Humans Archives

April 20, 2026April 19, 2026

The Acoustic Reflex

Human ears are amazing. They can distinguish half a million tones and detect sound levels from 0 to 135 decibels. Zero dB is a very faint sound, and 135 dB is extremely painful and damaging to hearing. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, so 135 dB is 10 trillion times as loud as 0 dB. Anything over 85 dB can damage hearing with long exposure, but God has given us an automatic protection system that activates between 70 and 100 dB. It is called the acoustic reflex.

Here is how the human acoustic reflex (also known as the stapedius reflex or auditory reflex) works. High-intensity sounds trigger an involuntary muscle contraction in the middle ear. Tiny muscles in the middle ear, primarily the stapedius and tensor tympani muscles, contract to dampen the movement of the ossicles or stapes (the small bones in the middle ear). Because of this reflex, chain saws, loud engines, or hair dryers can make it difficult to hear conversations, which are typically not more than 60 dB, but it helps protect the inner ear from damage caused by loud noises.

When the acoustic reflex activates, the stapedius muscle pulls the ossicles (stapes) of the middle ear away from the cochlear window, and the tensor tympani muscle stiffens the stapes by pulling on the eardrum and malleus (hammer bone). This is essential to protect hearing in everyday environments. However, the acoustic reflex is not fast enough to react to sudden loud noises, such as gunshots. Also, extremely loud noises or prolonged exposure to loud noises can still harm your hearing, and for that reason, wear ear protection when around loud noises. We should be thankful for God’s design of ears and for the automatic protection He provided as part of the amazing design of the human body.

March 23, 2026March 22, 2026

Knee Joint Design in Humans

One common criticism used by atheists against the existence of God is the so-called “poor design” of the human body. They criticize many areas, with the knee joint often being a focal point. In reality, a healthy knee joint has an impressive range of motion and can last for decades without significant wear. No human-engineered prosthetic knee can match this longevity. Even with the best available materials, all prosthetic knees tend to show signs of wear after just a few years.

One of the leading critics of the human body’s design is Nathan H. Lents, a scientist, author, and professor affiliated with the City University of New York (CUNY). He is especially critical of the knee joint. As an advocate for human evolution, he claims, “The problem is due to incomplete adaptation.” He states, “The anatomical adaptation to upright walking never quite finished in humans. We have several defects that are the result of the failure to complete the process… The ACL is vulnerable to tearing in humans because our upright bipedal posture forces it to endure much more strain than it is designed to.” It’s interesting that he used the word “designed,” even though he does not believe it was designed. He believes it simply evolved through natural selection acting on random mutations.

The truth is, the human knee functions as what engineers call a floating joint because it has no fixed center of rotation — it is free to rotate and roll. It is stabilized by ligaments, including the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL). These ligaments work together with the femur and tibia to form a four-bar linkage mechanism. Professor Lents refers to people tearing the ACLs. However, the ACL is not a bad design. Injuries to it are uncommon in everyday life but are more frequent in high-impact sports such as soccer and ski jumping. Sports like tennis or skating generally do not pose a significant risk to the ACL.

Being overweight is another common factor contributing to knee problems. In the United States, more than two-thirds of adults are overweight, and one in three is obese. Just ten extra pounds of weight can add approximately sixty pounds of force to each knee during running. Obese individuals are twenty times more likely to require a knee replacement than those who are not overweight.

In reality, the knee joint is an ingenious design, as you can see in the illustration. Engineer Stuart Burgess explores this in detail in his excellent book, Ultimate Engineering. Many who view the human body as a product of evolution assume it is poorly designed without understanding the facts. God has created the human body with many remarkable engineering features, including our knee joints. Truly, ultimate engineering requires an Ultimate Engineer.

March 2, 2026March 1, 2026

Junk DNA and ERVs

Every cell in the human body contains a molecule called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). We often hear about DNA being used in crime investigations because each person’s DNA is unique. The DNA molecule holds a code that determines many characteristics of an individual. It also contains some seemingly non-coding sequences that scientists have called “junk DNA.” Evolutionists suggest that this “junk” proves humans are simply the result of evolution because an intelligent creator would not have inserted ERVs or useless sequences into our DNA.

The most notable of these so-called junk sequences are endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). “Endogenous” means they originate from within the cells, and “retroviruses” because they were believed to be remnants of ancient viral infections that affected the genomes of our ancestors. The theory was that ERVs were inherited through the evolutionary process. However, recent studies paint a different picture.

If ERVs had been random viral insertions in our ancestors’ DNA, they would likely have no important functions. A recent study shows that they are “essential” on a “widespread” scale during the earliest stages of human development. Without them, the human embryo would not survive. Earlier research indicated that ERVs are crucial in our immune system, perform vital cellular functions, and help regulate gene expression.

Scientists should be cautious before assuming that so-called “junk DNA” has no purpose and that humans are simply products of blind evolution. One thing we have been told before is that God doesn’t make junk. Intelligent design predicted that we would find this “junk” has a purpose.

Reference: scienceandculture.com

February 27, 2026March 11, 2026

My Chinny Chin Chin

“Little pig, little pig, let me come in. Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin.” That familiar line comes from “The Three Little Pigs,” published in The Nursery Rhymes of England in 1886. It shows the piggy’s response to the wolf’s request to gain entrance to the pig’s home for nefarious purposes. The clever response of the pig could be stated in the less poetic way, “Absolutely not!”

To analyze this quote scientifically, we might ask whether pigs actually have chins. According to the scientific definition of chins, the answer is “absolutely not.” According to a recent scientific study, neither do other mammals, not even chimpanzees. Only humans possess chins. The respected science journal PLOS One published a study exploring why humans have chins. The researchers aimed to determine whether our chins resulted from direct natural selection or are merely a by-product of other factors.

The issue is that my chinny chin chin serves no clear survival purpose and thus cannot be directly explained by the evolutionary process of natural selection or survival of the fittest. Because the human chin is unique, anthropologists use it as a distinguishing feature for identifying our species, Homo sapiens, in the fossil record.

Evolutionists have proposed several explanations for why we humans have chins. One suggestion is that they help facilitate chewing, but many mammals without chins can chew foods that humans cannot. Another idea is that the chin provides more space for our thick tongues, which are crucial for speech. Even sexual selection of mates has been proposed as an evolutionary explanation for chins. However, according to the article in PLOS One, “none of these hypotheses have received strong support” for various reasons.

The study’s author, Noreen von Cramon-Taubadel, a professor of anthropology at the University at Buffalo, suggests that the uniqueness of the human chin “does not mean that it was shaped by natural selection to enhance an animal’s survivability.” As for this animal—or human—I believe my chinny chin chin is part of God’s unique design for His creatures, created in His spiritual image.

References: journals.plos.org and discovermagazine.com

February 20, 2026February 18, 2026

Information Is Fundamental to Everything

At the core of everything is information. DNA carries information in every cell of the human body, as well as in the cells of animals and plants. Without the information in our genes, we could not exist. DNA is a physical molecule, but it contains information that is not physical. We write words with physical ink on physical paper, but the information in those words is not physical, and it is far more valuable than the paper itself. Information is fundamental.

Ancient Greek Stoic philosophers used the word “logos” (translated as “word” in English) to refer to the rational principle behind the universe. The apostle John gave that term a deeper meaning when he used it to refer to the One who created all things. John’s gospel begins with, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” He goes on to say that the Word created all things.

When you read the Genesis creation account, you find, “And God said let there be light” (verse 3). The phrase “And God said” recurs in verses 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, and 29. Hebrews 11:3 tells us, “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” Words are not visible. Information isn’t visible. We can put information on paper by writing visible words, but the information behind those words is not visible—yet it is more important than the paper on which it is written.

Information is fundamental, immaterial, and invisible. God is spirit (4:24), meaning that He is not material. The cosmic creation event, popularly known as the Big Bang, involved the creation of matter/energy, space, and time. That means the Creator of matter/energy, space, and time must be immaterial and outside of space and time. Matter/energy cannot create itself. God’s Word created everything we see as God spoke the universe into existence. The Bible doesn’t specify when God created the universe, what physical processes He used, or how long it took. Since God is not limited by our time dimension, time means nothing to Him (2 Peter 3:8).

After the physical creation, God used information to create life, with a DNA code far more complex than any human-made computer code. There could be no life without information to guide the production of proteins necessary for forming living cells and to direct the metabolism that sustains life. Information comes only from intelligence.

The bottom line is that information is fundamental, and it’s built into every living cell. If someone says, “I will not believe unless I can see it,” they are not being honest. Everyone believes in things they cannot see. Information is fundamental, and we cannot see it. The Word created all things (John 1:3). At the right time, the Word became visible: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). Those who refuse to believe in God because they can’t see Him should remember that “the things that are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” (See 2 Corinthians 4:13-18.)

February 6, 2026January 31, 2026

The Energy Efficiency of the Human Brain

There is significant concern about the large amount of energy needed for Artificial Intelligence. AI and the computer processing power required to imitate human intelligence will require constructing new power plants to supply more energy. Compared to this, the energy efficiency of the human brain uses only 17 watts of power while performing functions that AI has not yet mastered. At the same time, the brain makes up only 2% of the body’s mass but consumes 20% of its energy.

The continuous flow of chemical reactions that keep the brain working is called metabolism. For brain cells to function, they need a constant supply of glucose that passes through the blood-brain barrier. If a person fasts for a long time or follows a ketogenic diet, the brain must switch to an alternative fuel source, which is ketones produced by the liver. As a secondary backup, the brain can also operate on lactate.

The brain transforms these energy sources into ATP (adenosine triphosphate). Neurons use ATP to generate electrical signals, which account for most of the brain’s energy use. Glial cells support neurons in various ways, such as breaking down glucose to provide energy.

During deep sleep, the brain’s metabolic rate decreases, but not as much as you might expect. When you are deeply engaged in complex tasks, your brain only uses about 5% more energy. The small difference exists because the brain is constantly performing “housekeeping” tasks, managing your body, and maintaining the functions of various organs and tissues. It continuously monitors your environment, pays attention to sights and sounds, and alerts you to issues that need attention.

After performing mentally demanding tasks, you might feel exhausted, but it could be due to tension. Your brain maintains a delicate energy balance across different neural regions, directing energy where it is needed. The energy efficiency of the human brain allows it to do everything with just 17 watts, while a supercomputer would need megawatts to perform the same tasks. It keeps your lungs breathing and your heart beating while you solve differential equations and think about what’s for dinner.

Artificial Intelligence can’t match the energy efficiency of the human brain. Your brain shows evidence of a designer God.

References: biologyinsights.com and zmescience.com

February 4, 2026January 31, 2026

Ancestors of Modern Humans

The history of attempts to develop an evolutionary explanation for modern humans is filled with errors and assumptions. Some foot bones found in 2009 in the Afar Region of Ethiopia, along with other bones discovered since then, have led to the naming of a new “species,” Australopithecus deyiremeda. The Afar Region is also where the fossil known as “Lucy” was discovered, and these fossils have been celebrated as ancestors of modern humans.

The first problem with this type of report is that the word “species” is used very loosely. What exactly does “species” mean? When I took biology classes, species was defined as “a form of life that can breed and produce fertile offspring.” A dog and a cat are different species because they cannot breed to produce fertile offspring. Most of us remember the biological fact that a horse and a donkey can breed and produce a mule, but the mule is sterile because horses and donkeys are different species.

Today, we have two ape forms considered to be different species. The evidence includes a few foot bones, fragments of pelvis, skull, jaw, and teeth—not a complete skeleton. Because these bones were found in close proximity, researchers assumed they must belong to the same species, not to Lucy’s species, Australopithecus afarensis. Since these supposedly show a progression among the ancestors of modern humans, how much variation do we see in humans and apes today?

The name Australopithecus literally means “the ape from the south.” These are not humans but apes. None of this has any connection to the biblical account of God’s creation of humans. The statement in Genesis 1:26, “Let us make man in our image…” does not refer to God’s physical image. God is a spirit (John 4:24). Genesis 2:7 describes man’s physical creation from “the dust of the earth.” The Bible does not tell us what that man looked like, how he was made, or how long it took.

Biblical critics and believers alike should not be concerned about the latest discovery by anthropologists claiming to be the ancestors of modern humans. Like all human endeavors, anthropology is fraught with errors and assumptions. Humans are unique as the only beings created in God’s image, a fact that anthropology does not address.

Reference: Science News February 2026, page 13

January 23, 2026January 17, 2026

Marriage and Contentment

It has been said that people need three things to be content: someone to love, something to do, and something to look forward to. The biblical institution of marriage dates back to God’s statement in Genesis 2:18: “It is not good for the man to be alone.” A study conducted by Dr. Brad Wilcox, professor of sociology and director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, has confirmed that statement. There is a strong link between marriage and contentment.

The number of people living alone is increasing quickly, and the study finds that this is a major reason for the decline in national happiness. One possible cause for this trend is that some people see marriage as linked to religious belief, yet over 40% of Americans claim no religious affiliation. Additionally, there has been a rise in the number of divorced individuals.

The survey indicates that happiness is closely tied to marriage and family. Married men between 18 and 55 report being about twice as happy as their unmarried counterparts, whereas unmarried fathers are the least happy. Married women with children report the highest happiness levels, while single mothers are the least happy. The research shows a 30-percentage-point gap in happiness levels between married and unmarried Americans. According to the study, marital status has a greater impact on happiness than income, education, race, or location. It also notes that those who cohabited before marriage have a significantly higher divorce rate. Marriage was defined as a legal contract between a man and a woman.

In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus responded to a question from the Pharisees about marriage and divorce. He said that God created humans male and female and that marriage involves the two becoming one flesh. This description is not sexual but pertains to God’s plan for contentment and happiness. The studies by Wilcox and others have confirmed the validity of God’s plan and demonstrate the connection between marriage and contentment.

Reference: “Who Is Happiest?” Institute for Family Studies

January 22, 2026January 17, 2026

Space Travel Brain Shifting

Space travel can change your brain in more ways than one. We have mentioned the “overview effect” that people experience when looking down on planet Earth from space. It can open a person’s mind to the realization that we are small and that we depend on the components for survival that God has provided on this planet. New research indicates that space travel and weightlessness can also affect your physical brain. You could call it space travel brain shifting.

Brain MRI scans of 26 astronauts and 24 non-astronauts, conducted by Rachel Seidler and others at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), revealed how microgravity affects human brain anatomy. Their research showed that the astronauts’ brains shifted backward and upward while also rotating upward. The effects could still be detected months after returning to Earth. They analyzed MRIs from 15 astronauts before and after spaceflight, and from 11 others after returning. Twenty-four other volunteers participated in a long-duration head-down tilt bed experiment.

There was a measurable change in how the astronauts’ brains fit inside their skulls depending on how long they spent in space. The maximum displacement was 2.52 millimeters. The bed rest control group did not show marked changes. The question is how the space travel brain shifting affects performance after returning to Earth. The astronauts did experience balance issues, apparently due to effects on the inner ear and sensory regions of the brain.

The bottom line is that the study showed that physical shifts in the astronauts’ brains lasted up to six months. The study is concerned about “the long-lasting effects of spaceflight on neuroanatomy.” Again, we are reminded of how much we depend on the components for survival that God has provided on this planet.

Reference: space.com

January 6, 2026December 29, 2025

Orphan Genes Challenge Darwinism

The DNA in every cell in your body is made up of shorter strands called genes, which contain the instructions to produce various proteins. Neo-Darwinian evolutionary scientists look for genes with very similar sequences to others to show that one gene evolved from another through random genetic mutations. However, researchers are discovering genes that don’t resemble any other known gene. The technical term for these is taxonomically restricted genes (TRGs). These so-called orphan genes challenge Darwinism.

If all of life evolved from a common ancestor through small genetic mutations, orphan genes don’t fit this model. They either shouldn’t exist or should be extremely rare. A few years ago, evolutionists argued that only a small percentage of species’ DNA had been sequenced, and that with more research, the mystery of orphan genes would be resolved. However, the number of orphan genes continues to grow. The trend indicates that orphan genes challenge Darwinism.

Even closely related species that share a common trait can have their own unique orphan genes. In other words, the evidence does not support gradual changes caused by small mutations but instead points to entirely new, unique genes that have not been seen before. Evolutionists respond by saying natural selection can explain this, but they are unable to specify how. The research continues, but for now, it seems to me like an “evolution-of-the-gaps” argument.

As Jonathan Witt wrote in Salvo magazine, “Our uniform and repeated experience tells us that generating significant amounts of novel, functional information doesn’t happen by chance. It requires a mind. Our uniform experience tells us this, and probability calculations applied to everything from English text and software code to DNA confirm it.”

It’s safe to say that orphan genes challenge Darwinism and will likely continue to do so.

Reference: “Darwin’s Orphan Nemesis” by Jonathan Witt, in Salvo magazine, Spring 2025.