After the egg is appropriately produced, it is expelled from the mother’s body. If fertilized, it further develops until the organism can survive on its own. When adequately developed, the embryo breaks out of the egg’s shell to begin its life in the outside world, a process called hatching. Some embryos have a temporary egg tooth with which to crack, or break the egg’s covering or eggshell. A few days after hatching, the egg tooth is no longer needed and is absorbed. Baby animals that have just hatched are called hatchlings, and standard names are used for babies of each particular species, such as “chick” for a baby chicken. Animals that lay eggs are called oviparous and the study of eggs (and also the hobby of collecting eggs, commonly bird eggs) is termed oology. The embryo develops from the small germinal disc located on the egg yoke edge.

 The Eggshell

Eggs typically have an outer covering called a shell consisting of calcium carbonate. Reptile eggs, bird eggs, and monotreme eggs, which are laid on dry land, are all surrounded by a protective eggshell that can be either flexible or hard and inflexible, as is the familiar chicken egg. The shell of a bird’s egg is a remarkable piece of engineering. It is very lightweight, but the shell is often so strong that it takes some birds over a day to chip their way through it to the outside world.

A shell membrane separates the eggshell from the albumen, or egg white, a gelatin-like substance that provides food for the growing embryo. Two layers of albumen exist, a thick albumen near the yolk and a thin layer near the eggshell. Between the eggshell and the shell membrane is a space called an air chamber designed to hold air. In the center of the egg is the yolk, a yellow liquid, and the germ spot, the zygote. A string like-structure inside at each end of the shell, called the chaloza, is attached to the yolk or nucleus to hold the yolk in the same position no matter how the egg is turned.

The specific construction of bird eggshells varies enormously. For example, duck eggs are oily and waterproof, cormorant (medium-to-large seabirds) eggs are rough and chalky, tinamou eggs are shiny and very colorful, and emu and cassowary eggs are rough, grainy and heavily pitted. The small pores in the hard eggshells allow the embryo to breathe oxygen and expel carbon dioxide. The domestic hen’s egg has around 7,500 microscopic pores and some have as many as 17,000. The small pores also allow pathogens to enter, a problem solved in most vertebrate eggs by the production of lysozymes, an effective anti-bacterial enzyme, and several membranes.

The membranes that surround these eggs are typical of all amniotes (terrestrial tetrapods or four footed creatures that lay eggs, including mammals). Eggs laid on the dry land or in nests are usually kept by the mother within a temperature range that is favorable to the embryo’s development.

The largest known egg is the 1.5 kg (3.3 lb) ostrich egg, although some extinct dinosaurs had larger eggs. The Bee Hummingbird produces the smallest bird egg known, which weighs half a gram. Eggs laid by some reptiles and most fish can be even smaller. Amphibians, including frogs and toads, do not have a hard protective egg shell, nor do fish. The eggs of these latter groups are jellylike.

Eggshell Coloration

Eggshells have an amazing variety of solid colors that range from white to bright blue, purple, and even black. They may also have a mixture of colors called spotting. The color of individual eggs is both environmentally influenced and genetically inherited through the mother, suggesting that the gene responsible for egg pigmentation is on the sex-determining W chromosome (female birds are WZ, males ZZ). The default color of all vertebrate eggs is white, produced by the calcium carbonate from which shells are constructed. The green or blue color comes from biliverdin pigments and a brown “ground” color from zinc chelate. Protoporphyrin (a protein that imparts color to the egg) produces a reddish brown color or a spotting paint.

In species which nest in large groups, such as the Common Guillemot, each female’s eggs have very different markings which allow females to identify their own eggs on the crowded cliff ledges on which they breed. Birds typically have white eggs except in certain ground-nesting birds that use egg markings for camouflage. Examples include the colored Charadriiformes (a diverse order of small to medium-large birds, most of which live near water) and non-passerines (birds that have feet designed for specific functions, like webbed feet for swimming or feet for grabbing prey).

 Brood Parasitism

When one bird species lays its eggs in the nest of another it is called bird brood parasitism. Some brood parasitic birds, such as cuckoos, have egg coloration that matches eggs of the host passerine (perching birds or, less accurately, songbirds; includes more than half of all bird species). In some cases, the host’s eggs are removed or eaten by the invading female, or expelled from the nest by her chicks. Brood parasites include the cowbirds and many Old World cuckoos. In contrast to the general rule, most passerines lay colored eggs, even if there is no camouflage requirement for cryptic colors (coloration designed for camouflage, from crypsis meaning hiding).

The protoporphyrin markings on passerine eggs function to reduce shell brittleness by acting as a solid-state lubricant. If insufficient calcium exists in the bird’s feed, the eggshells may be too thin, especially in the circle area around the broad end. Protoporphyrin speckling compensates for the brittleness caused by thin eggshells, and protoporphyrin increases inversely to the amount of calcium in a bird’s diet. For this reason eggs laid later in a clutch are more spotted than earlier ones because the female’s calcium store is often increasingly depleted with each egg produced.

It was once believed that the color was applied to the shell immediately before laying, but research has shown that coloration is an integral part of shell development, and the same protein is also responsible for depositing calcium carbonate, or the protoporphyrins, when a lack of that mineral exists.

The Egg Shape

Most bird eggs have an oval shape, with one end rounded and the other end more pointed. This shape results from the egg being forced through the bird’s oviduct by muscles that contract behind the egg, pushing it forward. The egg’s wall is often still slightly malleable when expelled, and the pointed end forms at the back. Cliff-nesting birds often have highly conical eggs because this design of the egg makes it less likely to roll off the cliff. Instead, they roll around in a tight circle. In contrast, many hole-nesting birds tend to have nearly spherical eggs.

The weight bearing capacity of many eggs is well known and derives partly from their shape. The more pointed end of many eggs is a natural example of an arch continued around in three dimensions to form a dome. The eggshell is strong under compression because domes exhibit horizontal and vertical resistance so that compression, applied to any one point, is evenly distributed across the entire surface. The more sharply curved the dome, the stronger its resistance to compression will be. Thus eggs will not be crushed by the weight of the incubating mother bird.

Evolution of the Animal Egg

No evidence exists for the evolution of animal eggs. Sexual reproduction involving the production of eggs has “continued, unaltered in essentials, almost since animal life began” (Robert Burton, 1987, Eggs: Nature’s Perfect Package. New York: Facts on File p. 10). Other than this, little else can be said about egg evolution except that “Whatever the reason for the evolution of sex, it is found at all levels of the animal kingdom and the egg in its many forms is its manifestation” (Burton, p. 12). Many fossil eggs have been found, especially dinosaur eggs, but as far as can be determined from the abundant number of fossils found, eggs have always been close to identical to modern egg types, all wonderfully designed.

Metamorphosis provides a window into the transformation of a caterpillar to a butterfly.  Using scanning electron microscopy and magnetic resonance images this feature provides some amazing details of the transformation within the cocoon.  These complex details are explained in a very clear manner for the average 12 year old as well as the science enthusiast.

The intricacies of butterflies are also explored, allowing us to see the detail of a butterfly wing, and the complexity of their eyes. 

Then came the part my children were fascinated by – the migration of the Monarch butterflies.  Beautiful pictures of the migrating butterflies, and cool facts about the mystery of this phenomenon are presented.  The yearly ~2500 mile migration is accomplished by butterflies that have never made this trip before, yet with their tiny brain they migrate to the same locations each year.

Every aspect of the butterfly’s life cycle is a conundrum for the evolutionist.  How can simple mutations lead to such a complex transformation?  There is insightful discussion on the implausibility of evolution to account for the metamorphosis of caterpillar to butterfly.  The great question and answer section in the bonus features is worthwhile and should not be overlooked.

This video is ideally suited for children aged 12 and up and provides some excellent discussion topics.  Younger ones will enjoy the impressive scenes and the incredible beauty of butterflies portrayed in this video but will get lost in the actual details of the metamorphosis. 

I would definitely recommend this video for all nature lovers; especially for those who have always wondered exactly how a caterpillar becomes a butterfly.

Metamorphosis: the beauty and design of butterflies. Illustra Media. DVD. 64 minutes

The three species of vampire bats all live in the Americas. These ugly looking creatures need blood meals to live. Obviously they need to find a blood vessel in a victim that will allow blood to flow freely. This is not the easiest of tasks, but vampire bats have a special design feature which allows them to find good blood sources. In their upper lip and modified noseleaf, they have special nerve endings which are more sensitive than most nerves to body heat. These special tissues in the face allow them to find hot spots on the bodies of their victims. Here the blood vessels are located close to the surface. The bat nips the skin with his teeth in order to drink the flowing blood.

Many animals of course display normal heat receptors all over the body. These receptors are designed to respond to heat that is dangerous to the health of the creature. This applies to vampire bats as well. However in some nerves in the face of vampire bats, the nerves instead respond to a heat source which is much lower, about 30 degrees C. This protein receptor in the heat sensing nerves is unique to vampire bats and the way that this new sensor works is really astonishing.

There is a gene which scientists label Trpv1 which is found in all nerve cells sensitive to heat. This includes nerve cells all over the bodies of bats. In the case of the special nerve endings in vampire bat faces, the gene is the same. However those cells express an alternative form of the message derived from the gene. Into the blue print to build the protein (i.e. the information copied from the DNA molecule), a tiny piece of genetic information only 23 base pairs long is spliced. That tiny insert causes the construction of the protein to end somewhat prematurely, resulting in a molecule that lacks the last 62 amino acids. This is a very minimal difference in a large protein molecule, but that is what allows these cells to respond to the temperature range of hot spots in a victim’s body.

In the genetic code, base pairs are like rungs along the DNA molecule’s spiral length. Each rung also represents one of four choices of letter. Three letters or rungs in a row, code for an amino acid. In a protein molecule there might be 1000 amino acids or more. Thus the 23 base pair insertion in the case of the vampire bat protein, would only code for 7 amino acids. Yet this tiny insertion changes the whole character of the protein and this change allows for a whole different life style for the creature. Moreover this changed expression of the protein happens only in the appropriate nerve cells in the bat’s face, not anywhere else in the body.

Since the ability by bats to detect infrared radiation (heat) is so different from in snakes, scientists consider that there is no evolutionary connection between the two designs. Either each appeared as a spontaneous or novel feature, however complicated, or each was separately designed in its entirety.

It is the engineering triumph of echolocation (like sonar) however which really commands our attention. This system is truly complicated with many features that must work precisely. The bat must produce powerful ultrasonic signals which will bounce off objects and travel back as echoes. The creature must know the mathematic characteristics of the sound emitted in order to be able to compare it with the echo. The echo will be much softer, so the creature must be able to hear the incoming signal. Often the tempo of sounds emitted will include intervals between notes so that the incoming echoes can be heard. The bat must be able to judge its own position and speed relative to the returning echo which indicates the position and speed of the target object. This ability requires special mathematical programs in the brain to calculate the differences in speed and constantly changing location.

As far as the bats themselves are concerned, one might imagine that the echolocating bats would represent a cluster of creatures with other features in common. Even when the echolocating system is similar however, there are bats which seem closer in their genetics to the fruit bats. In addition, one fruit bat echolocates by means of tongue clicks instead of noise from the larynx. Does this represent a separate group too?

When one considers echolocation, scientists now declare that this complex capability arose spontaneously at least seven or eight times.  We see similar fancy systems in whales, bats, shrews, tenrecs (hedgehog like mammal native to Madagascar) as well as in oilbirds and cave swiftlets (another bird.)  And the ability to detect infrared radiation arose, scientists now declare, twice independently in snakes and once independently in bats. Scientists use the word “convergence” to cover situations where descent with modification is not a convincing explanation for the source of the feature. Thus convergence means separate appearance for no obvious cause. The alternative explanation for these situations of course is separate designs. God used his tool kit of wonderful design features as he saw fit, conferring them on similar or very different creatures for our interest and delight.

Recently scientists have discovered that the ability of bats to sense their environment is even more sensitive than previously imagined. In 2010, a team of scientists reported that some echolocating bats can control the width of the ultrasonic beam which they emit. The subject of this study involved bats that release sounds from their larynx, which is by far the most common method. More recently, another team investigated whether the tongue clicking Egyptian fruit bats are similarly versatile in their ability to respond to variation in the environment. This team found that Egyptian fruit bats simultaneously direct one beam of sound to the left and another to the right. They do this by aiming consecutive clicks in opposite directions.  As the environment becomes more cluttered with objects, the angle between the two beams of sound becomes wider (and the beam thus broader).  This enables the animal to focus on a particular object while paying less attention to other distracting structures in the environment. Also as the bat closes in on his target, the beam becomes broader and the sound more intense. This degree of sophistication in this echolocating system is a surprise to everyone. 

Many scientists claim that biochemical details from DNA sequencing confirm ideas about descent with modification which were developed over many years from anatomical comparisons.  The molecular details however have turned upside down ideas about evolutionary relationships (descent with modification).  Often we hear about “convergence”  or separate appearance of highly complicated features. It was not convincing when the argument was for the spontaneous appearance of even one complex system, but to suggest that it could happen multiple times, really strains credulity! What these amazing designs really demonstrate is the choices of an awesome Creator!

References:  Nature Jan 13/00 pp. 188-192; Feb. 18/10 pp. 939-942; Apr 15/10 pp. 1006-1011; Aug 4/11 pp. 88-91; PLoS Biol. September 13/11.

The first lecture, on Friday evening, dealt with Galileo (1564-1642), the famous Italian astronomer who ostensibly ran into trouble because of his support for the heliocentric view of our solar system (sun in the centre rather than the earth). Most students have heard the story of how the Church of his day persecuted Galileo on account of his interpretation of the solar system. The idea is that the Church, in order to protect dogma, tried to silence somebody who was describing nature as it is. Obviously we see portrayed the popularly imagined confrontation between religion and science. And the implication is made that Christians have been indulging in similar confrontations with science ever since. That however is not what happened in the case of Galileo, declared Dr. Bergman.

Church officials had never objected to similar views promoted by Copernicus (1473-1543) from Poland. Initially the Italian Church officials were very friendly to Galileo and they showered him with honours. There were however among the ranks of his fellow scientists, some who were jealous of the attention paid to Galileo. One of the problems for Galileo also was that the actual observations of the sky made at that time, did not fit well with the heliocentric position.

Eventually Galileo’s enemies managed to bring about a judicial inquiry on the part of the Church into the truth of the issue. The process is termed inquisition or inquiry, but it was nothing like the infamous Spanish inquisition. Thus the story of Galileo is not one of the Church fighting science, but of one set of scientists seeking to repress another scientist whose professional honours they coveted. This is not the story of religious persecution of science as many today would maintain. We should further note that all the references cited by Dr. Bergman in this lecture and the others, were secular and major authorities in their fields.

The second lecture on Saturday morning, dealt with the Neanderthals, whose skeletal remains were first found near Dusseldorf Germany in 1856. After discussing various imaginative depictions of who and what these artifacts represented, Dr. Bergman discussed more modern findings and conclusions. When reconstructions are made from the bones, modern authorities conclude that the people looked modern. Judging by associated artifacts, modern authorities conclude that the Neanderthals wore clothes, makeup, jewelry, and they had musical instruments and paintings. In short, the Neanderthals were fully modern individuals who lived in a cold climate in Europe. We and they constitute one species, not two. There are no signs of human evolution here.

Dr. Bergman’s discussion of mutations was definitely more technical than the previous two topics. However he moderated that impact with pictures of some mutations. One of the more amusing was the story of Belgian Blue cattle which were bred for their increased muscle mass and tender quality of the meat. The mutation however resulted from a small loss of information (11 base pairs for any technically minded readers).  One gentleman in the audience, told us that he once owned a Belgian Blue bull. It was his worst investment ever, he said, and it soon died!

Such sad cases set the stage for a discussion of mutations in terms of details in the DNA. There are, for example, mutation hotspots, which lead to the same mistake, time after time. This is not going to add new information. He cited one population in which only two mutations were observed to account for 94% of all the mutations observed. He stressed that there are no good examples of beneficial mutations which add information to the cell or organism instead of adding to the fitness costs (meaning a mutation is more fit in a narrow environment but less fit in most environments). Many mutations are of very minor effect, but over time these can accumulate to the point where a species becomes extinct. Moreover the expression of DNA in humans is so complex that most mutations actually affect multiple traits. The same stretch of DNA typically will exhibit multiple reading frames [parts are combined in different ways], so one potentially positive mutation often displays at least some negative impacts.

On Saturday evening, Dr. Bergman discussed irreducible complexity or design. He began by pointing out that the whole universe is too complex to have developed spontaneously. He defined complexity as any phenomenon that requires two or more parts in order to function. The elements that make up chemical compounds, of course, have to operate in a reliable fashion or there would be no structure in the universe and no life would be possible. The elements are made up of specific component parts which are themselves made up of even smaller component parts.  What that means is that without precision in every aspect of the natural laws, nothing would exist. Such precision is highly improbable unless the system were designed for a purpose.

From there Dr. Bergman turned his attention to the living cell, the most complex machine in the universe. One of the phenomena which he discussed is the famous flagellum (a structure on many bacteria that works like a propeller) displayed by the bacterium E. coli. The construction of the flagellum is extremely complicated, requiring about 70 kinds of large precisely shaped proteins that must be properly organized and assembled to direct the system. The production of each protein is controlled by a suitable lengthy section of DNA, the expression of which is controlled by other proteins which are read from other lengthy sections of DNA. Today many evolutionists suggest that this bacterium merely adapted a needle nose syringe system (type 3 secretory system or T3SS). The T3SS shares a few proteins in common with the flagellum and it looks similar at its base. However the syringe is merely a stationary system like a straw, that provides a conduit to inject toxic chemicals into another cell. It would be quite the engineering feat to adapt that straw secretory system into a machine that spins 6000-17,000 rpm and can stop and change direction almost instantaneously. Of course the new machine would also need a power source and a steering mechanism. All this is quite a tall order for spontaneous processes to produce something that is functional at the same time! If the component parts did not all appear together as a unit, the first appearing would be lost again before the rest of the system could have developed.

Dr. Bergman declared in summary that the new information which appears each week in the scientific literature, dramatically adds to the story of how intricate and wonderfully designed all life is, beginning with that fundamental unit of life, the cell.

After each lecture Dr. Bergman answered many diverse questions. Altogether everyone felt encouraged to further consider the issues that were covered. From Edmonton, Dr. Bergman travelled to Kelowna where he delivered three lectures at the University of British Columbia Okanagan Campus and Creation Kelowna, before travelling back home to Ohio.

A major feature of diatom cells is their unique geometrically designed cell houses made of silica (hydrated silicon dioxide). These frustule homes show an enormously wide diversity of forms, but usually consist of two unequal halves with a separation of some type between them (dia means two, toms, to cut or to separate into two). Basically they are like pill boxes.

The enormous variety of these glass home designs displays an architectural beauty rarely seen in the natural world. Thus we see in Thierstein and Young (editors. 2004. Coccolithophores: From Molecular Processes to Global Impact. Springer-Verlag): “Diatoms are unique among extant photoautotrophic taxa [photosynthetic organisms] in that they have an absolute requirement for orthosilicic acid, which they polymerize on a protein matrix to form strong shells called frustules. Silica is introduced into the oceans primarily by continental weathering, but the present day surface ocean is strongly undersaturated with respect to silica as a direct consequence of diatom growth. Diatoms are basically neritic [living in water at most 200 m deep], and blooms are largely confined to continental margins, and shallow seas, and such open ocean regions as the North Atlantic and Southern Ocean where silica can be supplied through upwelling. Hence, one possible clue to the rise of diatoms in the Cenozoic [recent times] may lie in an increased flux of silicic acid from the continents.” (p. 445). The variety of diatom shapes is enormous. Of the marine species, some look like the pattern of spokes on bicycle wheels, others like six pointed stars, yet others like pinwheels or triangles. In fresh water as well as centric designs (as above), there are many that look boat shaped or like long needles.

Diatoms provide an excellent means of studying evolution because they are the most common fossil types found, and their hard glass shells preserve them extremely well. As a result there now exists an “extensive fossil record of diatoms” (Sims et al 2006. Phycologia 45 no. 4 p. 361). Moreover the over 200 genera of living diatoms that have been identified, including approximately 100,000 extant species, allow one an ideal means for reflecting on their origins.

The commonality of well-preserved fossil diatom glass houses in the fossil record is a major reason why these algae are today a favored tool of modern evolutionary researchers for dating rocks and documenting evolution. If evidence for evolution exists, it would be found here, yet the first diatoms are clearly modern diatoms and no evidence for their evolution exists in the fossil record. The “first physical remains of diatoms are from the Jurassic [similar level to rocks with sauropod dinosaurs in them], and well-preserved, diverse floras are available from the Lower Cretaceous [immediately above the Jurassic rocks].” (Sims et al. 2006. p. 361).

The total lack of any evidence for diatom evolution is usually explained away by the claim that they have evolved far too rapidly to leave a fossil record. This, though, argues from absence of proof, not evidence. The fact is, the first diatoms are clearly closely similar, as far as we can tell, to modern diatoms, except that many early diatoms are extinct and these examples “bear little resemblance to modern taxa” (Sims. et al, 2006, p. 362). Consequently these are of little help in determining diatom phylogeny, or  evolutionary relationships, if any.

Evolutionary science can only speculate about “possible diatom origins,” speculation that is not influenced by fossil or other evidence (Sims et al. 2006. p. 36). Lack of fossil evidence has not stopped speculation about diatom evolution however. The main theory is diatoms evolved during the Precambrian [before the appearance of many celled organisms] from a “naked photosynthetic cell [that] acquired a coating of siliceous scales” (Round and Crawford. 1981. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 221(1183) p. 237) If this were the case, evidence of the scales would exist. The process of wall formation is obviously complex, and why would the evolution of these organisms stop after this point?

Comparison of “molecular and paleontological data in diatoms suggests a major gap in the fossil record” according to Philippe et al. 1994. p. 247. One study has suggested that, in contrast to fossil data, “molecular clock calibrations indicate that the rRNA coding regions in the diatoms are evolving at approximately 1% per 18 to 26 Ma [million years], which is the fastest substitution rate reported in any pro- or eukaryotic group of organisms to date” (Kooistra et al. 1996.Phylogenetics and Evolution. 6 no. 3  p. 391). Potentially diatoms should show a fast rate of change, but a search for these changes comes up with zero results.

Another group, called Coccolithophores, share several important traits with diatoms. Coccolithophores are single-celled microscopic algae that are a major component of the upper layer of ocean microplankton. They are unique in both the animal and plant worlds for several reasons. One major reason is that their spherical cell is surrounded by many limestone (calcite) plates shaped like hubcaps called coccoliths. As a unit, coccolithophores look very much like microscopic fancy Christmas tree ornaments. When the coccolithophores die, reproduce, or make too many plates, they dump some or all of their plates into their watery world. It is estimated that dumping their plates adds over 1.5 million tons of calcite into the oceans annually. Like diatoms, their tiny plate-enclosed homes are assembled in such a way as to produce a wide variety of beautiful geometric designs. (See “Chalk Talk” in Dialogue Dec. 2002 at www.create.ab.ca )

The complexity of their plate homes and the lack of fossil evidence for their evolution provide the basis for the conclusion that calcification has only arisen once in the evolution of the Haptophyta [mostly marine, mostly single celled golden brown algae]” (Thierstein and Young. 2004. p. 261). Hypothetical evolutionary trees have been constructed, but DNA comparisons have “fundamentally altered our way of thinking about evolution and ecology of the group” (2004. p. 277). Of note is the conclusion that “there is no obvious long-term trend [in the fossil record] and the cause of the variations [existing in coccolithophores] is not known” (2004. p. 516). Nevertheless the fossil record is excellent, and both “the organic and inorganic remains of coccolithophores provide key geochemical records for study of past oceanographic, environmental, and biological conditions. Coccolithophores are useful for paleoceanographic reconstructions because they are widespread throughout the ocean and both organic and inorganic remains enjoy long term preservation in the marine sediment record. The inorganic record is especially durable and extends back to the evolution of coccolithophores in the Early Mesozoic [rock layers just below the dinosaurs].” (Thierstein and Young. 2004. p. 530). Thus these ample records from the past too, provide only problems and no comfort for evolutionary theories.

In school too, problem solving is big with educators. Many people, through the years, have wrestled with math problems such as a train leaves point A traveling at blah blah km per hour and it passes another train traveling at a different speed (also provided). If we know how far apart points A and B are, find out at what point the trains will pass each other. How I hated those problems! But teachers don’t stop there. Now they want you to design a vehicle out of straws (or whatever) that can carry a heavy load of pennies. Never satisfied, teachers later give more complicated problems, like how would you keep a beef broth from going bad.

Many people actually enjoy the challenge of problem solving. It can be great fun to use your wits to come up with a plan that works better than your friend’s device. Hurrah for brains! There is actually no way to avoid problem solving. It is an essential skill. However, have you ever considered how important problem solving is to all living creatures? Every organism is faced with lots of challenges that could prevent them from maturing and leaving offspring for the next generation.

Consider the dandelions which dot my lawn. My objective is to eliminate them. Their objective is to bloom, set seed and produce another generation. There they sit in my lawn. Each rosette of leaves may cover a circle 25 cm or more in diameter. No grass grows under those leaves. So I set forth, determined to pull up each and every rosette. But what is this? Each has a tap root which extends 25 cm or more into the soil. Do I manage to pull up that entire tap root? Hardly ever. Of course the remaining root quickly sends up new leaves and soon there are new rosettes covering the lawn. By now I am too tired of weeding and so the dandelions continue to thrive. Another impressive feature of dandelions is their 100% seed set. They don’t need pollen from another flower to produce seed. This happens even in plants with blossoms which have been pulled up. The flowers turn into seed heads before you know it.

Another feature of dandelions is the way that blossom heads elongate once the seeds are ready. You may not have realized there were so many dandelions in your lawn until you see all those pom pom seed heads stretching way above the grass. In this way the seeds are exposed to the wind which soon distributes those seed into the rest of your garden and into your neighbour’s garden.

The dandelion obviously is a very successful plant when one considers the challenges it faces. Other plants like thistle also display a deep taproot, a wide rosette of leaves and seeds dispersed by the wind. This is just one small example of the amazing  solutions to problems of existence that we see among living creatures. Among plants, we see lots of different solutions for species which live in very dry climates. Often these plants only grow when there is rain. But this means that they have to complete their life cycles really fast while conditions are still moist. Other plants must manage to survive very harsh winters. There are all sorts of interesting ways that they do this. Then there are plants that live in moist tropical climates. Things aren’t perfect there either for the plant. Each one must compete with all sorts of other plants. Thus different problem solving strategies are called for such as growing really fast in locations where light penetrates to the forest floor past the tree canopies above. Other plants like some orchids, simply grow on top of the big plants. They then must collect enough moisture and mineral nutrients from the falling rain.

Animals too face many challenges. Harsh climates are only one of the difficulties that they face. Also they must find food and avoid predators that would like to eat them. Not only do animals need special body plans to enable them to survive, but they also need suitable behaviour patterns as well. Thus we see bats with their amazing wings and echolocation skills for pursuing and catching insects. The body parts would be useless if they did not know how to use them. We see North American beaver that build dams and winter lodges with food stored nearby. We see birds and large four footed animals which migrate amazing distances for rich food and a good breeding place in the summer. These return to home base to survive when conditions at the summer site deteriorate. Monarch butterflies also migrate thousands of kilometers. This is perhaps the most amazing case of migration that we know of. Then there are sea turtles and eels, and other creatures in the ocean that also display amazing talents of migration. These animals all need body plans which allow them to migrate, and the behaviour patterns to know when and how to do so.

The variety of ways in which “problem solving skills” allow animals and plants to survive, is truly astounding. It causes one to stop and think. Did these creatures solve the problems on their own? As we have already discussed, problem solving takes brain power. It seems obvious that the monarch butterfly did not provide itself with an extra fancy navigating system (see Dialogue November 2009 at www.create.ab.ca ) and most unusual behaviour patterns to solve its challenges. Nor did bats or beavers or eels solve theirs by trial and error. These creatures were created with the problem-solving solutions already built into them.

For fun and to exercise your own problem solving skills, why not choose a local animal. Think about how you would solve the problems these creatures face, and then find out if this is how they actually survive. Such an exercise gives us all a lot more respect for the Creator of all creatures great and small!

The celebrations surrounding the one hundredth anniversary in 1959, perhaps will help us to put this document in perspective. In Canada, two eminent biologists provided insights on the issue. Walter Palmer Thompson (1889-1970) was a plant geneticist, third president of the University of Saskatchewan and founder of the biology department there and Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. In 1959 he participated in a symposium sponsored by the Royal Society of Canada. These proceedings were published in a volume entitled Evolution: Its Science and Doctrine (1960, University of Toronto Press).

This biologist began his lecture by remarking that Darwin’s contribution to an understanding of the cause and method of evolution was his theory of natural selection. In essence, Darwin pointed to the variation typically observable within any given population of organisms. He then suggested that when there are limited resources to support a population (for example food, or space), then those individuals with better characteristics will be more successful at mating and raising healthy offspring. As this process continues over many generations, the population will accumulate more and more favourable characteristics and so gradually change over time.

Walter Thompson next observed that unfortunately Darwin had no satisfactory explanation for the source of these variations. Thus Dr. Thompson declares: “The state of biology in Darwin’s time not only made a complete analysis impossible but also led him into certain errors in the application of his central idea.” (p. 91) These errors included the idea that the characteristics of the offspring were an organic blend of the characteristics of the parents (which would have led to a loss of information over time). Also Darwin believed that environmental conditions caused changes in organisms (acquired characteristics) which could be passed on to the offspring and this is not so either. For example, an individual may have cosmetic surgery. However that new more beautiful person does not pass on the beauty to the next generation.

Despite these deficits in Darwin’s book, Walter Thompson discussed a prominent upgrade of Darwin’s views (neo-Darwinian synthesis) and he ended his lecture on a positive note.

The other biologist, also a Thompson, was William R. Thompson (1887-1972), Fellow of the Royal Society (Britain). He was an entomologist and onetime director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological control, based in Ottawa. He wrote a 14 page introduction to the Everyman’s Library 1958 edition of the Origin of Species, published by J. M. Dent & sons. This centennial edition was a follow up to the 1928 edition of the Origin of Species which featured a very positive endorsement of Darwin by anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith. Both Canadian Thompsons were critical of Darwin’s book, but the entomologist was more so.

In the case of the second Dr. Thompson, it is amazing that a secular publisher was interested in publishing his remarks since he began his commentary on Origin of Species thus: “I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial.” (p. vii) He defined Darwin’s position as “gradual transformations leading from a simple primitive organism to the highest forms of life, without the intervention of any directive agency or force.” (ix) Darwin’s idea thus did not simply deal with nature but also with the religiously related idea that no supernatural input was required for the creation.

William Thompson then declared concerning Darwin “Since he had at the time Origin was published no body of experimental evidence to support his theory, he fell back on speculative arguments… Personal convictions, simple possibilities are presented as if they were proofs.” (xi) Dr. Thompson further pointed out that “Darwin did not show in the Origin that species had originated by natural selection, he merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others.” (xii)

This commentator was equally blunt in his critique of Darwin’s supporting arguments for the action of natural selection. Later, on the issue of the contribution of Darwin’s ideas to research, he pointed out that Darwin’s views actually served to hinder important research rather than to encourage it. In 1865 the Austrian monk Gregor Mendel published the results of his experiments on the genetics of garden peas. This work was ignored until 1900 because most scientists preferred to focus on Darwin’s incorrect views instead. Thus Dr. Thompson declared “Really fruitful researches on heredity did not begin until the rediscovery in 1900 of the fundamental work of Mendel, published in 1865 and owing nothing to the work of Darwin.” (xx)

Once geneticists began to breed organisms such as the famous fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster, a consensus on suitable changes to Darwin’s ideas gradually emerged. By the 1940s, the new view, called the neo-Darwinian synthesis, had emerged which blended ideas about population genetics with Darwin’s idea of gradual change. This idea involved random genetic mutations, acted upon by natural selection. By 1959 most biologists felt confident that the cause and process of evolution had been well accounted for. Then things began to fall apart.

It was in 1972 that Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) declared in print that neo-Darwinism was an inadequate explanation for the pattern of fossil occurrences in the rocks. They declared that there must have been long periods of no change within populations followed by sudden brief spurts of change. They called this “punctuated equilibria.” Many traditionalist evolutionists felt that Gould was providing ammunition for creationists and doing nothing to promote their science.

During the 1970s the neutral theory of molecular evolution began to be promoted by Motoo Kimura (1924-1994).  He maintained that at the molecular level there was too much variation found within any population.  Thus he declared in an article in Scientific American in 1979: “the picture of evolutionary change that actually emerged from molecular studies seemed to me, however, to be quite incompatible with the expectations of neo-Darwinians.” (November p. 99).

Soon other competing interpretations appeared. Canadian mathematician Brian Goodwin (1931-2009) wrote How the Leopard Changed its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity (Scribner 1994), and in it Dr. Goodwin declared that Darwinism fails to explain the origin of species. He, like a number of other well known scientists like Stuart Kauffman, was a “structuralist.” It was his position that complex structures such as organisms and even component parts of organisms, develop through a chaotic interaction of physical, mechanical and chemical processes. This self organization is not determined by natural selection.  Many other people however are skeptical that chaotic processes could bring about such precisely organized living creatures. The point however is that Goodwin and friends found the neo-Darwinian synthesis to be inadequate.

Another biologist, British Simon Conway Morris, declared that the number of designs of creature, or evolutionary end-points, is limited (by what, one wonders) and what is possible has usually been arrived at many times. (see  Life’s Solution.p. xii-xiii) This process, called convergence, or the appearance of similar features through entirely separate lines of descent, is basically a rejection of Darwin’s idea of descent with modification as the result of natural selection.

It is evident that Darwin’s claim to fame was to promote an idea for origins which did not require any supernatural intervention. Some of his arguments were wrong and all were weak and unsupported by evidence. This did not prevent the rapid acceptance of his basic idea. Today Darwin continues to be venerated, not because of any scientific details which he promoted, but because of his philosophical position, which was that natural processes are all that we need to explain and understand how all the wonderful designs of living creatures came to be. Thus Darwin’s claim to fame rests not on the quality of his arguments, but on his advocating an idea that the secular world wanted to support anyway.

It is Mr. Nelson’s contention that ancient accurate artwork depicting dinosaurs and other allegedly extinct creatures is evidence that people had first hand knowledge of dinosaurs and other extinct creatures. He declares that early palaeontologists had no problem connecting the fossils of marine reptiles and dinosaurs to real animals, known as dragons, in the Bible.  The evidence is overwhelming then, he says, that the dragons of old are the dinosaurs that we know about today.

The author then takes us on a tour of ancient artistic artifacts from around the world. The sites chosen boast of illustrations referable to specific dinosaur species. He provides photographs of the artwork and artists’ models of each dinosaur in question so that the reader can make up his own mind. We thus proceed from petroglyphs of sauropods and pterosaurs in Utah to Mexico with a Mayan hadrosaur petroglyph, to Peru with various pre-Columbian works of art, to England and Wales where carvings and coins evoke ideas about carnivorous and other dinosaurs, to the Netherlands where a richly illustrated prayer book contains a drawing of St. George with a dragon. In one case the dragon closely resembles the carnivorous dinosaur Coelophysis bauri. In France there are castles with interesting carvings and in Barcelona, Spain in St. George’s Chapel there is a carving of a dragon which resembles Nothosaurus. The journey continues to Italy, Mali, Ehtiopia and China, where authentic jade and turquoise dragon artifacts resemble several well known dinosaurs such as Centrosaurus.

It is the author’s contention that dinosaurs were well known to many ancient peoples and they illustrated what they knew. He dismisses the idea that ancient people made reconstructions from fossils they had dug up. It is one thing to find isolated bones, and quite another to make three dimensional reconstructions of what the unfamiliar creatures looked like. Thus he concludes that the dinosaurs were depicted, not from bones, but from real life observations.

This book thus is a visual delight with stimulating and original arguments. The book represents an excellent choice for yourself or, as a gift for your relatives, friends, and local school or church libraries.

Vance Nelson. 2011. Untold Secrets of Planet Earth: Dire Dragons. Untold Secrets of Planet Earth Publishing Company. Red Deer AB. Pp. 137.  Hardcover  and full colour.