Humans Archives

September 3, 2026September 2, 2026

Giants and the Laws of Physics

A recent animated movie depicting David and Goliath showed Goliath as enormous. How tall was Goliath? The Bible says Goliath was “six cubits and a span,” which is about nine feet nine inches (3 meters). That is a large man but within the realm of possibility. The tallest man in modern recorded medical history was Robert Wadlow, who, in 1940, was slightly under nine feet tall. The children’s story of Jack and the Beanstalk depicts a giant of enormous proportions. In Homer’s “Odyssey,” Odysseus meets the one-eyed giant Cyclops, who can pick up a person in one hand. Are these legendary giants depicted in movies and storybooks possible in real life? Let’s consider giants and the laws of physics.

In 1638, Galileo Galilei wrote a document arguing that the way giants were depicted in folklore would not be possible. A human’s bone structure supports that person’s weight and is geometrically designed for optimal function. If you scaled up a human while keeping the same proportions, the bones would be stronger. If you increased both cross-sectional bone dimensions by 10 times, the strength would increase by 10 times 10, so the bone would be 100 times stronger.

At the same time, however, the body’s volume would increase by 10 times. The increased mass would be 10 times 10 times 10. Bone strength scales with the square, while volume scales with the cube. In other words, the weight of the body would be 1000 times greater. You now have bones that are 100 times as strong, but they must support a body mass that’s 1000 times greater. The fact that the bone structure could not support the weight is the problem of giants and the laws of physics. Increasing the size of the human body would require a much larger increase in the bone structure. That is why the leg bones of elephants are proportionally much thicker than the leg bones of dogs and cats.

Sometimes movies depict flies or other insects becoming huge because of some science-fiction apparatus. But if a fly became larger than a human, keeping the leg thickness in proportion, the legs would not be able to support the creature. A fly increased to only ten times its normal size would weigh 1000 times as much and be unable to fly. If a water bug that walks on the surface were increased 10 times in size, it would sink because surface tension would not support 1000 times the weight. Again, giants and the laws of physics are not compatible.

On the other hand, what would happen if humans were scaled down, as shown in science fiction movies? If scaled down by a factor of 10, the miniature humans would have bones that are 100 times weaker, but they would weigh 1000 times less. They could potentially carry a much larger load relative to their size. That explains how ants can carry loads several times their weight.

The bottom line is that humans are designed to do what we need to do, and ants are designed to do what they need to do. Science fiction movies about enlarging insects or shrinking humans are purely fiction. Goliath was a giant by human standards, but he was not as large as depicted in the recent animated movie. Regardless of his size, David did not defeat Goliath by his own strength. He clearly said it was by the power of God. (See 1 Samuel 17:45.) David was victorious because he trusted the same God who designed humans and ants – and the laws of physics.

Reference: mit.edu

August 27, 2026August 18, 2026

Neuron Computing Power

For three decades, experiments have suggested that the dendrites connected to neurons in the brain can compute information on their own. That could explain the amazing neuron computing power that scientists have underestimated.

A team of researchers at the University of Texas Southwest Medical Center used new voltage-imaging technology to record activity in the brains of mice. Each neuron has dendrites that branch out from it. In the past, scientists thought dendrites merely connected neurons, allowing information to move from one neuron to another. This research indicates that individual dendrites compute information. Rather than each neuron acting as a single processor, neurons are more like neural networks, with dendrites computing information on their own. They can serve as memory devices and compute information before it reaches the neuron cell, increasing the neuron computing power.

This new understanding of dendrite architecture as a tree-like network suggests our brains have more processing power than previously understood. Each neuron has more capabilities than previously known, and receiving input from its dendrites and thousands of neighbors allows our brains to achieve much in a relatively small space with minimal power consumption. At a time when people worry about the space and power needed to run huge data centers across the country, we realize we have an amazingly efficient data center in our heads.

Right now, your brain is reading this information, receiving input from your surroundings, generating conscious experience, and piloting your body, including all your internal organs. Your brain’s 86 billion neurons are aided in computation by sprawling branches of dendrites that are also performing computations, storing memory, receiving input, and sending output to the rest of the neural network. The textbook diagrams of neurons with only a few dendrites are not accurate representations of the neuron computing power in your brain.

Humans have not only this amazing, living computer, but we also have a soul at work guiding the computer software. Truly, we can say to God, “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.”

Reference: scientificamerican.com

August 19, 2026August 17, 2026

Random DNA Mutations

In the 1960s, Japanese biologist Motoo Kimura introduced the neutral theory of molecular evolution. It advanced the idea that most random DNA mutations are not driven by survival of the fittest but by pure chance. Now a team of scientists at the University of Michigan has published a new study saying that beneficial mutations arise more frequently than Kimura had believed. However, they say that a changing environment often prevents those mutations from spreading through an entire population. In other words, environments change more quickly than mutations can spread through populations.

Random DNA mutations arise by chance, and natural selection removes the unhelpful ones. The new study determined that only 1% of amino acid mutations are beneficial. That doesn’t sound like a very big percentage, but it is larger than what Kimura suggested. Even then, those mutations don’t spread to the entire population of a species.

To conduct this study, researchers at the University of Michigan used yeast cells, which live for only 3 hours. That brief generational time allowed them to study 1320 yeast populations over 800 generations using 100 different growth media to create different environments. Environmental changes effectively erased a mutation’s advantage before it could spread through an entire population. In addition, mutations that are beneficial in one environment are usually harmful in another.

In all research, random DNA mutations have not been shown to create new species or higher orders, but they do change and refine existing species. Even with mutations in yeast populations, whether they were beneficial or otherwise, the result was still yeast. The same could be said in other cases, such as dogs or cattle, where we can see mutations resulting in new variations among those animals, but they still remain dogs or cattle.

As we have said before, microevolution does not prove macroevolution. Even if the uncommon mutations are beneficial, they are often lost because they don’t spread through the entire population. Evolution cannot explain the diversity of life on planet Earth.

Reference: msn.com

August 17, 2026August 17, 2026

Trees Are Good for Your Health

Trees are good for your health. That’s the conclusion of various studies, including recent research in Chicago. Over 11 years, researchers analyzed annual satellite measurements of Chicago’s tree canopy and more than 220,000 death records from the health department. They found a correlation between tree canopy coverage and the number of deaths in those neighborhoods. The results were published in the journal GeoHealth in August 2026.

Trees bring us comfort, coolness, and beauty. The study found that in neighborhoods where the tree canopy was shrinking, death rates were climbing, and where the tree canopy was increasing, death rates fell. The researchers noted that you can’t say for certain that losing trees causes more people to die, but it’s interesting that the trends move together.

One reason increased tree canopy could lower summer death tolls is the cooling effect trees provide. In neighborhoods where trees provide more shade, the streets and homes are cooler. But other factors seem to be involved, because, according to the study, year-over-year percentage-point increases in tree canopy were tied to roughly a 10% drop in mortality.

The greatest reduction in health-related deaths was in three areas. Not surprisingly, two of those areas were cardiovascular and respiratory, which could be related to heat. The third area was mental-health-related deaths. What effect can trees have on mental health?

Could it be that the beauty of trees provides a certain amount of mental comfort to ease anxiety? Trees are good for your health, not just physical health. Trees provide shade, but they can also create a soothing, peaceful atmosphere. Trees absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen into the air. God has given us trees for many uses, including construction materials, fruits and nuts, and beauty. We could not live without trees.

Reference: livescience.com

August 13, 2026August 10, 2026

Helpless Newborn Babies

Anyone who has raised a child from infancy knows it’s a lot of work over several years and can be exhausting. When humans are born, they are far less developed than virtually any other mammal. Even the great apes are more developed at birth than humans. Helpless newborn babies have weak neck muscles, soft skulls, and underdeveloped brains. These traits change as the human brain becomes far more developed than that of any other animal, including the apes.

Helpless newborn babies require parents to spend much more time holding, caring for, and working with their infants. Why should human babies have soft heads and underdeveloped brains? One factor is the size and shape of the birth canal through which the skull must pass. Of course, the much larger brains that develop later give us the ability to do many things–not just walking upright but also reasoning, creating, and living out the life for which God designed us.

Gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are born more physically independent than human babies, and they also have less cranial deformity at birth. God must have a reason for requiring humans to be more involved in raising their offspring than other animals and primates. The responsibility of childcare and support is an essential part of becoming a human created in God’s image.

The Bible contains instructions for parents because God has given us a great responsibility. Raising those helpless newborn babies into productive adults is a great challenge for two parents in a solid marriage. It is not up to “the village” or the educational system or social media to bring our children to a point where they can be all that God intends for them to be. Parents can be thankful to God that He has allowed us to help form the next generation. (See Deuteronomy 6:5-7 and Ephesians 6:4.)

August 12, 2026August 10, 2026

QT45 and Origin of Life Research

Researchers at the Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, England, have synthesized an RNA polymerase, an enzyme that assembles RNA molecules. RNA is ribonucleic acid, an organic molecule necessary for replicating DNA, which is found in every living cell. QT45 is hailed as a step toward understanding the origin of life, but is it really?

Researchers called this RNA polymerase QT45 because it is “Quite Tiny” and has only 45 organic molecules called nucleotides. Most RNA polymerases have over 150 nucleotides. The researchers proudly point out that this RNA polymerase can replicate itself with “high accuracy.” UK Research and Innovation posted an article titled “Scientists’ chemical breakthrough sheds light on origin of life.” But that may be an exaggeration.

If the origin of life happened by chance without intelligent intervention, then this discovery proves nothing. Creating QT45 required several steps, at least three of which used advanced laboratory techniques. First, the researchers had to generate trillions of random RNA molecules. Then they had to apply eleven rounds of mutation and selection to obtain a few RNAs that could link a growing chain. Then they had to apply seven rounds of selection to improve performance. The bottom line is that this did not happen naturally. Furthermore, it could not have happened naturally.

As reported in Science and Culture in February of 2026, “Such highly specific conditions and highly orchestrated steps do not resemble any environmental conditions that could have ever existed.” Even if such conditions could have happened and QT45 formed naturally, it is still far from being a living cell. Life requires much more than the ability to replicate. It is far from a “chemical breakthrough” that “sheds light on the origins of life.” The origin of life remains a scientific mystery for those who reject the Bible. For more on this issue, use the link below.

Reference: scienceandculture.com

August 4, 2026August 3, 2026

God’s Design of the Central Nervous System

One of the great mysteries of science has been the properties of human beings that separate them from all other living things. Pharmacist and pastor Shawn Arstein wrote that modern tools of medical research show that God’s design of the central nervous system “affects mood, motivation, memorization, pain, pleasure, action, response, love, and fear—and it also regulates the heart.” He said the miles of nerve threads that connect body parts from head to toe illustrate how God “is over all and through all and in all” (Ephesians 4:6).

The fall of Adam and Eve demonstrates how sin affects the central nervous system (CNS), causing neurological instability. In Genesis 3:10, Adam says, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.” Fear, hiding, and blame-shifting resulted. The story of Cain in Genesis 4:1-12 also shows CNS instability, with anger, murder, denial, being downcast, and panic.

Adam’s rebellion altered his nervous system both physically and spiritually. In Genesis 2:17, God had told Adam, “You must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will certainly die.” What did God mean by that? Adam didn’t drop dead from physical poisoning. The key to understanding this death lies in the term “naked” in verse 25. God’s design of the central nervous system involves myelin surrounding the axons of neurons, insulating them and allowing electrical impulses to pass at a faster rate. According to Arstein, severing the Spirit from the image of God is like leaving the central nervous system stripped of a protective layer, allowing a short in a wire. Adam and Eve looked alive, but the connection with God vanished, making them feel vulnerable in their nakedness. Simultaneously, the knowledge of evil brought anxiety, fear, and chaos. Nakedness demanded a response, and fig leaves provided the first coping strategy for stability.

Because of God’s design of the central nervous system, the fruits of the Spirit described in Galatians 5:22-23 enable humans to battle evil, resulting in changed behavior and stability. Achieving that stability, however, requires effort. Ephesians 4:22-24 tells us, “You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.”

Seeing God’s design of the central nervous system and how He helps us, as Christians, to walk in the light instead of in darkness (1 John 1) is essential for our growth as children of God.

Reference: godandnatureasa3.org 2026 #2

July 21, 2026July 20, 2026

Genetic Evolution Is Not the Answer

God told Noah and his sons: “…BE FRUITFUL AND INCREASE IN NUMBER; MULTIPLY ON THE EARTH AND INCREASE UPON IT” (Genesis 9:7). Scientists who study genetics tell us that this command is impossible by genetic evolution alone. When evolutionary anthropologists calculate how long it would take for humans to spread throughout the planet by genetic evolution, they find it would require at least 88 million years. No one believes that humans have existed on Earth for that long, so genetic evolution is not the answer.

Humans occupy as much of the planet’s dry land as all other mammals combined. Evolutionists attempt to solve this problem by saying it is due to “cultural evolution,” meaning that as cultures evolve, humans find ways to adapt to new environments.

Since genetic evolution is not the answer, a biblically sound approach is to accept that a combination of social cooperation, language, creativity, and intellect allowed humans to cover the planet many times faster than would be possible by genetic evolution. We can credit that to God creating humans in His image with those abilities.

The spread of humans over the entire planet is due to the way God created us, and is not an accident. The bigger issue now is how we can control our numbers and efficiently use the resources for survival that God has made available on Earth.

Reference: Scientific American for July/August 2026, page 17.

July 1, 2026June 27, 2026

The Fine-Tuning of the Genetic Code

Yesterday, we examined the fact that the 20 amino acids commonly used in biological proteins are not a random set but are precisely fine-tuned for optimal protein synthesis. But that is only the beginning of the fine-tuning of the genetic code. A series of articles by biologist Dr. Jonathan McLatchie reports on further fine-tuning.

Cell reproduction requires the replication of the DNA contained within those cells. RNA is the molecule that facilitates DNA replication. RNA has 64 different codons–three-letter “words” that are the fundamental units of the genetic code. Of those, 61 specify amino acids that build proteins, and the other three are stop codons that mark the termination point in creating those proteins. As we mentioned before, there are 20 amino acids used for life. Since there are 64 codons, “a marvel of molecular logic” selects the proper amino acids. That coding system shows evidence of a conscious, deliberate, intelligent agent guiding the creation of the genetic code.

The genetic code in living cells seems to be beautifully fine-tuned to protect cells from mutations during replication. As reported by Dr. McLatchie, the statistical rarity of the conventional genetic code is 1 in 2 billion. That does not seem to be a random chance occurrence. But there are additional levels of fine-tuning, including the fact that the genetic code has been written to reduce the impact of frameshift mutations. It’s beyond the scope of this article to discuss what frameshift mutations are, but the point is that the 64-to-20 mapping system is designed to minimize the number of amino acids translated from a frameshifted transcript before a stop codon halts the process.

But that does not fully cover the fine-tuning of the genetic code. It has multiple layers of highly optimized, independent constraints. The genetic code has been established and used by all forms of life on this planet, with each of the 20 amino acids tied to specific codons. Making significant modifications to the code would create major problems in every cell because the relationships between codons and amino acids are essential for every polypeptide (protein) the cell makes.

Dr. McLatchie’s report contains this statement: “Why is the genetic code the way it is, and how did it come to be? That was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, (and) might remain pertinent even in another 50 years.” The point I make is that until scientists consider the possibility of an intelligent Agent who designed the genetic code, that question will never be answered. Why not at least consider the possibility that all these signs of the fine-tuning of the genetic code are not merely accidental but the product of design? The reason modern science refuses to do so is that design requires an intelligent Designer.

Reference: scienceandculture.com HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE

June 30, 2026June 26, 2026

The Amino Acid Set Was Fine-Tuned for Life

Organic compounds are large molecules containing carbon and having carbon-hydrogen or carbon-carbon bonds. Many organic compounds are involved in life, and life as we know it could not exist without carbon. One group of organic compounds, known as amino acids, numbers at least 500. Of those, only 20 (or, in some cases, 22) are used in plants and animals. Why and how were these amino acids selected to make living things? Amazingly, the amino acid set was fine-tuned for life.

There are three possibilities for how they could have been “selected.” The selection could have been due to chance, with no intelligent agent involved. It could have been because of necessity, meaning that some kind of law could allow only those amino acids to be selected. The third possibility is selection by an intelligent agent with a purpose. Did this apparent choice happen because of mere chance or because of laws that required no other choice? No known laws required this selection, and chance seems questionable since the choice appears to be perfect.

With many alternatives, why this 20? Would any 20 out of the 500 work just as well? The answer is “No,” according to a research paper published in the journal Astrobiology, titled “Did Evolution Select a Nonrandom Alphabet of Amino Acids?” by Gayle K. Philip and Stephen J. Freeland. They wrote, “Random chance would be highly unlikely to represent the chemical space of possible amino acids with such breadth and evenness in charge, size, and hydrophobicity (properties that define what protein structures and functions can be built).” In other words, these 20 amino acids represent the best choice. You can say that the amino acid set was fine-tuned for life.

We have often talked about the cosmic creation event (“big bang”), the laws of physics, the physical constants, and the fundamental forces of nature as having been fine-tuned for life. It appears that the amino acid set was fine-tuned for life. The amino acids that make up the proteins in our bodies seem to be optimally selected. They must have been selected by an agent with the wisdom and power to design a complex, finely tuned, information-rich system, which we call life. We suggest that the agent is the God of the Bible. Tomorrow, we will examine more fine-tuning within our DNA.

References: scienceandculture.com