Glowing Birds-of-Paradise

Glowing Birds-of-Paradise
Male King Bird-of-Paradise (Cicinnurus regius)

Some of the most colorful and fascinating birds are the more than 40 species in the Paradisaeidae family, known as birds-of-paradise. They are more than just colorful; they are extravagant in their ornamentation and in their mating rituals. We have previously looked at the King of Saxony bird-of-paradise and Wilson’s bird-of-paradise. Studying these birds always reveals something new. In February 2025, a team of researchers published a new study about glowing birds-of-paradise.

Birds-of-paradise inhabit the rainforests of New Guinea and Australia, where they showcase their dazzling colors and remarkable features. Rene Martin, a University of Nebraska ichthyologist (a scientist who studies fish), specializes in deep-sea glow-in-the-dark fish. Some of her colleagues mentioned birds that seem to gleam, which led her to expose some specimens of birds-of-paradise at the American Museum of Natural History to UV light.

What Martin discovered was glowing birds-of-paradise. Thirty-seven species showed biofluorescence under ultraviolet light. Seeing them with human eyes was impressive, but for the specialized eyes of birds, it must be even more dramatic. Unsurprisingly, the males glow the most. For example, the entire belly of the male king bird-of-paradise seems to glow under UV light. Females exhibit some scattered and subdued glowing areas, which might help them camouflage in the sun-dappled rainforest. Meanwhile, the biofluorescence of the males could enhance their brilliant colors in the dark rainforest.

The discovery of these glowing birds-of-paradise reminds us that it’s easy to overlook what is right in front of us. Edwin Scholes, founder and director of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s Birds-of-Paradise Project, said, “Just when people think, ‘Oh, we must know everything there is to know about birds-of-paradise,’ we find something completely mind-blowing. There’s still a lot to be discovered.”

What new insights will science uncover about God’s creation in the coming days and years? The more we learn, the more we realize the truth of Romans 1:20, which tells us we can know there is a God by the things He has made.

— Roland Earnst © 2025

Reference: allaboutbirds.org

The Homochirality of Organic Molecules

The Homochirality of Organic Molecules and Louis Pasteur
Louis Pasteur, French biologist in 1878

Yesterday, we discussed the chirality, or handedness, of molecules, especially amino acids and proteins. The homochirality of organic molecules refers to their requirement for the same handedness, a mystery that has puzzled scientists since 1848, when Louis Pasteur first observed that some life-essential molecules had mirror-image forms. Amino acids used by living cells and the proteins they build have left-handed chirality, while DNA, RNA, and the sugars forming their building blocks are all right-handed. These facts raise a question for those who believe life arose spontaneously.

Left-handed proteins and right-handed DNA are found in all living organisms. The spiral structure of DNA needs to twist in a specific direction to function properly, but what caused the right-handed sugar molecules to come together? When half of all amino acid molecules in nature exhibit right chirality and the other half left, what force could have gathered only the left-handed ones to form the first proteins?

Scientists have speculated that cosmic rays or polarized light might have triggered this process. However, even if such forces created an initial bias for the same-handedness, they could not sustain and amplify it enough to produce a significant number of homochiral molecules to form the first living cells. In 1999, researchers proposed that electron spin created magnetism, causing left-handed peptides (short chains of amino acids) to bind to magnetic surfaces like magnetite. But this still did not explain how the homochirality of organic molecules could be amplified sufficiently to generate living cells.

Some scientists consider RNA to be the key to the origin of life. In 2009, a group of researchers studying RNA molecules suggested that a crystal called RAO could react to produce two of RNA’s four nucleotides. In 2023, other researchers used magnetism to produce RAO crystals with homochirality. However, this process required a magnetic field 6,500 times stronger than Earth’s magnetic field. Additionally, RAO has only been shown to produce two of RNA’s four nucleotides, still falling short of generating the complete homochirality of molecules needed for life.

As 2024 ended, NASA-funded research identified a problem with the so-called “RNA world” hypothesis. Simulating early Earth conditions, they found that RNA did not show a chemical bias toward selecting homochiral amino acids. The current thinking is that the homochirality of organic molecules “could have emerged through later evolutionary pressures.” In other words, we have the “evolution-of-the-gaps” theory because, of course, evolution can do anything you can imagine.

Currently, NASA scientists are analyzing samples brought back from asteroid Bennu, hoping that molecular evidence from meteorites and asteroids will demonstrate that the building blocks for life came from beyond Earth. I suspect that the force responsible for bringing life to Earth did originate outside our planet, and even beyond the universe.  

— Roland Earnst © 2025

References: science.org and nasa.gov

Left-Handedness of Proteins and Amino Acids

Left-Handedness of Proteins and Amino Acids
Left-Handedness of Proteins and Amino Acids
Left-Handed Amino Acid Glutamic Acid Molecule

About 9.2 percent of people are left-handed. In other words, less than 10 percent of humans exhibit left-handedness. However, the proteins in living organisms are 100 percent left-handed. I know proteins don’t have hands, but using the term “handedness” helps to explain how proteins are structured. Proteins are made from amino acids, which fold into left-handed shapes that enable their functions in living beings. These proteins are composed of amino acids, which are also left-handed.

This handedness is more accurately called “chirality.” There are over 500 different amino acids, and they exhibit both left and right chirality. However , only 22 of them are used to make proteins, and their chirality is all left-handed. This creates a mystery. If amino acids existed on early Earth in equal amounts of right- and left-handed forms, and life requires only left chirality, how could life have formed spontaneously? Some thus-far unexplained force would have to select only left-handed amino acids to come together to get life started. Robert F. Service, writing on science. org, called this “an enduring mystery.”

Scientists have proposed several ideas to explain why proteins are left-handed. Some suggest meteorites delivered left-handed amino acids to early Earth. It appears that meteorites are rich in these amino acids, likely due to exposure to polarized light. Another hypothesis is that magnetic fields on early Earth twisted the biomolecules. Robert Service asks, “But even if some external force imparted an initial bias, what propagated it?”

Gerald Joyce, a chemist specializing in the origins of life and president of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, said, “Perhaps it was just a statistical coin flip that caused an original bias toward building blocks of one-handedness to form. But once that coin flipped, it caused other coins to flip.” Those of us who believe in a Creator are often accused of using a “God-of-the-gaps” explanation for life’s mysteries. To me, this explanation for the left-handedness of proteins sounds like a “coin-flip-of-the-gaps.”

— Roland Earnst © 2025

Reference: science.org and Science magazine, Vol 383, Issue 6686

Axolotls, or Mexican Salamanders

Axolotls, or Mexican Salamanders
Axolotls, or Mexican Salamanders

People often call them Mexican walking fish, but they are not fish. They are amphibians, specifically salamanders. Axolotls (Ambystoma mexicanum) or Mexican salamanders look like a fish because it never fully leaves its larval stage.

Unlike other salamanders and frogs, axolotls do not go through metamorphosis. When they become adults, they still look like tadpoles. They develop tiny legs but keep their gills instead of growing lungs and moving to land. The external gills and caudal fin, which are usually only found on salamander larvae, give axolotls a fish-like appearance.

Genetic differences lead to four color variations, from black or olive to pale pink or gold. They eat insects, worms, and small fish by sucking food into their mouths like a vacuum cleaner. In the wild, they are critically threatened and close to extinction because their last native habitat, Lake Xochimilco, is being overtaken by urban growth from Mexico City. However, many of these salamanders are bred in captivity as exotic pets and for research.

Axolotls are valuable for studying heart and nerve functions. They have an incredible ability to heal themselves, capable of regenerating severed limbs and some internal organs. Their injuries heal without leaving scars. Axolotls can also accept transplants of organs, eyes, or even brain parts without rejection issues.

Scientists study axolotls to discover new secrets of healing. God has given us many resources in the natural world and the ability to learn from them. As we have said many times, science and faith are friends, not enemies. 

— Roland Earnst © 2025

Natural Environment and Pain Relief

Natural Environment and Pain Relief

Experience has shown that spending time outdoors in a natural environment can help relieve stress and promote relaxation. A new study indicates that there is also a connection between the natural environment and pain relief. It may be surprising that enjoying the beauty and peacefulness of God’s creation can actually reduce the sensation of pain.

To create a controlled laboratory test, the researchers used images and sounds. For a natural setting, the test subjects were exposed to images of a lake surrounded by trees and hills, accompanied by birdsongs and wave sounds. For an urban setting, the subjects viewed an urban lake surrounded by tall buildings with traffic and construction sounds. The third group saw an office scene with computer and fan sounds. The researchers performed MRI scans on the brains of dozens of test subjects while they were exposed to these fake laboratory environments.

For the test, the subjects were exposed to shocks of increasing intensity while the researchers monitored their MRIs. The test subjects exposed to the urban and indoor environments showed the expected brain activity when sensing pain. However, the areas of the brain that receive pain stimulus (nociception in medical terms) were dulled when viewing the natural environment. You could call it “natural” pain relief. According to Maximilian Steininger, who authored the study, they found that the pain relief was not just a placebo effect. It really worked.

The results of this study could be helpful for healthcare facilities and hospitals. Perhaps that’s why my dentist has a nature scene picture on the ceiling above the patient’s chair. Perhaps he should add some natural sound effects. However, creating a natural scene in the lab (or dentist’s office) cannot compare with the real thing. When feeling pain (or stress), getting outside to enjoy God’s creation might be the best medicine. A real connection exists between the natural environment and pain relief. Enjoying God’s creation also inspires us to worship and thank Him for the beauty we enjoy in the outdoors.

— Roland Earnst © 2025

Sources: Discover Magazine September/October 2025, page 20, and nature.com

What Makes Humans So Special?

What Makes Humans So Special?

Many animal rights advocates argue that we should treat animals the same as humans. To do otherwise is what they call “speciesism,” and they consider it perhaps even worse than racism. Why should humans be favored over other species? What makes humans so special?

An article in Scientific American caught my attention. It was written by Kate Wong and titled “Humans Are Not So Special After All.” The article points out that since 1960, when Jane Goodall observed a chimpanzee using grass and twigs as tools to coax termites from their nests, people have discovered that animals can do things previously thought only humans could do. Wong suggests that humans are not unique and that even plants can think and count.

Observations have shown that animals can perform amazing feats, but isn’t it possible that they do these things because they were programmed for survival by their Designer? It seems to me that the examples Wong provides fall short of proving her point. What makes humans so special involves more than the intelligent actions animals perform.

One example Wong uses is that brown capuchin monkeys decline a treat when they see another receiving a better one. She claims this shows a “sense of fairness,” but couldn’t it also indicate a sense of greed? She states that apes, monkeys, and elephants “mourn the loss of bonded individuals.” However, those species are programmed with a group/herd mentality that depends on each other for survival. She also mentions how mice and rats are affected by the pain or suffering of a fellow species member; but rather than compassion, could that not be fear for their own safety?

Wong also mentions an orca that made worldwide headlines for carrying her dead calf for 17 days while swimming 1,000 miles. To me, that appears to be a programmed survival instinct that failed to recognize there was no hope for the calf’s survival. The Eurasian magpie that “recognized itself” in a mirror reminds me of a turkey rooster that “recognized” his reflection in my basement window and kept tapping on the glass to challenge this supposed “competitor” for his territory.

For an example of plant “consciousness,” Wong presents the Venus flytrap and the fact that it “remembers” being touched. After two touches, it closes to trap the insect. After five touches, it secretes enzymes to digest the prey. But this does not demonstrate “thinking.” It is very simple to program a counting subroutine that causes a device to perform an action after two, five, or any number of signals from an outside source. That is programming, not thinking. The same applies to plants that produce chemicals summoning predators for defense when an animal chews on them. Again, it seems to be a survival program built into the plant.

Wong mentions anthropomorphism as “ascribing human thoughts, feelings, and motivations to animals.” While that is something people often do—particularly with dogs—I think Wong herself may be guilty of it.

The bottom line is that none of the examples Wong cites can compare to what makes humans so special. Humans alone are created in the image of God. We have minds unlike the brain functions of any animal. When we see animals do amazing things, we should give credit to the Creator who gave them those survival abilities.

— Roland Earnst © 2025

 Reference: “Humans Are Not So Special After All” by Kate Wong in Scientific American, September 2025.

AI Stuffed Animals

AI Stuffed Animals
AI Stuffed Toys GABBO, GROK, and GRIM

People often choose to hear what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear. We don’t want to be challenged by tough questions or told what we should or shouldn’t do. Think of that in terms of a child under six years old. They are not different, except that their concepts are just being formed. Now consider the influence of artificial intelligence (AI) on children through AI stuffed animals that tell kids what they want to hear, are always agreeable and charming, and never say “no.”

Small children love stuffed animals and often treat them as if they are real “friends.” What happens when you add AI to the toy? It can now respond to a child’s questions and even their moods. A new trend in stuffed toys is to incorporate interactive AI. This has positive potential. The toy can now tell stories and answer the child’s questions. Children can learn new words faster than by merely watching passive media. It can also help them reduce excess screen time and encourage them to be more active.

Are the effects of AI stuffed animals all positive? The short answer is “no.” If they become the primary companions for young children, it can harm the child’s social awareness and communication with real people. Interaction with other humans, whether children or adults, can teach a child empathy, conflict resolution, and the importance of sharing. The AI toy will always be accommodating to the child’s wishes and moods, but will never say “no.”

Another important factor to consider with AI stuffed animals is privacy. These toys are internet-connected, so they monitor and record children’s conversations to interact with them. They can store, analyze, and possibly misuse conversations of nearby adults as well. Some AI toys work locally without sending conversations to servers, which is worth considering.

The bottom line is that limiting time with AI stuffed animals is just as important as limiting screen time for young children. The problem may be that it’s harder to pry a child’s attention away from their stuffed “friend” than from the television or a game screen. “CyberGuy” Kurt Knutsson correctly says, “Technology will always tempt us with convenience, but children learn best through love, attention, and genuine relationships.” These days, being a good Christian parent is more challenging than ever.

— Roland Earnst © 2025

Reference: Kurt Knutsson’s CyberGuy Report on foxnews.com

Why Are There So Many Species?

Why Are There So Many Species of Life?

How many species of living things exist? So far, scientists have identified, classified, and named 1.2 million species, according to worldatlas.com. The same source states there are about 8.7 million species on Earth. Nobody knows for certain, but other estimates—excluding viruses and bacteria—range from 10 million to 100 million species. Why are there so many species of living things?

How quickly are scientists discovering and describing new species? According to worldatlas.com, they identify and assign genus and species names to 15,000 to 18,000 new species each year. At that rate, if we assume 1.2 million have already been named and there are 10 million in total, the task will take over 500 years, but that’s a conservative estimate. Clearly, biologists still have a lot of work ahead.

There are between six and seven thousand known mammal species according to ourworldindata.org, . But the insect world surpasses that number. For example, beetle species alone number between 350,000 and 400,000. Each year, biologists identify most of the “new species” from museum specimens discovered earlier but not carefully studied. Some species in the wild are facing extinction, and some specimens in museums may already be extinct.

We may ask, “Why are there so many species?” God created diverse kinds of living things and endowed them with the ability to adapt to different environments. Each new species fills a niche in the incredible diversity of animal and plant life that makes our existence possible.

We have previously described the various taxonomic classifications used to categorize living things. (You can read that HERE.) “Species” is the lowest and most specific taxonomic category used by scientists to describe life forms. God created humans with an insatiable curiosity and an amazing ability to organize and categorize information. Then, He gave us plenty of life forms to study. We believe that we can learn more about God as we explore His creations. (Romans 1:20)

— Roland Earnst © 2025

Cana and the Wedding Feast

Cana and the Wedding Feast

We read in John’s gospel that Jesus performed His first miracle at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. Jesus turned six large stone jars of water into wine. But where exactly was Cana? We know it was in Galilee because John mentions it, but the exact location has long been disputed. An archaeologist believes he has found the site of Cana and the wedding feast.

Jesus was present at the wedding with His first disciples, who had been followers of John the Baptist just days before. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was also there, so this wedding was likely for a close friend or family member. The reason for Jesus performing this miracle might have been sympathy for the embarrassment of the wedding host, but it could also have been to help His new disciples develop faith. (See John 2:1-11.)

Natural processes can turn rainwater into grape juice over time, but Jesus had the power to accelerate this without a grapevine. There was no reason for Him to ferment the grape juice to cause intoxication. When the master of the feast tasted it, he remarked, “You have kept the good wine until now.” That suggests the wine at this feast was not intoxicating.

Since the 18th century, the location of Cana and the wedding feast has generally been identified as Kafr Kanna, an Israeli town in Galilee. This is because, following the Crusades, the Franciscans chose it as a convenient place to establish a pilgrimage site, rather than based on historical evidence. Now, archaeologist and historian Tom McCollough suggests that Cana was actually located five miles north of Kafr Kanna, at a site called Khirbet Qana. This was a Jewish village from 323 B.C. to 324 A.D.

Excavations at Khirbet Qana have uncovered a veneration cave complex used by Christian pilgrims until the 12th-century Crusader period. Artifacts and inscriptions on the cave walls indicate this was the original location. McCollough also notes that rabbinic texts and the writings of first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus support this site. After Jesus faced resistance in Judea and ministered in Samaria, He returned to Cana, where He healed a nobleman’s son. (See John 4:43-54.)

The significance of identifying the location of Jesus’ first miracle is not for pilgrims to visit and venerate the site. Instead, it shows that the gospels describe real historical locations and events. Jesus is a real person, and Cana was a real place. Historian Tom McCollough believes that his excavations at Khirbet Qana strengthen the historical reliability of the Bible.

— Roland Earnst © 2025

Reference: foxnews.com

Prayer Changes Things

Prayer Changes Things

As Paul concluded his first epistle to the Thessalonians, he gave them a list of instructions (1 Thessalonians 5:14-22). Among these is the admonition to “Pray without ceasing” (verse 17). That does not mean to be constantly on your knees or even with your eyes closed. The idea is to maintain a constant attitude of prayer. Prayer changes things, starting with the person who prays.

In Acts 12:5, we read about what the early Church did when Peter was imprisoned for preaching the gospel. “Peter was therefore kept in prison, but constant prayer was offered to God for him by the church” (NKJV). They prayed without ceasing for Paul, and God answered their prayer with a miracle. God doesn’t always answer with miracles. Miracles, by their very definition, are extremely rare. However, that does not mean that prayer can’t change things.

Recently (August 27, 2025), a gender-confused person with wicked motives opened fire on children in a Minnesota Catholic school during mass, killing two and injuring 15, plus 2 adults. The deranged shooter apparently harbored major anger toward Christianity and a desire to kill children. This incident also prompted many politicians and media personalities to display their hostility toward prayer. They demonstrated that they can’t believe prayer changes things.

In a press conference, the mayor of Minneapolis criticized people who were calling for prayer in response to the shooting. “Don’t say this is about ‘thoughts and prayers’ right now. These kids were literally praying…they were in a church.” Other Democratic officials and liberal media figures also disparaged faith-based responses to the tragedy. Dana Bash on CNN repeated the mayor’s call to “forget about thoughts and prayers.”

Jen Psaki, the former White House press secretary under President Biden, in a rant on X, stated, “Enough with the thoughts and prayers.” Then, on her MSNBC show, Psaki criticized President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance for calling for prayer for the families involved. Vance had defended prayer by writing on X, “We pray because our hearts are broken. We pray because we know God listens.”

As I said, prayer changes things. Living in an attitude of prayer will change your life. It will change your attitude toward others. It will make you concerned for their needs and their pains. It will ease your own burdens and lead you to demonstrate God’s love for others. Perhaps it will bring a miracle, and maybe that miracle is a change in your life. Pray without ceasing.

— Roland Earnst © 2025