This article focuses on the common claim that the development of insect resistance to insecticides provides evidence for molecules-to-human evolution theory and, at its foundation, that such resistance is based on mutations.

Specifics

The development of insecticide resistance is well documented as a major problem today. Some insects are tolerant to so many insecticide families that chemical control has become almost useless. By 1990, over 500 insect species were known to be resistant to one or more insecticides.

The question is, how did this resistance develop? Several reasons exist for this problem. Firstly, all insects possess many inbuilt complex resistance mechanisms that help them withstand a wide variety of toxins. For example, when exposed to insecticides, they can up-regulate a variety of insecticide detoxifying enzymes.

In some cases, mutations are involved in the development of resistance. For instance, mutations can result in the overproduction of detoxification compounds, producing abnormally high resistance levels (Sabourault et al. 2001. Insect Molecular Biology 10 #6: 609-618).

Other cases are due to the disruption of the toxin-receptor binding or a condition that causes “relatively low receptor concentration in midgut cells” (Nielsen-Leroux et al. 2002. Journal of Medical Entomology 39 # 5: 729-735).

The problem is so common that most insects eventually develop resistance to many insecticides, making control difficult. As Francisco Ayala remarked in 1978: “Insect resistance to a pesticide was first reported in 1947 for the housefly (Musca domestica) with respect to DDT. Since then the resistance to one or more pesticides has been reported in at least 225 species of insects and other arthropods. The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.” (Scientific American 239 #3 p. 65).

A good example of how resistance develops is the situation observed with DDT. This compound functions by binding to a specific matching site on the membrane of the insect’s nerve cells. When a certain level of DDT binds to the nerve cell membrane, the nervous system no longer is able to function properly. As a result, the insect dies. Any mutation that adversely affects the binding of DDT to the nerve cell, if it is not lethal or almost lethal, has the potential of conferring DDT resistance to the insect. The other side is that the mutation also interferes with the ability of the cell to bind to other products, causing it to be less effective. As a result, the DDT-resistant insect is less able to compete in an insecticide-free environment (the normal, natural environment.)

The means by which insects develop DDT resistance is similar to that of bacterial antibiotic resistance; mutations in insects result in a certain “cost of resistance” or tradeoff, as does bacterial resistance (Cooper and Lefevere. 2002. Heredity 88 # 1: 35-38).

Cost of Resistance

Insects that have become resistant to insecticides by mutations have been shown to be less fit in the wild, a phenomenon called the cost of resistance. The reason why this cost is common is because the resistance that results from mutations normally damages a structure so that it works less effectively at what it was designed to do.

As Gazave et al noted in 2001, resistance alters “some components of the basic physiology” and interferes “with fitness-related life history traits” (Heredity 87 p. 441). The result is a “high fitness cost” that can rapidly wipe out the resistant strains in a normal environment.

For example, pesticide resistance can be a consequence of damage to the cell membrane that results in slowing uptake of the pesticide into the cell and thus preventing cells from accumulating toxic concentrations. In an insecticide-free environment,by Jerry Bergman these insects cannot take in needed materials as effectively and, consequently, the resistant insects are less able to compete, and usually die off more rapidly than the wild type.

As Lenski notes in the 2002 Encyclopedia of Evolution: “the same mutation that confers resistance interferes with some other aspect of the organism’s performance. Such multiple effects of the same mutation are termed pleiotropy in genetics” (volume 2 p. 1009). For example, many resistant insects are less active and slower to respond to various stimuli than other insects.

This effect has been researched most extensively, specifically in the case of mosquitoes. Although the DDT-resistant insect is more fit in the environment in which the insecticide is present, the more sluggish nervous system in the resistant insect causes it to be less fit in a normal, insecticide-free environment.

Nonetheless, prolonged use of insecticides can produce large numbers of resistant insects that, even though they are less fit as a whole, are better able to survive in an environment that contains high levels of DDT. As a result, the resistant population becomes larger in spite of its members’ overall less-effective nervous system. As Levine and Miller note: “resistance to poisons is rarely a ‘free ride’ for either insects or other organisms, because the selective tradeoffs imposed by pleiotropy often maintain polymorphism either within or between populations of a species … the same sort of phenomenon has been demonstrated for the alleles that confer resistance to DDT and to dieldrin in mosquitoes” (Biology: Discovering Life. 1994 p. 257).

Examples

The sheep blowfly (Lucilia cuprina) is a common insect pest in Australia that was effectively controlled for years by diazinon insecticide. A mutation eventually appeared that conferred resistance to this compound. Nevertheless the resistance had a clear fitness cost. For example, the resistant flies were “noticeably inferior to their sensitive counterparts in certain other respects, such as requiring a longer time to develop from eggs into adults in the absence of the insecticide” (Lenski p. 1009).

In the blowfly and other insects, it was found that resistant forms have a “higher mortality during colder, wetter and windier weather, caused by a direct mortality through freezing and/or an indirect mortality through maladaptive behaviour” (Gazave et al p. 442). Another resistance mechanism in the blowfy involves certain cytochrome p450s and glutathione S-transferases that help to break down and detoxify toxins in all normal insects. In multiresistant strains, the genes for these proteins are constitutively overexpressed, producing very high levels of detoxification enzymes.

A mutation has been implicated in causing overproduction of the cytochrome p450 protein CYPGA1, evidently by release of the transitional repression controlling genes coding for several detoxification enzymes including CYPGA1 (Sabourault et al). This overexpression costs energy and is advantageous only in an environment that contains the toxin.

Probably the most common example of resistance is the mosquito Culex pipiens, which becomes resistant by overproduction of esterase as a result of either gene amplification or gene regulation abnormalities. In one study by Gazave et al, the authors found that a “large fitness cost (42%)” resulted from the development of insecticide resistance (441).

It is evident that the recent development of insect resistance to pesticides does not support Neo- Darwinism. Macroevolution requires information-building that adds new information to the genome and we do not see that here. In all confirmed cases, insect resistance is a result of the exploitation of existing systems or is due to mutations that result in an organism which is less fit except only in an insecticide environment. In the few cases where a mutation is involved, development of resistance involves only a loss mutation, such as one that produces deformed enzymes.

This finding is confirmed by the fact that insect resistance is usually acquired very rapidly, in far too brief a period for the evolutionary emergence of complex biochemical or physiological systems. Mutation-caused resistance results in less viability in the wild, and as a result the resistant insects usually cannot compete effectively with the wild type in an insecticide free environment. None of this is good news for evolution theory.

Dr. Bergman is based in Archbold, Ohio. A detailed bibliography for this article is available upon request.

The fact is however that our devices and skills are clumsy compared to the exquisite gifts conferred on living creatures. Like the lilies that do not spin fine fabric, yet are more beautifully clothed than man in his fanciest garb, so even small creatures have technological skills that put our best efforts to shame.

Some scientists talk about irreducible complexity or intelligent design. These organisms demonstrate all of that. However, just like the wise man who considered the habits of ants, we feel enriched and filled with awe when we consider the results of modern studies into the wonders of the creation.

Upside down

Apparently it was Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher and naturalist, who first wondered about the abilities of geckos to scamper up vertical walls and across smooth ceilings. People have wondered ever since about these dramatic talents, but only recently have scientists discovered some answers.

Geckos are small nocturnal lizards which live in all the warm regions of the world including the Mediterranean area. The species of choice for research is the Tokay gecko (Gecko gecko) which can grow as long as 35 cm (14 inches), and which weighs up to 100 g. That is a hefty creature to hang upside down from a smooth surface. The American military and other parties interested in commercial exploitation of such an astonishing adhesive, have heavily invested in this research.

Firstly interested scientists sought to eliminate all likely processes which the gecko does not employ. To do this they began by examining the soles of gecko feet. If the gecko used any kind of glue there would have to be glands to secrete the material. However there are no glands and the gecko leaves no residue on a surface after it has passed by.

What is on the pads of their feet are about one half million very thin short hairs arranged in distinctive patterns. Ends of these hairs, called setae, are in their turn divided into about 1000 submicroscopic filaments called spatulae. Generally in biology the term spatulate means an almost spoon shaped, but flat, end.

It was long popularly assumed that the spatulate endings function like suction cups. Nevertheless the fact that their feet work even in a vacuum effectively disproved that idea. Moreover their feet stick to surfaces even when the air is electrically charged. Thus it must not be electrostatic attraction (such as when hair sticks to a balloon rubbed on a rough surface) which allows the geckos to work their “magic”.

Evidently obvious explanations do not work, so something a lot more subtle and sophisticated must be involved. Within the past three years, a team of American scientists has discovered that an obscure phenomenon which accounts for the fact that water stays together as a liquid rather than dispersing as a gas, is the principle operating here.

It was Johannes Diderik van der Waals (1837-1923) who discovered that even molecules with no potential for chemical bonding between themselves, are in fact weakly attracted to each other if the molecules are pushed closely enough together. What apparently happens is that individual molecules in the gecko spatulae and in the surface material trade electrical charges. A weak electrical bond is formed, which when multiplied by the number of spatulae per foot, acts like a powerful electrical glue. The molecules of the foot and surface material in effect are drawn together into a composite structure.

Such a van der Waals force is all very well as an explanation for sticking the gecko to a surface, but these animals do not remain permanently anchored in one location. In order to walk or run, they must become unstuck again. Apparently the animal simply moves the foot so that the setae are peeled away from the surface. To engage the setae, the animal pushes the foot backwards and to remove, he pulls it forward.

Dutch physicist van der Waals received a Nobel Prize in 1910 for his discovery of this force. It remains to be seen what reward will accrue to the modern researchers who hope to exploit such knowledge to produce a powerful adhesive.

Those involved in these pursuits admit that we do not at present have the expertise or know-how to engineer structures as exquisite as the gecko foot. An English team from University of Manchester recently produced a postage stamp sized piece of “synthetic gecko-tape.” This ‘invention’ is covered in millions of plastic polymer ‘hairs’ and it works! The product is so effective that it could suspend a person by one hand from a ceiling.

Nevertheless, although applications of the concept are “nearly limitless”, the actual product exhibits some distinct disadvantages.

While the real product continues to work throughout a gecko lifetime, the synthetic tape stayed sticky for only seven or eight applications. Moreover the artificial version is unbelievably expensive. A one metre square piece of tape would cost tens of thousands of English pounds to produce. Thus not surprisingly, frenetic research continues on this project. Even the Canadian government has leaped into the fray with a $200,000 grant over five years to a zoologist at University of Calgary. In this era of reduced government expenditures, that is a lot of money for one research project. The Canadian government must be expecting a good financial return on their investment! Meanwhile all involved agree that the living creatures themselves are the place to look for further ideas and inspiration.

A review of the issue shows that there are major differences between evolutionary views of nature and the traditional Christian view. Firstly the traditional view of God’s character and work are gone with evolution, replaced by something else. Secondly the traditional concept of truth is gone. Thirdly the traditional view of man’s place here on earth is gone, replaced by something else. No one can force anyone to support either position, but everyone should at least be aware of the implications.

As far as the character and work of God are concerned, the traditional Christian view is that God created all things in a perfect state, that He delights in details (for example, “the very hairs of your head are all numbered” – Matthew 10:30) and that death and disease resulted from God’s curse of nature after the fall of Adam. Evolutionary arguments however are based on a far different view of God. This is illustrated by Cornelius Hunter in his 2001 book Darwin’s God (Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter asks us to consider the popular view: “How is it that God could create the universe but have nothing to do with science? The answer of course is that God did not create the world, at least not directly — the world evolved” (p. 149).

This latter view, points out molecular biophysicist Dr. Hunter, was based on the assumption that God places a high value on letting nature do its own thing. Thus rich diversity in nature, as well as death and disease, are not from God, but “natural”. Many scientists claim that God is all the greater for His refraining from dabbling in nature. Thus the evolutionary view denies God’s providence (upholding and intervening as He chooses), judgment and plan in history. Many evolutionists have declared in their scientific writings that God would never bother to create the diversity of creatures that we see or to inflict suffering on nature. Dr. Hunter gives many examples of such documents. These declarations stem from evolutionist support for a God who, if He exists at all, pays little attention to details of the here and now — or the past or future. Miracles and salvation, of course, are not suitable activities for a remote God who leaves creation to its own devices.

Secondly, the traditional view of truth is gone. Secular scientists seek the best natural explanation of their observations from nature. To be truth-seeking, they would have to ask what happened, what is the best explanation. However this is not what we see in modern science. Instead secular scientists, as a matter of course, exclude the work of God from consideration and instead seek an explanation involving time and chance. Thus with the philosophical deck stacked in its favour, evolutionary explanations cannot claim to be the most probably true or the best fit of the data, since not all possibilities have been considered. Young people should not therefore assume that the facts support evolution. This is not the case. When you have only one choice, it does not matter what the facts are. The creation alternative is all too typically never considered.

The role of mankind in nature is another dramatic casualty of evolution theory. The traditional Christian view is that people are God’s special work, the pinnacle of creation. It was alternatively none other than palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould who called long ages “geology’s most frightening fact” (Wonderful Life p. 44). How, he asked, can we pretend that God made nature for man’s benefit when mankind was absent during almost all of this evolutionary past? Obviously, he implies, mankind is unnecessary and irrelevant to natural history. Similarly of course, the secular scientists who talk about mankind’s “oneness” with nature, mean that all creatures had the same evolutionary origin and thus no organism is any more valuable than any other. A mosquito is as worthy of protection as a person. This is not the Christian position.

Lastly, many evolutionists consider that only creatures with the best characteristics are worthy of protection. Thus out the window go Christian values of protecting the weak and promoting the good of one’s neighbour or even of one’s enemy.

It is evident that evolutionary conclusions are not the same as traditional Christian values. One’s view of origins matters because the implications are so different.

It is certainly true that the main objectives for exploration of the solar system are based on evolutionary preconceptions. According to longtime NASA scientist Dr. Robert Jastrow, exploration of the moon initially did not seem very interesting to the NASA planners. In his 1989 book Journey to the Stars, Dr. Jastrow declares that the top people at NASA “were not terribly interested in the moon at that time, in fact, from a scientific point of view they did not know it existed …” (p 12). This was certainly strange when one considers that the mandate for the fledgling organization was to launch the US into space as soon as possible, and to explore what was there.

Since the moon is by far the closest body in space, it would make sense to consider it first. However it was only when Dr. Jastrow suggested that the moon might hold clues concerning the origin of Earth and of life, that NASA determined to visit our closest neighbour. Those were exciting times, from 1969 to 1972, but few clues, if any, were discovered concerning origins. So attention has turned to Mars and beyond. There is no doubt that the objective of studying Mars is to find life there. These scientists believe this will confirm their faith in the spontaneous origin of life and in evolution.

Dr. Jastrow, in his 1989 book later declared concerning the search for life: “Life on one planet – the earth – tells us nothing about the probability of life in the Universe, but life on two planets in one solar system would tell us nearly everything. For if life has arisen independently on two planets in a single solar system, it cannot be a rare and unlikely accident …. No scientific discovery more significant in its implications can be imagined” (p. 120, italics his but not bold).

Certainly then, the objectives of space exploration as currently pursued, are regrettable. This, however, does not prevent us from enjoying the wonderful images and information that the space probes send back. The variety we see in space is at the same time beautiful, and a challenge to explain by means of atheistic or mechanistic origins models. Thus while the astronomers’ objectives are poor, their results are a delight to study.

A number of creation based books on astronomy are available from our association. The Astronomy Book by Jonathan Henry at $21.00 includes beautiful colour photos. It is written for junior high readers. Also written at the junior high level are Voyage to the Planets by Richard Bliss and Donald De Young ($13.50) and Voyage to the Stars by Richard Bliss ($12.25). These books include numerous diagrams and line drawings.

A question and answer book for junior high or high school readers is entitled Astronomy and the Bible by Donald De Young ($11.25). Two excellent adult books include God and Cosmos by John Byl ($23.00) and Faith, Form and Time by Kurt Wise ($23.00). This latter book deals with many topics but chapter 6, entitled “The Maker of Heaven” provides interesting insights on astronomy. Lastly for young children, the book The Amazing Story of Creation by Duane Gish ($22.50) includes discussion of the creation of light, the sun, moon, stars and other bodies in space as well as other topics.

So the answer to this frequently asked question, “Who cares about space?” is that we do!