People generally know that bees communicate through “waggle dances” to tell others in their colony where to find nectar and pollen. However, we may not be as familiar with bee decision-making.
Honeybees (Apis mellifera) foraging on flowers face numerous decisions that they must make literally on-the-fly. Researchers at the University of Sheffield in the UK recently studied the complexity of bee decision-making. In a split second, a bee must look at the flower’s color and/or fragrance, compare it to previous experiences, and decide if there is a potential reward. The bee must also consider whether it already carries a full load of nectar or pollen, or if it can carry more. Additionally, the bee must think about the needs of the colony and, importantly, whether a potential predator is nearby. Based on these factors, it chooses whether to stop at that flower.
These on-the-fly decisions involve the bee’s sensory, memory, and motor systems. Hovering over a flower can exhaust energy and pose dangers. The bee must decide whether to risk it, operating with a brain that is a hundred times smaller than that of a goldfish. The bee’s brain has fewer than one million neurons, compared to the average human brain with 86 billion neurons.
If you’ve ever struggled with making important decisions—and who hasn’t?—consider the amazing bee decision-making process. It could only be possible with a precision design by an intelligent Designer. Natural selection acting on chance mutations doesn’t provide the best explanation.
It’s well known that trees benefit the environment by taking in carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen into the atmosphere through the complex process of photosynthesis. However, recent research indicates another way that trees are beneficial to life. Tree bark is home to over 1000 microbial species that help to eliminate methane, hydrogen, and carbon monoxide from the atmosphere.
There has been much concern about the greenhouse effect produced by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Often overlooked is the fact that the greenhouse effect of methane is many times more potent than that of carbon dioxide, and methane is produced by many natural sources, such as decomposing organic matter. Also, carbon monoxide produced by incomplete combustion is deadly for humans, and many of us have carbon monoxide detectors in our homes because of that. Hydrogen, along with carbon monoxide, apparently helps methane remain longer in the atmosphere. Therefore, removing carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, and hydrogen from the atmosphere can reduce the greenhouse effect.
Researchers studied flooded lowlands in the Amazon region, where microbes living in lake and wetland sediments produce methane. When they measured the amount of methane bubbling up and compared that to methane data acquired by satellites, they were surprised. The satellite data indicated only half as much methane as predicted by ground-based measurements. The research showed that methane levels were reduced because microbes in tree bark oxidized methane. They also found that microbes in the tree bark oxidize hydrogen and carbon monoxide from the air. This shows another way that trees are beneficial to life.
The researchers found that different tree species had distinct microbial communities in their bark. Further study is needed to understand which tree species are most beneficial to the atmosphere. Previous research has found that tree trunks harbor many beneficial microbes. The bottom line is that trees are beneficial to life. In addition to being good for the environment, they are beautiful and beneficial for people’s emotional well-being. The more we learn about the design in the natural world, the more we are amazed by how God has given us exactly what we need for a living environment. It is up to us to enjoy and protect what God has provided.
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.
“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.
A group of biologists has finally solved one of the great mysteries of biology. For decades, scientists have wondered how birds can have keen eyesight without blood vessels to supply oxygen to the retina. Blood vessels provide vital oxygen to the retinas of other animals, but the birds’ eye design is different.
Without blood vessels that scatter the light reaching the retina, the birds’ eye design enables sharper vision. How can the retinal cells function without dying from lack of oxygen? The answer, according to researchers at Aarhus University in Denmark, is anaerobic glycolysis. “Anaerobic” means without oxygen, and “glycolysis” refers to the process of breaking down the sugar glucose. Anaerobic glycolysis is less efficient than oxygen-based metabolism, and birds’ eyes need a lot of energy. How can they get enough energy with this less-effective method?
The birds’ eye design features a unique structure that no other species has. A comb-like network of blood vessels called the pecten oculi protrudes from where the optic nerve enters the eye and moves freely within the vitreous humor, the fluid filling the eyeball. The pecten oculi transports glucose into the vitreous humor while removing carbon dioxide and lactic acid that could harm the retina.
This discovery explains how birds like bar-headed geese can fly at elevations over 6000 meters, where oxygen is scarce. The DNA of these birds is coded to overcome specific environmental challenges while maintaining sharp vision. Encoding requires an intelligent programmer who understands what birds need to survive. Bird’s eye design, like every scientific discovery, gives us a window into the creation of life on planet Earth.
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.)
Charles Walcott with Wife and Son examine Burgess Shale
In 1831, Charles Darwin, a recent Cambridge University graduate, helped experienced geologist Adam Sedgwick excavate rock layers in northern Wales. They discovered fossils in shale rocks dating to the Cambrian period of Earth’s history. At age 22, Darwin didn’t realize how significant their findings were. It wasn’t until many years later, when he published his book On the Origin of Species, that he was troubled by the “explosion” of Cambrian fossils. What exactly troubled Darwin about these fossils?
Scientists call the sudden appearance of Cambrian fossils the “Cambrian explosion.” These fossils come from a time when Earth’s first major animal groups appeared abruptly, with no clear predecessors. This challenges the idea of gradual evolution. That’s what troubled Darwin. The Cambrian explosion was a rapid appearance of most of the major animal groups that ever lived on Earth.
Darwin published his famous book On the Origin of Species in 1859, twenty-eight years after helping find the first Cambrian fossils. He believed life’s history would look like a branching tree, starting with single-celled organisms and each branch gradually becoming more complex. He thought that life evolved in small steps over long periods through natural selection. What troubled Darwin was the sudden appearance of Cambrian fossils without ancestors, but he expected future fossil discoveries to show gradual evolutionary changes.
However, things didn’t go as Darwin expected. In 1886, during the construction of the Canadian Pacific railroad across Canada, new Cambrian fossils were found in the Rocky Mountains. In 1909, Charles Walcott discovered fossils of soft-bodied Cambrian animals without predecessors in the Burgess Shale of British Columbia. These new animal forms were more complex than the ones Darwin knew, yet they still appeared suddenly without showing gradual evolution.
In 2014, another site in British Columbia, called Marble Canyon, revealed more troublesome fossils. In 1988, paleontologists uncovered exceptionally well-preserved specimens in Chengjiang, China. Now, another site in Huayuan, China, has revealed even more soft-bodied fossils with remarkable soft tissue preservation. Researchers have collected over 50,000 fossils and identified 153 animal species, 59% of which were previously unknown. These fossils span 16 animal phyla.
Some evolutionists suggest that missing links are hard to find because soft animal tissues don’t fossilize well. But this new discovery at Huayuan preserved delicate soft tissues in detail, from worms to jellyfish, showing gills, guts, and even nerves. They were preserved because they were buried quickly in a muddy slurry that turned into shale.
The key point is that many animals from the Cambrian period appear suddenly on opposite sides of the planet, with no signs of gradual change. They show no clear evolution over time. Darwinism cannot fully explain this puzzle, but those who believe in an intelligent divine Creator see these discoveries as making perfect sense. What troubled Darwin in 1859 would trouble him even more today.
People who live in regions that rarely experience snow are likely unaware of the subnivium world. Scientists call it “subnivium,” from the Latin “sub,” meaning below, and “nivis,” for snow. During winter, the subnivium world becomes active and full of life.
As snow falls, it gradually accumulates in layers that compress, forming a snowpack. When the snowpack reaches about seven inches, the subnivium world appears. This thick snowpack acts like a natural igloo, providing insulation for everything underneath. Regardless of the air temperature outside, the ground beneath the snowpack stays about 1°C above freezing.
The subnivium world isn’t dormant. Bacteria and fungi decompose plant material, consuming oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide. This process, called soil respiration, makes the soil rich in carbon. In the spring, plants have the nutrients they need to grow. The soil also hosts springtails, centipedes, rove beetles, and other arthropods that move around, feed, and reproduce. These creatures become food for higher animals like shrews, moles, ground squirrels, pikas, and marmots.
The subnivium world isn’t a result of luck. Just like the environment above the snow, it exists because of careful natural engineering. The laws of thermodynamics tell us that without energy input, systems tend toward disorder, a state called entropy. Recognizing the engineering principles involved in the subnivium world shows the Creator’s intelligence and deliberate design, adding to the evidence for God’s existence.
3D printing has become an invaluable tool in many fields, including industrial manufacturing, medical device development, and even hobbyist projects. These applications often demand nanometer-scale precision, which requires very small nozzles. Printing nozzles can be made from metal, plastic, glass, or even mosquito proboscises. Wait a moment! Did I read that correctly? Can a 3D printing nozzle actually be made from the tube a mosquito uses to pierce your skin and suck your blood? Yes, there is a way of using mosquitoes for 3D printing.
Scientists are experimenting with a new type of biohybrid printing that employs a female mosquito’s proboscis as a 3D printing nozzle. As you may know, female mosquitoes are the ones that feed on blood, and this approach offers a more useful way to utilize their blood-sucking appendage. It could be highly useful in advanced manufacturing, microengineering, and medical applications.
Many times, people have discovered more efficient processes or created new products from observing plants or animals. We call it biomimicry. Examples include the Velcro hook-and-loop fastening system inspired by burdock plants, self-cleaning surfaces modeled after lotus leaves, and humans learning to fly by studying bird wings. We also use natural materials from plants and animals, such as skin to make leather or wood for building homes. So, why not try using mosquitoes for 3D printing?
Traditional bioprinting tips are made of non-biodegradable materials. The finest metal tips are 35 micrometers in diameter and cost over $80 each. The smallest plastic tips are 150 micrometers in diameter, while a mosquito’s proboscis has an inner diameter of only 20 to 25 micrometers—smaller than a human hair. Lab-raised, infection-free mosquitoes cost around 2 cents each, and their proboscises are biodegradable after use. Glass tips can match the size but are more expensive and fragile.
The precision tip of a mosquito proboscis can enable high-resolution drug delivery at a significantly lower cost than other options. God has blessed us with abundant resources to advance manufacturing and medicine while safeguarding the environment. He also gave us curiosity—the drive to explore and learn new things, like using mosquitoes for 3D printing.
Evolution, simply stated, is “change over time.” When we apply this to living organisms, we see two levels: microevolution and macroevolution. The difference between these can be simply stated. Microevolution involves changes below the species level, while macroevolution involves changes above the species level. For instance, transforming a sea creature into a land animal would be an example of macroevolution. Conversely, a bacterium developing resistance to antibiotics illustrates microevolution. The organism remains a bacterium. Microevolution does not confirm macroevolution.
We observe microevolution. Besides bacteria, we see human-directed evolution in dogs, cows, and roses. In each case, they are still dogs, cows, and roses, but with different traits. When Charles Darwin published On The Origin of Species in 1859, he speculated that if his theory was correct, the “number of intermediate varieties” of living things should show up in an “enormous” number of fossils. He acknowledged that, in his time, “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.” However, he predicted that over time, those missing-link fossils would be discovered.
Paleontologists, scientists who study fossils, were some of Darwin’s strongest critics at the time. How is the situation today? The bottom line is that the missing links are still missing. The Field Museum of Natural History has one of the largest fossil collections in the world. In 1979, paleontologist David Raup, in the museum’s bulletin, stated, “We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much” since Darwin’s time. Famed paleontologist Niles Eldridge of the American Museum of Natural History wrote in 1985, “We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the Darwinian theory of gradual change), knowing all the while it does not.”
Now, more than 165 years after Darwin, the missing links are still missing, while the average person believes the fossil record proves Darwinian evolution because that is what we have been told. Microevolution does not confirm macroevolution, nor does the fossil record.
References: “Conflicts Between Darwin and Palaeontology,” Field Museum of Natural History bulletin, January 1979, p. 25; Time Frames: The Evolution of Punctuated Equilibria, Princeton University Press, 1985, pp. 144-45, and God’s Undertaker by John C. Lennox, Lion Hudson, 2009, pp. 113-14.
