The graduation of young scientists is usually not a front page story in national newspapers. However the New York Times printed such an article on February 12, 2007 about Dr. Ross’ recent doctoral degree in geosciences. This newspaper, it turns out, provided a forum for those who thought a young earth creationist should not be allowed to graduate with secular credentials. Nobody questioned the quality of his work. However some declared that a Biblical literalist should not be allowed to mention his secular credentials later in discussions of the creation model. The article asked rhetorically: “May a secular university deny otherwise qualified students a degree because of their religion? Can a student produce intellectually honest work that contradicts deeply held beliefs? Should it be obligatory (or forbidden) for universities to consider how students will use the degrees they earn?”

Some individuals insist that “the crucial issue is not whether Dr. Ross deserved his degree, but how he will use it.” As a student, Marcus Ross never made any secret of his views. On this topic, his Ph.D. research director declared: “All I can tell you is he came here and did science that was completely defensible.”

In the summer of 2000, while a student, Marcus Ross traveled to southern China to study the famous Cambrian fossils near Chengjang. He has collaborated with scientists from the Discovery Institute in Seattle (an Intelligent Design think tank) and with the Baraminology Study Group (young earth scientists who seek to identify the created kinds).

On November 14, 2009 Dr. Ross was one of the featured speakers on the Darwin Was Wrong Conference and Webcast originating in Cosa Mesa, California. The title of his talk was “Darwin was Wrong about the Fossil Record.” Other speakers included Dr. Steven Austin, Jerry Bergman, John Baumgardner and John Sandford among others.

Dr. Ross is Assistant Professor of Geology in the Biology/Chemistry Department at Liberty University in Lynchberg, Virginia. He is also Assistant Director of the Center for Creation Studies at Liberty University. Thus CSAA looks forward to exciting and informative talks from an expert who has been captivated, from a young age, by dinosaurs and fossils. Be sure to reserve these dates for the creation week-end and tell your friends about it too!  

There are certain things which a potential viewer must understand, however, before viewing this DVD. The discussion is entirely in terms of long ages. There is a reason however why this is to be commended. The people involved do not necessarily support long ages, some do and some don’t. The point nevertheless is that even when the discussion is couched in terms which the evolutionists prefer (the long ages), still the evidence fails to support evolution. Given even the most favourable background to the issue, the arguments for evolution still fail! And they fail spectacularly in terms of a number of issues including sudden appearance in Cambrian rocks with no hint of ancestors or transitional forms in the rocks beneath, evidence of design in body plans and in genetic control of how these body plans develop, and sudden appearance of most major body plans at the same time.

This video includes amazing animated scenes illustrating what the creatures of the Burgess Shale in British Columbia might have looked like when they were alive. Beautiful scenes of the areas where these fossils are found, shot on four continents, also greatly contribute to the visual interest. Then there are the pictures of the fossils themselves, presented up close where most of us will never be in a position to view them.

The DVD also includes commentary by a number of scientists including Simon Conway Morris from Cambridge University. He is famous for his studies of these fossils from sites around the world. His remarks are confined entirely to issues of fossil occurrence and do not constitute support for the objectives of the film. The same holds for  James Valentine of University of California. The other people interviewed all support, more or less, the objectives of the film.

The discussion focuses on the fact that the evidence does not support an evolutionary interpretation. The film does not offer an explanation for why there would be a sudden appearance of complicated animals at a certain level in the rocks. Supporters of the creation model, on the other hand, interpret the Cambrian explosion as the first creatures overtaken by sediments washed off the land in the Flood of Noah. There were plenty of animals and people living before that point of course, but there was no catastrophe which caused them to overtaken by rushing water laden with sediments which resulted in some being preserved as fossils.

Lisa Derksen, a friend who viewed the DVD with me, declared as the video ended: “I want my own copy!” She said that she particularly liked the section on blue prints which, without saying so, conveyed the idea of a designer. She liked the blue print images of Burgess Shale creatures and of extant creatures like shrimp. There was also an amusing sequence illustrating different car models, all based on the same body plan (design). Lisa also really appreciated the global aspect of the location shots where the fossils are found.

The DVD is 72 minutes long and there are, in addition, over 60 minutes of bonus features. This DVD is certain to provide viewers with most enjoyable insights into the significance of the Cambrian explosion.

Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record. Illustra Media. 72 minutes.

An attractive full colour booklet from the Institute for Creation Research describes situations where people did bother to seek after understanding which was previously unknown. Today we know lots about many scientific disciplines so that the challenge is to try to handle all the available information. There was a time however when very little was known. This booklet tells us how some of the great pioneers of science set about discovering the foundations of their disciplines and it tells us also why they were so motivated.

We start with Italian Galileo in the 17^th century, said to be the father of modern science; to German Johann Kepler of the 17^th century, father of physical astronomy; to Irish Robert Boyle of the same century, father of modern chemistry; to English Isaac Newton, father of universal gravitation; to William Kirby of  England in the 19^th century, father of entomology (insects); to another 19^th century Englishman, Michael Faraday, father of electromagnetism and his Scottish contemporary James Clerk Maxwell, father of electromagnetic theory; to German/Czech Gregor Mendel, father of modern genetics, to French contemporary Louis Pasteur, father of modern microbiology; to 20^th century George Washington Carver, a great pioneer in modern agriculture. Among them all we see individuals who exhibited a strong appreciation and curiosity about nature. They did so because they knew that all things were made by God.

These men were Christians from a variety of denominations, who because of their interest in the Creation, sought to learn more about God’s handiwork. They approached their disciplines with careful observations and lots of experiments. They refused to be intimidated by the majority opinion of contemporaries, self declared experts, who really knew very little. Galileo, for example, had to fight fellow academics who based their conclusions on Greek philosophy rather than observations. And Louis Pasteur had to fight those who believed in spontaneous generation, or bugs springing from garbage itself rather than from bugs begetting more bugs which chose to live in the garbage.

The booklet is attractively illustrated and very well organized. Each discussion includes the details of who, what, when and where as well as one or two quotes from the scientist which illustrate his Christian faith and his general approach to knowledge gleaned from nature. The second half of the book, in workbook format with permission to copy as required, provides discussion and questions on more modern aspects of the work of each specialist, as well as discussion on passages from Scripture which shed light on the work and interests of these amazing people.

Because of the nature of the book’s theme, highlighting people in a variety of disciplines, the scientific discussion hops all over from astronomy to physics to biology etc. The questions however are designed to encourage reflection and further research, probably at the upper junior high school level. In order to make the booklet entirely meaningful, answers are available on line at <icr.org/great-scientists>.  Also there is a useful <icr.org/evidence> site for more details. Thus properly used, this book can be a springboard to more studies as well as a wonderful wrap-up for survey courses in science at this level. But it doesn’t have to be used in a course! The material is interesting in its own right and it is certainly suitable for expanding one’s intellectual horizons.

Christine Dao. 2009. Thinking God’s Thoughts after Him: Great Scientists Who Honored the Creator. Institute for Creation Research, Dallas.  32 pages.  Paper. Full colour.

Another result of the eruption was a tidal wave from nearby Spirit Lake, which scrubbed all the trees off the nearby mountain slopes. These tree trunks floated in the newly located Spirit Lake. Tree parts continue to sink to the lake bottom: both bark and tree trunks, some in vertical position. The vertical trunks resemble the remains of so called “coal swamps” connected with coal deposits, but the Spirit Lake logs have sunk over a few years, not growing over millions of years, as many suppose to the case for the coal swamps. Other phenomena too, connected with this mountain, all suggest the passage of long ages, but we know that they all happened within the last few years.

The next morning Dr. Austin discussed where Darwin first went wrong. Apparently, when Darwin made his famous voyage in the HMS Beagle, his interests were in geology. At one time, even, he was secretary of the geological society of London. In that geology was his primary interest at that time, his first conclusions in this discipline are particularly relevant in revealing his approach to the study of nature. These errors contributed moreover to the later conclusions he made about biology, for which he is famous. In that Darwin’s initial conclusions were wrong, it is not surprising that his later conclusions were also wrong.

At three sites along the coast of South America, the Santa Cruz River valley in Argentina, the San Sebastian boulder deposit in Peru and the effects of the Concepcion earthquake and tsunami, which he actually experienced on February 20. 1835 in Chile, Darwin failed to see evidence of catastrophic processes.

In the Santa Cruz River valley, for example, there is a 60 m high boulder bar in the middle of the 7 km wide river valley. This bar is 8 km long and 5 km across and it consists of rounded boulders and cobbles. The only way such a structure could come about is from fast running water. The boulder bar is, in short, a primary sedimentary deposit. Also over the 120 m high basalt cliff along the river’s edge, there are rounded pebbles and cobbles of metamorphic rock. This rock originated in the core of the Andes Mountains, several hundred km farther west. Only a catastrophic flood could erode the valley, drop the boulder bar and strew foreign, but well rounded rocky debris on top of the cliff. As a practicing geologist, Darwin should have known that none of these phenomena can come about slowly, but his expectation was to observe evidence of slow processes and so these were his conclusions. The same thing happened at the other two sites. Thus his support for processes extending over long ages, was established early.

On Saturday afternoon, Dr. Austin discussed worldwide marks left by the global flood. Firstly he discussed strata (layers of rock) and processes of sedimentation. While many modern geologists concede that many sedimentary deposits occur quickly, they nevertheless insist that limestone was deposited slowly from placid lakes. Dr. Austin pointed out evidence contrary to this idea. The Redwall Limestone of the Grand Canyon, for example, is a deposit 120 m thick. About 30 m up from the base of this deposit is a 2 m thick layer which is widespread throughout the canyon and beyond, even extending 200 km from Marble Canyon to Los Vegas! In this layer of rock, throughout the region, are found arm length long nautiloid fossils. These organisms were like squid or octopus, but each lived in a cigar shaped shell. Most of the shell was gas filled, with the creature occupying an outer chamber so that it could extend its tentacles outward. These predators were apparently overcome and buried by an under water debris flow of limey material which must have been moving about 7 m per second to overtake these fast moving predators. Dr. Austin has observed 1000s of these animals in that layer of limestone rock, proof that limestone can be deposited quickly and catastrophically.

Dr. Austin next discussed catastrophic plate tectonics (continental sprint), a model for the onset and geological after effects of the global flood. In connection with this, he discussed sheet erosion and other effects of retreating flood waters rushing off the continents during the late stages of the flood. Another effect of these tectonic upheavals was extensive volcanism. In this connection he pointed to the Yellowstone supervolcano of the past which left 16,300 cubic km of sediment which is now called the Morrison Formation. Part of this deposit includes the 145 m thick Brushy Basin Member, which includes many dinosaurs including huge sauropods. The dinosaur bones found at Dinosaur National Monument are evidence of a gigantic slurry flow event connected to volcanic eruptions.

Lastly in this topic Dr. Austin discussed evidence for exponential decline in geologic events following the great flood. (An acronym for these points, arranged for easy recall, is STEVE!)

Later in the evening and for a change of pace, Dr. Austin discussed the search for Sodom and Gomorrah. It is the modern secular view that these cities never existed and that the Biblical account is entirely mythical. Dr. Austin however declared that a search in Israel and Jordan reveals interesting evidence concerning the real existence of these cities and of their fate.

With reference to ancient maps and other documents, Dr. Austin identified Babe dh dhra as the likely location of Sodom, and Wadi Numeri as Gomorrah. The scale of the destruction in both these communities, demonstrated from modern digs at these sites, suggests that an extremely strong earthquake was involved with associated electrical disturbances and flammable ignition of petroleum products such as asphalt and tar which issued from the fault. Zoar, a nearby city which remained intact, was located near the same fault, but it was on the west side. The destroyed communities were on the east side of the fault where blowing gas and burning debris could overcome the flattened remains. Apparently too, the largest shallow basin of hot lava is situated directly under the site of Sodom. These interesting insights may well create new interest in the sad history of these cities.

So ended a most stimulating weekend. This event, it is to be hoped, provided new or renewed interest in the many issues which were discussed.

While all such information may be interesting in its own right, scientists choose which organisms to sequence (document the order of nucleotides in the DNA) based on evolutionary theory. Thus bacteria, yeast, round worms, fruit flies, rats, dogs, apes and humans have all enjoyed their moment of fame. In May 2008, the genome of Australia’s platypus was published. This creature however is justly famous anyway, but the genome studies have helped focus attention on why this is so.

When British naturalists first saw a pelt of a platypus, they were sure it was a hoax.  Eventually naturalists discovered that this animal was real and that it lays eggs, although it suckles its young with genuine mother’s milk. It seemed as if this creature was a strange jumble of bird, reptile and mammalian (feeds milk to young) characteristics. More careful study however reveals that this organism is actually a beautifully designed organism. The genome study further emphasizes this fact.

Research since the platypus was discovered, has turned up only two species of the faintly similar Echidna, also native of Australia. Thus the duckbilled platypus remains a highly unusual creature. Not only its appearance, but many aspects of its biology are unique. These small animals (up to 60 cm long) spend most of their time under water. Indeed they are unable to find food on land. Amazingly however, they swim blind, deaf and without the normal opportunity to detect chemicals since flaps cover their eyes, ears and nose while they are submerged. Recent research however has revealed that they have some unique abilities to compensate for lack of sight, hearing and smell.

Once the genome data has been collected, there is nothing obvious to show what stretches of DNA contain genes of interest. Faced with endless arrangements of nucleotides, how do scientists “read” the information? Initially, what scientists did, was to identify coding for certain basic proteins. Gradually they built up a computerized repertoire of DNA coding which identifies important genes in at least in one organism. Then when they wish to study a different organism, they use huge computers to look for similar stretches of DNA in the new organism.

Fancy mathematics allows the computer to decide whether similar sequences are close enough to represent the same gene or not. Since the genomes of many organisms have now been documented, scientists now have a large collection of nucleotide sequences which code for important genes.  This provides an opportunity to compare the new organism with other creatures. Does it have similar genes or different ones? This analysis certainly reveals interesting things about the platypus.

Obviously the creature needs special hardware and talents designed for navigation since its ears, nose and eyes are closed under water. Back in 1985, German scientist Henning Scheich discovered some highly unusual properties of the platypus. This animal reacts to weak electrical fields in water. What this scientist did was to bury a small charged battery under a brick in the water. In addition, he placed a similar, but dead battery under another brick. The platypus dislodged the brick sitting on top of the charged battery, but ignored the other brick/battery site. Later, the platypus avoided a mesh screen placed in front of a charged battery, but it collided with a screen placed in front of a dead battery. Further studies have amply confirmed that platypus have electroreceptors in their bills.

Since the late 1980s, scientists have discovered that there are two kinds of electroreceptor and one type of touch receptor in the platypus snout. Over the main surface of the bill there are oblique arrays of pores which are mucous-filled. The mucous serves to enhance transmission of a signal to the nerve at the bottom of the pit. The bill of the platypus has 40,000 such electroreceptors.

The push-rod mechanical (touch) receptors in the bill are remarkable in their own right. Inside the pore is a compacted column of skin which can rotate about its base or move up and down. These very sensitive touch receptors are similar to the highly unusual touch receptors in the nose of the star-nosed mole. The organ of touch in the snout of the star-nosed mole is so sensitive, that the information obtained from it is almost as detailed as vision. This animal also spends most of its time foraging for food under water. Until recently, scientists knew of no other creatures with as sensitive a sense of touch. Now it appears that the mechanoreceptors in the bill of platypus are of even more sophisticated design.

There is yet another interesting feature of these sensory pores on the bill of the platypus, each is surrounded by petal-like skin flaps which open when the animal is under water. When the animal emerges from the water however, tiny sphincters around each pore close the flaps so that the sensors will not dry out.

The platypus hunts small organisms found near the sediments of lakes, ponds and rivers. Apparently these small victims generate weak electrical fields. Scientists suspect that the platypus knows how far away an electrical source is, whether it is moving, and in what direction. The remarkable thing is that these talents of platypus are so unique. As far as electrical sensing is concerned, some fish also exhibit this ability. However in the case of fish, the sensors are all over the body and they are not nearly so sensitive. But platypus has more talents yet! One might have imagined that platypus would not need much in the way of a sense of smell since their noses are closed under water. This conclusion is partly right and partly wrong.

As far as genes for normal smell (chemical receptors) are concerned, the genome project shows that platypus has a reduced number.  However there are chemical receptors called vomeronasal receptors which may be located in the mouth or the nose and surprise, surprise, platypus has the largest variety of vomeronasal type 1 receptors known. At 950 different types, the platypus has 50% more than the mouse. Moreover the chicken and a lizard have no such receptors at all, nor do people.

The platypus thus has very special electrical, touch and chemical  receptors. The article on the platypus genome in Nature (May 8/08 pp. 175-183) discusses the large number of genes which code for the special chemical receptors. The article however makes no mention of genes for electrical and touch receptors. Obviously there must be quite a number of genes in the platypus coding for these sophisticated sensors. The sequence (order) of nucleotides however does not come with labels identifying which sections code for electroreceptor components or anything else. Scientists need an already established standard order of nucleotides coding for such genes from another, not too different creature. Since these talents are highly unusual however, no comparison with a similar gene in a similar creature can as yet be made. Thus we don’t hear about how many genes code for these other special talents of the platypus.

What recent studies show is that this animal is not a jumble of features from a broad assortment of organisms, but rather a wonderfully integrated collection of unusual anatomy and attributes. Certain features may remind us of birds and reptiles, but the similarities are merely superficial. The platypus truly is unique in its navigational abilities and in all the other features. Obviously this unusual creature was designed to pursue its unique but effective lifestyle. It is evident that the creation of the platypus involved finesse and exquisite attention to detail. We should be very grateful for the opportunity to learn about this wonderful creature from Australia!

Just released in September 2009, the objective of this DVD is to explain why Darwin’s work had so significant an impact on the culture then as well as now, and why that impact is antagonistic to religious faith. This film, which was the brainchild of Dr. Emil Silvestru, on the staff of Creation Ministries International (Canada), begins with scenes from Darwin’s childhood and youth. As we progress through Darwin’s life with historical re-enactments and wonderful shots on location, the experts provide commentary. Some of these experts are secular, but others are sympathetic to the objectives of the film.

Firstly we hear from science historians: Dr. Janet Browne (British), American Dr. Sandra Herbert and Dr. Peter Bowler of Ireland. As we move into Darwin’s voyage on the Beagle, we hear from other experts: geologist Dr. Silvestru, British Dr. Stuart Burgess and famous Canadian dinosaur expert Dr. Philip Currie , formerly of the Royal Tyrrell Museum and presently at University of Alberta. The pace of the scientific discussion picks up as we trace Darwin’s progress around Argentina, Tierra del Fuego, Chile and out to the Galapagos Islands in the ocean west of Ecuador. Once at the Galapagos, we hear about biology rather than geology. We hear from Dr. Bryan Milstead, head of research at the Charles Darwin Research Centre, American marine biologist Dr. Bryan Carter and Craig Buckley, Darwin Project Officer from Cambridge University, the institution where Darwin studied.  In this discussion we hear about the wildlife on the Galapagos which provide compelling evidence that the islands and their inhabitants are of recent origin.

New experts now come on the scene: American biophysicist Dr. Cornelius Hunter, Dutch ecologist Dr. Jan Komdeur and biochemist Dr. Matti Leisola of Finlalnd, who discuss the development of Darwin’s views as he matured. The discussion focuses on how Darwin emphasized the importance of death in his theory and how this affected his life and his health. Last of all,  philosophers  Dr. Alvin Plantinga (American) and Dr. Tapio Puolimatka from Finland, discuss the relationship of Darwin’s views to science and to religion. As Canadian Dr. Philip Currie remarks in this regard: “Darwin was taking philosophy in an anti-religion direction.”

This film not only offers visually delightful scenes, acting and illustrations, but also insightful discussion from a varied line up of experts. Young viewers will enjoy the historical details while others will also appreciate the critical analysis of Darwin’s observations, the conclusions he drew and his reasons for coming to those conclusions. Lastly most viewers will be interested in the impact of Darwin’s views on us today. The question everyone must answer is why society would be so impressed by someone who spent such a short time in each location (five weeks in the Galapagos for example).  Each viewer must ask himself whether Darwin’s impact has been for good or for ill over these past two centuries. Will we allow ourselves to be similarly affected?

This is an excellent general interest DVD with appeal for the whole family. Let’s observe Darwin’s centenary the right way!

Darwin: the Voyage that Shook the World.  Fathom Media.  54 minutes  $18.00.

The most amazing aspect of these creatures was their long necks, which reached truly amazing proportions. Camarasaurus, for example, which was a relatively small sauropod at 18 m (55 ft) long, had a neck about 2.7 m (8 ft) long balanced by a tail about 8 m or 25 ft long. Apatosaurus (famous for its original name of Brontosaurus, before it had the correct head attached to the rest of the skeleton), measured about 21 m (65 ft) long of which its neck was 4.5 m (15 ft) and its tail 7 m (24 ft). Then there was Mamenchisaurus with perhaps the longest neck of all. With its whole body length of 25 m (80 ft), it boasted a neck length of up to 14 m (46 ft), balanced by a tail which was even a little longer. The tails, of course, could drape downward without compromising the lifestyle of the animal, but the head would have to be held up in the air, supported by a horizontal or somewhat vertical neck. Therein lay some serious engineering challenges for these dinosaurs. It is not so easy to hold a long neck up in the air.

The problems of a long neck are as follows. Imagine for example that you have a vertical piece of wood. You want to attach a horizontal beam to the vertical structure. So, of course, you use lots of nails or screws to secure the second piece of wood at right angles to the vertical one so that you have a rigid board projecting from the vertical beam. Now suppose however that instead of a rigid board, you attach a string of wooden beads to the vertical structure. Do these beads stretch out horizontally the way the rigid beam did?  Of course not, the beads hang down. Similar engineering principles apply to long dinosaur necks. A rigid piece of bone would keep the neck elevated in the air, but of course (being rigid), it could not move. Alternatively, if the skeleton in the neck consists of separate bones, it would hang down, unless some cleverly engineered modifications are applied.

The design solutions which allow the long dinosaur necks to move, and yet stay elevated, are as follows. Firstly the skeleton in the neck consists of only a few component parts. Thus the neck bones (vertebrae) are very long, each up to 1.5 m (5 ft) long. This means that the average number of vertebrae (bones) in a sauropod neck is only about 12, while the average number of tail vertebrae might have been as high as 80. The lower number of component parts meant that less extra support was needed to keep the neck in the air.

Secondly the neck bones were exceptionally light but strong. Apparently the sauropod neck vertebrae were like those strong silvery helium balloons that we buy for celebrations. They had a very thin but strong layer of bone filled up by sacks of air kept under pressure from the lungs. It is easier to hold up a lighter structure than a heavier one and it certainly takes less energy to do so. The neck however would still hang limply if the component parts were not braced (provided with extra support). This is the third design feature. The beauty of bracing is that it allows for some support and some flexibility at the same time.

If you feel along your backbone, you will find small bumps marking the location of each vertebrae (back bone unit). These projections or spurs extend outward, but not very far in your case. In the case of some dinosaurs however, prominent spurs extended outward from each vertebra (imagine really big bumps along your back bone!) In the case of these dinosaurs, powerful ligaments connected the spurs together, thereby giving the whole backbone good support. This enabled any dinosaur with such a neck to enjoy considerable flexibility in the neck region along with adequate support to keep the head lifted upward. While such a neck was highly mobile however, the animal would have to work a little harder to keep its neck from wobbling. In addition, the bone spurs meant more weight to the neck, so these animals tended to have just moderately long necks. An example of such a dinosaur is Apatosaurus, formerly known as Brontosaurus.

The really long necks were braced on the other side of the backbone (in toward the internal organs). The bracing took the form of long thin pointy structures (called cervical ribs) which extended from one vertebra under several others in a row, thereby giving strength to the whole thing. These backbones tended to be very light, so extremely long necks were possible. The flexibility was not as great as for the other bracing design, but the neck was easier to keep from wobbling. Examples of such dinosaurs include Brachiosaurus, Camarasaurus and Mamenchisaurus. Diplodocus, on the other hand, is an example of a dinosaur whose neck was braced in both directions.

Thus we can see that the long necked style of dinosaur required some very special design features. Indeed some dinosaur experts have pointed this out. The Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs, edited by Philip Currie and Kevin Padian (1997) declares that the neck bracing provides “maximum strength for minimum weight – a true triumph of engineering.” (p. 654). Also Zdenek Spinar and Philip Currie tell us that the air filled neck vertebrae are “marvelously engineered structures for lightness and strength.” (in The Great Dinosaurs 1994). How very interesting these statements are. Everyone knows that engineered structures require an engineer, an intelligent individual who plans a structure for a particular purpose. In like fashion, engineered dinosaur necks have indeed been designed to solve several problems in managing these lengthy structures.

Of course the sauropod dinosaurs are now extinct and we are probably just as happy that this is so. They were however, wonderfully designed for their life style before the great flood. Apparently those that survived on the ark, have since been unable to cope with new conditions in order to survive to the present. We can still nevertheless appreciate how these creatures contributed to the richness and variety of the creation when they roamed the earth.

Pandas consume about 18 kg (40 pounds) of bamboo a day. Bamboo makes up 99% of their diet but they will occasionally eat meat. Their major enemy is humans, though occasionally snow leopards or wild dogs have been known to eat cubs who have wandered from their mom. Humans have hunted them for their fur and encroached onto their land for decades. Only about 1,000 were left until, in recent years, a systematic effort was made to prevent their extinction due to their popularity and worldwide concern for their fate.

Two main pandas exist, the familiar giant panda ( Ailuropoda melanoleuca) weighing up to 160 kg and the 3 to 4.5 kg red panda (Ailurus fulgens). The giant panda is an enigma to evolutionists because no one has proffered even close to a reasonable idea of what animal it could have evolved from. Indeed, pandas are so different from all other animals that evolutionists have had a hard time even postulating a logical evolutionary origin scenario. One scientist, after studying the panda for many years, concluded that the giant panda evolved from the bear family and the red panda from the raccoon family. Other biologists “looked at the same evidence and came away convinced that the two were relatives, belonging to the same branch on the evolutionary tree” (George Schaller. 1993. The Last Panda. University of Chicago Press p. 261).

Evolutionists assume that, because humans appear to have shared certain features in common with apes and gorillas, this is evidence that they have descended from a common ancestor. In contrast, many animals often have similar features, yet evolutionists do not believe they could be derived from a common ancestor.  An example of two animals with some similar features, yet which are different enough that evolutionists do not believe they could be derived from a common ancestor, is the case of the giant and red pandas. They differ in that the giant panda looks much like a medium sized bear. The red panda looks like a red raccoon and is about the same size, has a long striped tail, but it also has a bear like face, and other bear like features (Ramona and Desmond Morris. 1966. Men and Pandas, McGraw-Hill pp. 18-19).

The red and giant pandas also share many traits. Both have enlarged sesamoid [a bone developing within a tendon] thumbs (or slightly enlarged carpal/wrist bones) that in the case of the giant panda, function as opposable thumbs to help them grip bamboo so as to strip off its leaves, their main diet (Michael Salesa. 2006. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103 (2): p. 397). This feature is one reason why they are both labeled pandas. Nevertheless evolutionists do not believe these animals have a close evolutionary relationship because of the many major differences between them.

The skull, teeth and forepaws of both the red and giant pandas are all designed to help them consume bamboo, but only the giant panda can use its radial sesamoid as an opposable thumb (Schaller p. 261). Though the red panda’s radial sesamoid is not as pronounced as that of the giant panda, recent research suggests that the red panda can use them like an opposable thumb, but in a very different way than that of the giant panda (Hideki Endo et al. 2005. Annals of Anatomy 183 (2): 181-184.)  The problem is, although they “are not closely related, their sharing of this adaptation implies a remarkable convergence” (Salesa p. 397). The “independent evolution” of both pandas is very difficult to explain and document.

The panda was historically considered as just another type of bear because its external appearance is superficially very similar to a bear (Morris and Morris p. 183). Schaller wrote: “Is the giant panda a bear? Are the red and giant pandas closely related? These two questions have been debated for over a century. Anatomists, behaviorists, paleontologists, and molecular biologists have led the fascinating inquiry into the evolutionary relationships of these species with ingenuity and persistence, yet they continue to derive different conclusions on the basis of different evidence, and they still pursue the elusive answers.” (Schaller 1993 p. 261).

The raccoon school concluded that the giant panda and the red panda both evolved from the raccoon family Procyonidae, and the bear school concludes that they both evolved from a true bear and are members of the family Ursidae (Morris and Morris p. 182). For several decades researchers have moved back and forth between these two views. Professor Peacock’s solution to their evolution was to put the giant panda in the bear family, and the red panda in the raccoon family. (Dr. Peacock is a polar bear and panda biologist working for the Canadian Government.) This view caught on, but much controversy still exists. The giant panda is now believed to have descended from bears and the red panda from the raccoon, which is currently placed in its own family, the Ailuridae.

Researchers from the US National Cancer Institute and the National Zoo analyzed genes and proteins from pandas, raccoons, and bears. They concluded that the red panda is not as closely related to the raccoon as it looks, but the giant panda is closer to a bear than most biologists thought (Hammond, 1985).

Yet enormous differences exist between a giant panda and bears. No evidence exists that either the red or the giant panda can hybridize with any bear species. Bears walk flat on their hind feet, pandas walk on their hind feet toes. Bears have long claws useful for digging, while pandas have a modified sesamoid bone that functions as a thumb. Most bear species have 74 chromosomes, pandas only 42. The panda’s digestive system is much shorter than that of bears, so short it can digest only about 20% of its food compared to 60% for most herbivores. To obtain sufficient calories it must consume 12 to 15% of its body weight in food daily, requiring it to eat for 15 hours each day of its adult life.

An excellent panda fossil record exists over a wide area, from Burma to Szechuan China. So far, no fossils have been located that link the panda to any theoretical evolutionary ancestors. The earliest known panda fossils (Pleistocene), appear to be fully modern pandas. Some argue that the reason little change is seen in the fossil record is because the only very early evidence of pandas so far includes isolated teeth, lower jaws, and a few skulls (C. Jin et al. 2007. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103 (2): p. 10932). Only an extinct, supposedly the “pygmy” version of the giant panda known as Ailuropoda microta, has ever been found in the fossil record.

This evidence, though, is enough for zoologists to conclude that the panda “has not changed its appearance since the Pleistocene” (I. Poglayen-Neuwall 1975. Grzimek’s Animal Life Encyclopedia. Van Nostrand Reinhold vol. 12 p.112). The major difference is fossils of the earliest giant pandas discovered indicate that it was about half the size of the modern giant pandas. Their feeding behaviour, though, judging by the skull and teeth, was centered on bamboo as is true today. There is not much to cheer about when it comes to ideas about panda evolution, is there?

Spring finds about 100 million Monarch butterflies sunning themselves on huge pine trees in a 150 square kilometer region in the Mexican Sierra Madre mountains. As the days grow longer and warmer, the butterflies which have done little all winter but sit, now start to fly north. Along the way these insects eat newly emerging milkweed plants and lay eggs. The original adults soon die but the next generation emerges and continues the flight north, eating and reproducing as they go. And the next generation does the same thing. At this time of year, the adults live only about a month. Eventually the butterflies reach their summer range in the north central and eastern parts of the United Sates and in south central and eastern Canada. During the summer the butterflies fly aimlessly about, eating and reproducing for perhaps another two generations. These insects have no interest in traveling anywhere specific. Then all of a sudden as the day length declines to only 12 hours of daylight or less, the newly emerging adult butterflies exhibit a compulsion to fly southwest. They fly about 80 km per day for about two months until they reach the site in Mexico which their remote ancestors left so many months previously. The fall hatched butterflies do not reproduce nor do they die after a month. Rather they sit through the winter, waiting for spring to arrive.

In recent years some interesting details concerning the Monarch’s navigation system have emerged. The tiny head of the butterfly makes use of both a clock and a compass to plot the migration route. Even people have a biological clock which they mostly take for granted. How many people wake up at the same time each morning? How many people suffer from jet lag when their biological rhythms are out of synchrony in a new time zone? These effects are produced by a natural internal biological clock. Since Monarch butterflies make such obvious use of a biological clock, this is one of the systems which has been studied. The clock makes use of a daily increase and decline in levels of certain proteins in the tiny butterfly brain.

As daylight arrives, blue light from the sun impacts a light receptor called Cryptochrome (meaning hidden pigment). The light changes the shape of the Cryptochrome 1 in the central complex of the brain (four cells). This protein now has an effect on another protein. It combines with a special protein called Timeless which then begins to decline in amount. At the same time however, Timeless moves into a relationship with Period (also a protein). Period similarly begins to disintegrate but at the same time it moves into a relationship with Cryptochrome 2. It is the latter protein which has the really important effects. It moves into the nucleus of each of these cells and effectively stops production of the clock proteins which are called Clock/Cycle. As these Clock/Cycle proteins decline in amount through the day, the cell takes note of the passage of time. Cryptochrome 2 however has another extremely important effect. It tells the compass what time it is judging by the amount of Clock/Cycle proteins that are left.

As night falls Cryptochrome 1 stops kicking Timeless/Period/Cryptochrome 2, and Cryptochrome 2 then moves out of the nucleus of these brain cells. During the darkness, Clock and Cycle proteins are synthesized, increasing to maximum amounts by daybreak. Also the Timeless and Period and Cryptochrome 2 proteins are synthesized at night. The system goes round and round and it is the arrival of first light in the morning which keeps the clock synchronized with the actual day/night cycle. So scientists have some understanding of part of the butterfly’s navigational system. However there are plenty of other unresolved issues such as the compass.

In order to navigate, of course, one must be able to plot one’s route. The first part of the butterfly’s compass is special cells on the upper rim of each eye. These cells are sensitive to ultra violet light. It is the sensing of these invisible rays coming from the sun, which enable the butterfly to calculate its position relative to the position of the sun in the sky. The butterfly then flies consistently southwest, day after day, week after week to its destination 4000 km away. The butterfly knows where the southwest is, based on the sun’s position in the sky. But of course the sun is constantly changing its position, as it moves from east to west across the sky. This is where the biological clock becomes important. It tells the compass what time it is so that the butterfly can constantly adjust its angle of flight compared to the sun’s position .

Studies with butterfly flight patterns show that the butterflies fly obliquely away from the sun (towards the SW) in the morning when the sun is in the east, and obliquely toward the sun (towards the SW) in the afternoon when the sun is in the west. If the butterfly’s schedule is artificially manipulated so that it thinks 7 a.m. is actually 1 p.m., then the butterfly flies SE (towards the sun) instead of away from it as it should do in the morning. It is evident that the butterfly’s navigation system of clock and compass is like two gears moving in opposite directions against each other. A new study released in September 2009 however suggests that the biological clock, which interacts with the compass, is actually located in the butterfly antennae. So the insect must have two clocks!

Another topic that interests biologists about these insects, is the degree to which the navigational system is unique. The short answer is extremely unusual! A news item in Medical News Today (January 9/08) declared that scientists were “stunned and elated” to discover how unusual the Monarch butterfly biological clock is. Previous studies on the fruit fly and mouse had led scientists to suspect that the Monarch’s system would resemble that of the fruitfly (another insect). What they found however was a “novel molecular mechanism heretofore not found in any other insect or mammal” according to Medical News Today). As the authors of the study report: “The expression of two functionally distinct crys [Cryptochromes] in monarchs suggests that the butterfly clock may use a novel clockwork mechanism that is not yet fully described in any organism.” (Haisan Zhu et al. PLoS Biology 6 (1): p 3 of 30).

Thus the Monarch’s biological clock seems to be unique among insects and all studied organisms. Scientists who might try to find evolutionary sources for this system will have a difficult time. There are no obvious lines of descent from similar organisms.  And of course biologists have not even begun to figure out how the compass works. No doubt the uniquely designed status of the Monarch will become even more apparent as the workings of the compass are uncovered.

As we look about us at even small organisms in nature like the Monarch butterfly, let us reflect on the exquisite design of these delightful organisms. Let us then ascribe praise to the Creator of all things.

An amazing variety of geckos exist – African clawed gecko, African fat-tailed gecko, velvet gecko, cat geckos, and the dwarf gecko, to name a few popular breeds. The largest species is the tokay gecko and the most common gecko kept as a pet is the Leopard gecko. The Leopard gecko is docile and calm, has a very colourful yellow and black coat, and adapts well to captivity. It has claws, not foot pads, and for this reason it cannot walk up walls, but it can rapidly climb up rough surfaces such as rocks or tree bark.

Common variations include size, colour, skin texture, and the ability to climb walls and walk on ceilings. Almost every colour – from bright to dull – and numerous combinations and designs produce enormous gecko variety. A reptile, a gecko can live as long as 30 years, is typically 10 – 40 cm long, and periodically sheds its entire skin.

Some species can even regrow certain structures, such as the entire tail. If the animal is threatened, grabbed by the tail, or involved in a fight, it will drop its entire tail at specific break points. As soon as the tail is lost, rapid vasoconstriction occurs to reduce blood loss. The now-separated organ wiggles for a few minutes, often distracting the predator. The gecko then grows a whole new tail in only a few weeks time.

Around 2000 different species are now known. Most are arboreal and live in warm climates in Asia, southern Europe and North and South America. Some even live in people’s homes, entertaining the residents by walking upside down on their ceilings. They are often welcomed in homes as permanent guests because they feed on the many insect pests that thrive in hot, humid climates where geckos often live.

Ceiling Walking

Their ability to walk on ceilings has mystified scientists and laypersons for decades. No known animal except the gecko has the required specialized toe foot pads that allow it to adhere to a wide variety of surfaces, including glass, without the use of liquids to serve as an adhesive. Scientists have only recently discovered how the gecko foot, which is “the most versatile and effective adhesive known” functions (Autumn et al. 2002. PNAS 99 #19 p. 12252).

The gecko’s secret is to use a chemical bond called van der Waals forces. These bonds form between the 500,000 microscopic hair-like setae on each foot and the surface to which they adhere. The setae split into 100 to1000 very fine mini-bristles to allow a high level of surface contact (Autumn et al. 2000. Nature 405: 681-684). At the end of each seta, the mini-bristles, about a billion in total, are enlarged to form flattened spoon-like endings called spatulae that look like suction cups (Forbes. 2006 The Gecko’s Foot. W. W. Norton p. 82). This design allows the foot to take the shape of the object it adheres to at the molecular level as does glue and adhesive tape. They both work the same way, allowing a strong bond to form.

Spatulae bond so strongly that they can hold about eight times the gecko’s weight. The only known common material that the setae cannot bond to is Teflon, a substance engineered to resist van der Waals forces. Each seta is so small that an opening the size of a human hair could hold from three to thirty of them. The setae are also self-cleaning, removing any clogging debris after a few short steps. The gecko breaks the van der Waals bond by peeling their toes from the surface from the tip inward, rapidly breaking a few of the van der Waals forces at a time until it is freed (Tian et al. 2006. PNAS 103 #51: 19320-19325).

Professor Kellar Autumn has studied geckos for most of his professional life, both in the lab and in the wild (Forbes, 2006 p. 79). One of his major findings is that their surefootedness is not their only talent. They have finely honed senses, including enormous eyes and excellent vision that enable them to hunt at night. They also have hearing so sensitive that they can sense an insect move on a wall twenty feet away    (Forbes p. 81). Geckos also, unlike most other lizards, can vocalize, producing sounds that range from chirping like a bird to a loud barking like a dog.

Able to Change Colour

Certain gecko species can actually change their colour to match the environment or even their mood. By day their colour may be light, at night dark. A gray-brown colour in response to excitement may become dark-brown (Grzimek, 1975. Grzimek’s Animal Life Encyclopedia vol 6 Van Nostrand p. 166). The sudden colour change can be striking – one type can go from light olive-green to a velvety black-brown in a matter of seconds.

Another amazing trait of a species called Bynoe’s geckos is that it can change from a sexual organism and reproduce parthenogenetically (Kearney et al. 2005 Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 78 # 3: 316-324). In other words, it gives up sexual reproduction and  uses cloning instead.

Evolution of the Sophisticated Toe

Although other animals, including beetles, flies, and spiders, have complex “biological attachment devices” allowing them to walk on vertical walls, only geckos have the sub-micro attachment devices. Setose or “hairy attachment systems” as well as all other biological attachment devices, are believed by evolutionists to have evolved independently, yet these devices are very similar and function in similar ways (Arzt et al. 2003 PNAS 100 #19: p. 10603). Some use fluids, others, such as geckos, use a dry system.

All known fossil geckos, including several excellent examples preserved in amber, are fully modern geckos with a fully developed “sophisticated adhesive mechanism” using setae (Arnold and Poinar. 2008. Zootaxa 1847: p. 62). One newly discovered example, well preserved in Burmese amber, was dated by evolutionists to the Lower Cretaceous – about 100 million years old, according to their estimates. The fossil includes fully modern setae on a juvenile about “50 million years older” than the previously oldest known gecko fossil (Arnold and Poinar p. 62, 67). Standish, for his part, concluded that the “narrow specification of the setae and their arrangement on gecko’s bodies makes evolutionary explanations of their origin problematic and is suggestive of design. This is the oldest known gecko fossil, suggesting that the very first geckos had the ability to perform the remarkable climbing feats we admire today.” (Standish. 2008.Origins 63:p. 40).

In spite of the investment of millions of dollars, modern research still has not been able to duplicate the gecko foot design. The closest we have come is MIT researchers who have, after extensive research, developed an anti-sliding adhesive that attempts to mimic the gecko. Ironically, geckos have long been considered evolutionarily primitive due to possessing many “primitive” traits, such as primitive notochord remnants, a primitive hyoid bone, and primitive scales (Grzimek p. 153). We now know that primitive they are not, but among the most advanced, and also amazing, life forms known.