upon it, with great cries of triumphant glee, crowing happily that our ancestors made it, and it was xyzanthropus wot did it n thousand years ago.

The product of human intelligence they cry! See, hominids made it. Or something else did. And look how advanced it is! Why, there's a slot here for the haft of the axe to fit in! And some indentations where the binding was attached to hold the device together. And look! There's a few skulls nearby with marks of an axe indented into them! That proves that xyzanthropus used tools as weapons! A tool maker, and a weapons maker! A mark of extremely advanced stages of human evolution!

Little realising that this is really a ton of garbage.

That blunt, crude stone axe is mark of human intelligence of very high order for the time, they say.

But then, the same evolutionary palaeontologist finds a fossilised flight feather. Or some tissue with DNA in it.

That flight feather, or fossil thereof, shows considerable amounts of aeronautical engineering skill, enabling us to know that the bird could and did fly. It is clearly designed for the purpose.

In the DNA are millions of coded, precisely detailed instructions, for the construction of that feather, far surpassing anything even modern Homo sapiens can construct.

And yet, they cannot see that that feather, and that DNA could not possibly have evolved. Nobody in their right senses would claim that the stone axe evolved. But they claim the feather and the DNA did.

It takes a Miracle of Illogic to make that leap.

THE ARCTIC ROSE

THE ARCTIC ROSE
http://ucdnema.ucdavis.edu/imagemap/...10/pollbio.htm

Got a satellite dish which can track a satellite?

Well, I've got news for you: this plant beat your gadget's designers to it.

In the arctic, heat is at a premium. And so, the arctic rose attracts the insects which pollinate it with the freebie of heat!

The little arctic rose is shaped like a radio telescope monitoring outer space: but for a far more useful purpose.

The parabola shape of its petals gathers and reflects heat from the sun's rays as well as foil, and focusses warmth on the stamens and the stigma!

Both food (nectar and pollen) and warmth (from the parabolic structure) are available to the insects here - so they come to these private sun traps, which are about 10 degrees warmer than elsewhere. They themselves become warmer and better able to fly in very short time, and move on to the next solar heated flower!

They've got to work hard, because the Greenland summer is only about 5 weeks, even though there are nearly 24 hours of daylight. Therefore the plant has to keep warm all day.

So how does it do it? Its stem rotates because of its extraordinary design, and it tracks the sun 24 hours per day, being never more than 2 degrees off course!

So evolution lads, how did this one evolve?

1 Let's leave aside the meiosis and mitosis questions - ie how does the plant figure out that its gametes (sex cells) must contain half the required number of chromosomes.

2 How did it know that it had to get insects in to pollinate itself? And how did it know there were such things as insects, anyway?

3 How did it figure out that warmth and food are essential to insects?

4 How did it conceive the idea of a nice reflective parabolic shape that would focus (focus? - what's that in plant language?) the heat on the stigma and stamens?

5 How did it invent the tracking device, which allows it to know that there IS a sun, where that sun is, and alter its position to follow the sun?

6 And how did it get the plans for the tracking device into its own genes when it had figured out everything else?


NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!


“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus


AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!


35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.






CDR Version





Published by phillauren.org

THE ARCHERFISH

THE ARCHERFISH (Toxotes spp)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10268.html

Still on the theme of being able to see both under water and in the air, we have this lovely little specimen called the archerfish.

A New Scientist article describes it thus:

Awesome skills of spitting archerfish revealed


The Indo-Pacific fish is able to spit water at its prey out of the water, and hit it. A video shows a fish leaping out of the water to catch an insect.

"Scientists had thought their hunting technique was an unsophisticated skill, based on blasts of water with a "spit and hope" quality.

However, in 2004 researchers showed that these fish are able to precisely judge the size and position of prey above the water line, taking into account the distorting effect on light of passing from air to water."

There's another fascinating feature. The mouthparts are poked out of the water when firing the blast.



That means 2 things at least.

1 The eyes are UNDERWATER while the gun is OUT of the water in the air. Imagine underwater frogmen with a gun firing at a helicopter. They can only see the target, and have no radar, sonar or other aid. What are the chances? And remember, they have brains.

2 Somehow the fish has figured out that if it remains too far UNDERWATER, the jet will be either weakened or won't reach the surface because of water resistance. So it sticks its mouth out of the water.

Their mouthparts are specially designed to enable this unique phenomenon to take place. As far as I know, no other fish in the world can do this accurate spitting, and therefore this is an evolutionary nightmare: no relatives, no gradual acquisition of the necessary physical characteristics, and definitely no acquisition of the instinctive behaviour pattern. No common ancestors.

So where did it come from?

Here is the obligatory, stupid comment: "This suggests the behaviour is evolutionarily "hardwired" and not subject to learning, the researchers say."

Not learned. Right there in our faces. Where did it come from?

Let me point out the difficulties any evolutionary theory has to face.

1 The unique mouthparts. No other fish has them, and they have to work first time, or the fish would have starved. They don't eat anything else.

DIET

Archerfish prey mainly on insects, which are shot down from overhanging branches with a strong and accurate jet of water. They form a spitting tube by positioning their tongue against a groove on the roof of their mouth.

Water is forced through this tube by quickly snapping shut their gills creating a very effective water pistol. For maximum accuracy the tip of their snout extends out of the water while the rest of the body remains submerged. They direct the jet of water with the tip of their tongue.

1. How did they learn to do this with the mouthparts when they've got them?
Remember the question: "Duh! Now what the hell do I do with this??"

2 The ability to take account of the differences in refractive index of water and air. From underwater, an insect would appear to be somewhere else than directly above the fish, and not in a straight line. Somehow the fish corrects for this. How?

3 How does a fish calculate that it will take more force to blast a bigger prey off its perch into the water? It obviously does, says the article - so where did this bit of 'fishy intelligence' come from?

ArcherFish: Changing Caliber to Fit Prey
by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

"A fish learning the laws of optics is an amazing feat. But to combine those optical laws with the precision shooting of a sniper and then calculating the force of the shot according to the size of the prey (in order to obtain food), defies evolutionary explanation.

How was this creature able to “evolve” these distinctive abilities, and furthermore, why go through all the trouble? Why not just eat aquatic animals like other fish?"


Heidi Hardman remarked:

In a series of experiments, the researchers showed that the fish do not learn this by remembering which combinations of spatial configurations and the corresponding images were rewarding in the past. Rather, the fish extracted the underlying law that connects spatial configuration and apparent size. This remarkable cognitive ability allows the fish to readily judge a target’s objective size from underwater views they have never encountered before (2004).

Random mutations, anyone? Thought so.


NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!


“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus


AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!


35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.






CDR Version






Published by phillauren.org

THE FOUR-EYED FISH

NEWS FLASH!

NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!


“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus


AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!


35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.






CDR Version






Published by phillauren.org

THE FOUR-EYED FISH (Anableps spp.)

http://whozoo.org/Intro2000/rafajohn/tempagetwo.htm

"The fish does not actually have four eyes, but the eye is divided to allow the fish to see both above and below the waterline. A narrow band of epithelium divides the upper and lower halves of the eye.


Each half of the eye has a separate pupil, iris and cornea, but the retina is divided. Both halves of the eye use the same lens, with the upper light path traveling through the short axis of the lens, while the lower light path travels through the long axis.

This dual use of the lens corrects for the different behavior of light in air and in water, with the underwater lens face more strongly curved. The underwater half of the eye projects an image to the upper half of the retina, while the part of the eye above water projects to the lower retina.

The upper eye must be occasionally wetted to prevent dehydration, but when the fish is completely submerged, the image from the upper half of the eye is out of focus."

Here is another very informative article about the eye, diagrams and all:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/tp.bridges/anableps2.html,

We mentioned the Trilobite eye, and it's correction for spherical aberration by the use of calcite lenses in the ommatidia.

Here now is another remarkable eye. IT CORRECTS FOR seeing in the water, and seeing out of the water, and can apparently see both AT THE SAME TIME. And obviously, makes sense of what it does see!

I wonder what Dawkins would say about this one.

1. Both types of eye are built in to a single eye structure

2. The fish obviously has stereoscopic vision

3. So it has the necessary nervous structure, and instinctive behaviour to match

4. Most remarkably of all, the eye corrects for above water, and underwater viewing. The refractive indices of the two mediums are widely different.

So Who knew about all that when designing the fish?

LIFE CYCLE OF THE LIVER FLUKE

There is something ugly in this article.

This example may be gruesome in some ways, but it does demonstrate what I consider to be an unevolvable phenomenon.



The mature liver fluke lives in the bile duct of a mammal.

It is a flat, leaf shaped organism when mature, which is hermaphrodite, containing both testes and an ovary.

It produces eggs, self-fertilised, which pass into the mammal's duodenum. Strangely enough, they are not digested by the proteolytic enzymes produced by the pancreas.

The eggs pass out in the faeces of the animal in an unembryonated state. They take 2 weeks or so to develop into 'miracidia' as they are called, which are actively mobile, and swim using flagella, no less.

A snail, coming into contact with the miracidia, is penetrated by them, and they burrow into the snail's digestive tract, where a 'sporocyst' forms: completely different in appearance to the flagellated miracidium.

Inside this structure, a 'redia' forms, which is again completely unlike the sporocyst, and inside the redia, another quite different form develops called a 'cercaria'. Inside one redia, many cercaria form and eventually there are so many of them, the snail dies. Each cercaria looks like a tadpole with a tail.

The cercaria erupt out of the snails tissues, find wet grass blades, and swim up the film of water, and then encyst, in which form they are able to resist drying out to a limited but not indefinite extent.

The cyst is now ingested by the mammal as it eats the grass. It survives the passage through the rumen, the reticulum, the omasum and the abomasum - the four stomachs of a ruminant animal - and when it reaches the duodenum the cyst wall digests, and the young parasite emerges.

Amazingly, it burrows its way through the duodenal wall, into the peritoneal cavity, and finds its way to the liver. There it feeds on the host's blood, grows to maturity, and then, again remarkably, makes its way into the bile duct where it lays its eggs, and the cycle begins again.

IMPOSSIBILITIES

It would be difficult to imagine a life cycle like this: but there it is.

Every stage is preparatory to the next, and any failure to develop say the redia, would mean the end of the life cycle.

So the young swim.

They produce digestive enzymes to penetrate the snail.
Having penetrated the snail they become something totally different.

Where did the instinctive behaviour come from? At what point in the parasite's evolution did it decide to enter a snail? And when it entered, why did it decide to go through 2 phases?

How did it know that it had to get out of the snail's body and on to the grass? And why grass which would be eaten by mammals? It then encysts - in order to pass through the mammal's stomach(s).

How could it be that the cyst's material resist the digestive juices of 4 ruminant stomachs? And then, conveniently digests in the duodenal juices?

But the young parasite itself is not digested! It somehow has the equipment to bore its way through the duodenal wall, and in the darkness of the peritoneal cavity finds its way unerringly to the liver. As if it knew the anatomy of the sheep!

And finally, it somehow finds its way into the bile duct - the only place where it could possibly lay its eggs and be certain that they would enter the sheep's alimentary canal again.

This life cycle is complex to the nth degree. Everything had to be in place AT ONCE for this to happen: the liver of the sheep, the gall bladder, the snail, the grass, the sheep's grass eating habit.

It is totally inexplicable on any evolutionary hypothesis.




NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!


“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus


AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!


35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.






CDR Version






Published by phillauren.org

BIRDS’ LUNGS

NEWS FLASH!


NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!


“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus


AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!


35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.






CDR Version






Published by phillauren.org


BIRDS’ LUNGS

As Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”

Here’s a prize example which pulverises it completely.

One of the very biggest stumbling blocks to the theory of evolution by gradual steps or in mighty leaps, is that group of magnificent creatures, the birds.

The theory at present, holds that the birds evolved from the reptiles. That the scales of reptiles somehow became frayed out and turned into feathers over millions and millions of years.

Look carefully at the scales on this snake.



Here’s a flight feather:



I’m sure you can see some of the visible problems involved in producing the flight feather from the scale. When we look at the detailed structure of the feather, the problems become astronomical, and the evolution proposal hopelessly absurd.

That somehow, a torpid, cold-blooded reptile turned into the warm-blooded bird with probably the highest metabolic rate in the animal kingdom. (In case the pedants are out in force, I am referring to the ectothermic and endothermic animals. Ectotherms have variable body temperatures, endotherms have constant body temperatures).

Whatever problems evolving that lot involved, they pale into insignificance in the presence of the one fact which I shall now describe. It is the difference between the lung of a reptile, and the lung of a bird.

To crudely illustrate the problems that the evolutionist has to account for, think of an ordinary balloon with air entering and leaving the balloon constantly full or partially deflated.

It enters the neck, goes into the balloon, and is squeezed out. BOTH INFLOW AND OUTFLOW USE THE SAME NECK. So air that is going to go out of the balloon, can mix with the air that’s just coming in. There is TWO WAY airflow.

That’s a reptile’s lung, very similar to ours. There’s a MIXTURE of incoming and outgoing air in our lungs.

Now think of one of those long, thin balloons, like the ones used at parties to make dogs and so forth, with a hole AT BOTH ENDS.

Bend it into a U shape, and blow into one end.

Air goes in at one end, and out the other, rather like a jet engine or a wind tunnel.

That’s how the bird’s lung works. IT USES ONE WAY TRAFFIC. There is NO MIXING of incoming and outgoing air.

How does the first sort of lung (in the reptile) become the second kind (in the bird)?

No evolutionary explanation for that fact is possible, and to hypothesise dinosaurs with feathers running round and turning into birds is a complete nonsense. Their lungs say so. As Michael Denton says:

“Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes.”

So imagine a reptile whose lungs developed a big hole in the bottom for the air to flow through. Guess what? Yeah.

“Just as the feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and barbules are coadapted to fit together perfectly, so the avian lung cannot function as an organ of respiration until the parabronchi system which permeates it and the air sac system guarantees the parabronchi their air supply are both highly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated manner.”

Those are the headlines. Here is some more detail so any interested parties can examine them and satisfy themselves that the above description is correct. Follow the blue arrows in the exhalation diagram (the top one) and the inhalation diagram (below) to see that there is no mixing of incoming and outgoing air.

The advantageis that air, high in oxygen content, always moves unidirectionally through the lungs.”

Here is a more pictorial representation of exhalation. Just follow the blue arrows.




and inhalation:





The system is described as a counter-current/flow system, where air with the highest concentration of oxygen meets blood with the lowest concentration of oxygen across the membranes. It is an extremely efficient system, used by intelligent design engineers to maximize heat exchange or other. “In counter-flow heat exchangers the fluids enter the exchanger from opposite ends. The counter current design is most efficient, in that it can transfer the most heat.” Wiki.

Now you’ve looked at those facts, can you imagine how the one system could have evolved from the other?

Denker also raises the interesting point that “the avian lung cannot be inflated out of a collapsed state as happens in all other vertebrates after birth. … the air capillaries are never collapsed as are the alveoli of other vertebrate species; rather as they grow into lung tissue, the parabronchi are from the beginning open tubes filled either with air or fluid (which is later absorbed into the blood capillaries).”

This set of facts alone finishes any idea that a bird evolved from anything. This kind of breathing occurs nowhere else in the vertebrates. Birds have no ‘common ancestors’ - nor even close relatives.

Therefore birds are a completely unique creation, and did not ‘evolve’ from anything else.

I cannot see any possible mechanism whereby this could have evolved, and it is up to the gallant rearguard-fighting proponents to produce some explanation or the other, fanciful or otherwise. I think Goldschmidt’s idea was probably the best:

PS

Nice summary here:

http://www.science.org.au/nova/newsc.../104ns_002.htm

“When a bird breathes in, air does not go directly into the lungs. Instead, it enters the air sacs, where it is stored briefly before passing into the lungs at the next inhalation. In this way, air enters and exits a bird's lungs at different points - in via the air sacs, out via the windpipe - allowing them to maintain near-constant, one-way airflow through their lungs. This allows a countercurrent system to be set up between the air and the bloodstream, with air passing in one direction and blood in the other. The result is far more efficient gas exchange between air and blood than is possible in lizards, or even mammals.

The differences between animals that use air sacs and those that don't are striking. Birds extract more oxygen from the air than any other animal of comparable size. At sea level they are 33 per cent more efficient at extracting oxygen than mammals. At 1500 metres a bird may be 200 per cent more efficient. This gives birds a huge advantage over mammals at altitude. It also explains why geese can migrate over the Himalayas at an altitude that would kill a human.”
__________________

""This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.""—Sir Isaac Newton

PLANTS AND THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

PLANTS AND THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION:

WHERE DID THE FLOWERING PLANTS COME FROM?


We have seen that evolution has no explanation to offer for the absolutely gigantic phenomenon of instinct’s origin.

The migrating birds are only the tip of a gigantic iceberg: because as I have said before, EVERY function which supports life is instinctive: from breathing, eating, reproducing, moving etc – instinct is universal in the living world.

However, it is the Plant Kingdom which presents, in my opinion, the most ENORMOUS difficulties for evolution theory. The picture in the animal kingdom is messy – but the plant kingdom leaves us in no doubt at all that evolution is a complete non-starter.

Let’s begin with the two most difficult problems of all, leaving aside the question of the origin of life itself.

Nitrogen Fixation

As we all know, life is impossible without proteins. Enzymes which make the reactions which support life possible at manageable temperatures, are proteins.

DNA, the carrier of the genetic code of life, contains nitrogen, and without nitrogen it would be useless.

The Problems Regarding Nitrogen

There are 2 such problems.

1 Life cannot function without proteins – and proteins cannot be made without proteins to make them! A truly vicious cycle.

But it’s No.2 I want to focus on in this article.

2 Nitrogen absolutely MUST get into the cells for life to go on. But nitrogen is one of the most unreactive gases on the planet. It combines with nothing at normal temperatures.

In nature, at the temperature of lightning flashes, (about 30000 -50000 C) it is forced to combine with oxygen in the air. That process produces gases containing nitrogen, which then dissolve in rainwater and form nitric and nitrous acids.

Those acids fall on the earth and combine with other substances there, forming nitrates and nitrites which are then available to plants. The plants use them to manufacture their own tissues, animals eat the plants, and so nitrogen enters the living world.

That however, is not the main entry point.

There are microorganisms (called cyanobacteria) which fix nitrogen, taking it directly from the air. There is a very small group of other bacteria in the root nodules of leguminous plants, which do the same – hence farmers like to plant clover and other such plants, because they introduce nitrogen into the soil and the crops benefit.

So far so good.

The cyanobacteria, as we mentioned above, ‘fix’ nitrogen, and are the entry point of the largest amounts of nitrogen into the living world. They soak up the nitrogen, incorporate it in their tissues, and then die, liberating nitrogen compounds for use by other life forms.

Fixing Nitrogen

This is not an easy process. Lightning flashes do it. Haber and Bosch invented the process called by their names, which is currently used today. They got Nobel prizes for their invention.

In essence, they use a temperature of >400C, catalysts of one sort or another, high gas pressures and so forth. It is a complex process requiring high degrees of technical knowledge to create and operate, and it works, producing ammonia which is used as the basis of fertilisers and explosives..

The cyanobacteria are among the oldest, if not the oldest fossils ever found. They date back to the pre-Cambrian era, upwards of three billion years ago http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html.

So we have the completely extraordinary picture, of this lowly group of bacteria, right from the dawn of life, FIXING NITROGEN, no less. At normal, average temperatures. Unlike Haber and Bosch, they don’t need 400C, high pressures, metallic catalysts and so forth.

This reaction is performed exclusively by these bacteria, using an enzyme complex termed nitrogenase. This enzyme consists of two proteins - an iron protein and a molybdenum-iron protein.

We are immediately in the realms of miracle.

First, this lowly bacterium is able to perform, in a far superior and safer manner to the Haber- Bosch process, the difficult feat of fixing nitrogen.

Second, they’ve been quietly doing this for more than 3 billion years, having invented the process with no kind of brain.

Third, they invented the enzyme complex and use it, unchanged to this day.

But I said ‘miracle’ a moment ago.

It’s this. That enzyme complex consists of two PROTEINS. Proteins, remember, NEED NITROGEN in their molecular structure. So if nitrogen WASN’T available to enter their tissues, the proteins could never have formed.

But nitrogen COULDN’T enter their structure UNTIL IT WAS FIXED and available. So what fixed it? Why, the cyanobacteria of course. But…..!!!

Another point of immense interest is that the cyanobacteria have remained unchanged from the very beginning. Here are some ancient ones, and some modern ones. They haven’t changed at all.

Which is very revealing. The design cannot be bettered, has not been bettered in 3.5 billion years.

Another Amazing Fact

And there is another amazing fact. The cyanobacteria are ALSO able to photosynthesise. They have chlorophyll – and that is the second most important compound in nature, without which, life as we know it would perish.

But photosynthesis produces oxygen, and that oxygen interferes with the nitrogen fixing process. So how to avoid this conflict in cells which can do both? The Designer solved it at a stroke.

He separated the two parts of the organism that perform the two separate processes.

Ancient

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/origin7sm.jpg
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/.../ApexChert.jpg

Modern

http://www.geology.wisc.edu/homepage...nobacteria.jpg

Please understand that this is one of the most fundamental processes of life on this planet. Unfixed nitrogen is useless to life, though it does play a part in maintaining the proper balance of gases in respiration.

Without nitrogen fixation, there could be no proteins.

Without proteins, life itself would be impossible.

Without proteins, nitrogen fixation itself is impossible.

The vicious cycle will certainly strangle the theory sooner or later in the open-minded.


THE ORIGIN OF THE ANGIOSPERMS

About half of the plants on the planet are ‘angiosperms’.

That term means : ‘plants which have their seeds in a closed ovary.’ What does that mean?

Think of an apple or a plum fruit. The edible fruit, as a whole, is the vastly enlarged ovary of the plant. The seed (in the case of the plum) and the pips (seeds in the case of the apple) are ‘enclosed in the ovary’. The ovary has become filled with good things which animals can eat, and in the process, the seeds are dispersed elsewhere to produce new plants.

Here is a helpful diagram to show what I mean:
http://www.learner.org/jnorth/images...ower_parts.gif

Notice, the ovule, which will become the seed, is INSIDE THE OVARY. This is the distinguishing characteristic of the angiosperms.

The more ‘primitive’ plants, the ‘gymnosperms’ have ‘naked seeds’ which are NOT ENCLOSED in an ovary.

The impossibility which faces the evolutionist is: if the gymnosperms are the predecessors of the angiosperms, then how did the seed become ENCLOSED in the ovary, while in the gymnosperms it is NOT ENCLOSED? There is absolutely no explanation of this phenomenon extant.

Such is the force of this fact, that Darwin had this to say:

"The rapid development as far as we can judge of all the higher plants within recent geological times is an abominable mystery."
—Charles Darwin in a letter to Sir Joseph Hooker, 1879.

Nothing has changed.

The botanist Chester A. Arnold, who studies fossil plants at the University of Michigan, makes the following comment:

It has long been hoped that extinct plants will ultimately reveal some of the stages through which existing groups have passed during the course of their development, but it must be freely admitted that this aspiration has been fulfilled to a very slight extent, even though paleobotanical research has been in progress for more than one hundred years.

Arnold accepts that paleobotany (the science of plant fossils) has produced no results in support of evolution: "[W]e have not been able to track the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present."
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/orig...plants_05.html

“More than one-hundred years ago, Darwin called the origin of angiosperms an "abominable mystery". Angiosperms appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, with no obvious ancestors for a period of about 80 to 90 million years prior to their appearance. Not even fossil leaves or pollen are known from this earlier time.”
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/anthoph...hophytafr.html

It doesn’t seem likely that they will either. As I said before, moving the seed from OUTSIDE the ovary to a position INSIDE an ovary, permits no intermediate conditions.

As we might expect, there are guesses galore, but Arnold (above) has stated the matter very clearly and correctly.

This is a magnificent disproof of common descent.

The angiosperms, as said before, constitute about half the plants on the face of the planet.

So this is not a minor objection, it is one of unimaginable magnitude. Animal life depends in the main, for example, on the grasses for food . Grasses are angiosperms – so the theory cannot account for the existence of this most vital single group of plants.

As we will show later, it cannot account for the existence of the gymnosperms either – so that is well over 75% of the plant kingdom.

What opinion must one hold of a theory of origins that fails so dismally to account for such major groups of organisms? A pretty low one, I suggest.

For such an important group of plants to emerge out of nowhere in the Cretaceous as they do, is positive proof of Creation. It is exactly what we would predict based on a creation model. No ancestors, common or otherwise. Just BANG! Here we all are, chaps.

Here’s Berkeley again:

The rapid diversification of angiosperm taxa began in the Albian,

[incidentally, just notice the question begging! It did evolve; they did diversify; but we haven’t a clue where they came from! Reminds me of Arnold Lunn’s comment: “Now faith is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen”]

in the mid-Cretaceous, and has continued to this day. At that time, there is an almost exponential increase in angiosperm diversity, and there does not appear to have been any major extinctions of groups in between. Despite the large numbers of taxa that are known from rather early in this diversification, there is no indication of where the taxa are coming from. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/anthoph...hophytafr.html


To help you orientate yourself as to what ‘Cretaceous’ means, here is a geological chart.
http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/...x-Geo_time.JPG

Notice how late it really is. That means they have had a lot of history to examine in order to find the ancestors they need. They haven’t found any.

Common ancestors anybody?


NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!


“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus


AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!


35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.






CDR Version






Published by phillauren.org

LIFE CYCLE OF THE BUTTERFLy

MIRACULOUS LIFE CYCLES

The Butterfly

The Life Cycle of all insects presents insuperable problems for the theory of evolution.

This is quite separate from the issue of how insect flight could possibly have evolved. The earliest flying insects were nearly identical to those of today, and they’ve found butterfly fossils in the Cretaceous.

Here is a vastly simplified account for you evolutionists to chew on.

The fertilised female lays her eggs on an appropriate leaf: for instance, the cabbage white butterfly lays her eggs on cabbage plants as the name suggests.

Let me draw out a few of the inexplicables.


First, the phenomenon of meiosis (which we discussed previously. If you didn't read it, go have a look, and marvel as I did when I first found out about it)took place in male and female butterflies, in the gonads.

As if they knew that the number of chromosomes in the little fertilised ovum had to be the same as in each of the pair, and that half plus half makes one.

Second, the sexual organs of male and female are complementary – meaning that there is a penis and a semen-receptacle in the female.How did that happen, one wonders.

Third, the antennae are also useful for smell. Female butterflies release pheromones (like a perfume) into the air. The male butterflies of many species can detect the pheromones from as far away as 2 kilometers (over a mile).

Depending on the concentration of the pheromones, the male will be able to find the female to mate with her. It's worth noting that some species of moths are sensitive to the presence of the females' pheromones up to five kilometers (about three miles) distant. http://centralamerica.com/cr/butterfly/

Fourth, the eggs are equipped with some kind of glue, which causes them to adhere to the leaf. How convenient!

Butterfly eggs consist of a hard-ridged outer layer of shell, called the chorion. This is lined with a thin coating of wax which prevents the egg from drying out before the larva has had time to fully develop. Even more convenient!


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ariadne_merione_egg_sec.jpg

The eggs hatch out into larvae or grubs or caterpillars, which as we all know, are about as un-butterfly-looking creatures as elephants.


Source:wiki

These eat enormous quantities of leafy material, using their specially designed jaws, and then their cellulose-digesting alimentary canals. (Leaf material is tough, but the grubs handle it, despite the fact that the adult can only feed on juices like nectar.)They grow at a prodigious rate.

Then, because they are growing so fast, they molt: i.e. shed their skin, like a snake. Some do this about 4 times.

Then, they wrap themselves in a cocoon, and enter the pupal stage, which in some ways is the most extraordinary of all.


Source: wiki

Inside the cocoon, the grub’s stomach produces quantities of digestive juices, which entirely dissolve the grub’s structure. Entirely. There is absolutely nothing left of the grub. Some authorities claim that even the cells themselves dissolve.

Then the wonderful reconstitution takes place, and inside the darkness of the pupa, eyes which have never seen the light, form to function in the light.

Wings, which have never flown, or even know of the existence of air, form to take to the air.

Reproductive organs, which have never mated, form in order to mate.

The wonderful design patterns of the wings, form to give us pleasure; but the butterfly knows not that we exist.

A coiled, long proboscis – able to enter into the heart of flowers the developing butterfly knows nothing about - forms, to suck the nectar the insect has never tasted.

Antennae form, which can detect pheromones miles (literally) away, not knowing of the existence of such things.

And a butterfly emerges into the world to live for a few days: fluttering brightly, beautifully and erratically in search of flowers for food, and a mate to reproduce.


Source: wiki
There is no conceivable way that this life cycle could have evolved. From what? And how?

No. This was designed by the Great Designer.

PS Have a look at this: I've just discovered some absolutely fascinating information about the mantis shrimp here:


NEW BOOK! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!


“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus


AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!


35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.






CDR Version






Published by phillauren.org