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.

Various experts have reflected on the amazing diversity/variety of algae that we see floating in lake waters and in the sea. One ecologist wrote an article in 1961 entitled “The Paradox of the Plankton”. Plankton means tiny floating organisms and can refer to plants or animals. If Darwin’s ideas about natural selection are correct said Dr. Hutchinson, then at least in summer when there is likely to be a shortage of nutrients “we should expect that one species alone would outcompete all the others so that in a final equilibrium situation the assemblage would reduce to a population of a single species.” (G. E. Hutchinson. American Naturalist 95 #882 p. 137) Of course the point of this article was to speculate on reasons why, while evolution remained true, evolutionary expectations were not met. Biologists are still reflecting not only on the amazing diversity/variety of organisms that exist, but also on the amazing variety of species that are able to live together at one time and in one location.

A book published in 2005 was entitled Demons of Eden: the Paradox of Plant Diversity (Jonathan Silvertown. University of Chicago Press). The book was written to consider the problem of the vast diversity of plant species. With the concept of natural selection (Darwin’s idea) in mind, one reviewer of this book pointed out: “one might predict that one supremely fit plant species, capable of photosynthesis, vegetative growth, pollination and seed dispersal in a way that outperformed all other plants, might ultimately prove the victor in the evolutionary struggle and would dominate the world’s primary production. But this has not happened.” (Nature Nov. 3/05 p. 27) Instead, the reviewer points out, we see an extraordinary diversity of plant species, about 400,000 according to some estimates. It might make sense that a few plants would win out in a struggle for survival, scientists might imagine, one in each kind of environment, but not the fantastic variety of shapes and life styles that we see in plants all over the world.

The issue of why there is so much more biodiversity than expected grows ever more interesting. Lately biologists have turned their attention to organisms in the soil, and they are amazed at what they are finding. Since the soil ecosystem consists mainly of microbes, apart from the obvious molds and mites, modern scientists have resorted to some fancy new techniques to find out about the tiniest organisms. Microbes like bacteria are so small that it is impossible to identify them by visual means. Instead biologists have typically identified microbes by the way they act in laboratory cultures.  So, suppose a scientist sprinkles some soil on agar plates, or washes the soil with water and puts that on the culture plates. The agar makes a solid surface, firmer than gelatin. Scientists add nutrients to the agar which they think the microbes of interest will want to grow on. A few well known organisms typically appear in culture and these will be duly identified. Suppose however that there are other organisms in the soil and that these organisms do not like the culture conditions offered to them in the lab. They won’t grow. How then, if such species exist, will we ever find out about them?

In the late 1990s some scientists devised a new technique called “metagenomics.” This is a technique which is designed to show the existence of different species in soil even if they will not grow in cultures. Metagenomics means that a small sample of soil is treated in such a way that all the DNA (genetic material) in all the microbes therein is extracted. This is then run through a machine which reads the information content on each fragment of DNA. Computers then figure out which fragments were originally joined together in one long loop of DNA in a microbe. So now the computer knows how many drastically different collections of DNA this sample contained. The computer will ignore duplicate samples of the same thing, and just list the very different “genomes” (loops of DNA) from very different organisms.

Several such studies have shown that there is no overlap, but rather quite a difference between the genetic information in one microbe and that in another. (Nature Sept. 25/08 p. 482). So the scientists count up the numbers of different “genomes” and this gives them an estimate of the number of different microbe species in the soil sample.

Some of the estimated numbers of microbe species have been quite astounding. Numbers varying from 2000 to 10,000 to 50,000 species per gram of soil are not uncommon. A gram is an extremely small amount of soil. The next thing scientists have done once they got over the shock of such numbers, was to ask why there is such variety in the soil. According to one commentator: “Many species also seem to be redundant, eating the same foods and fulfilling the same ecosystem jobs, so scientists don’t quite understand why they’re there at all.” (Nature Oct 9/08 p. 725). Evidently there seem to be a lot of organisms with different genetic information but which do the same thing.

One ecologist researched this issue by means of experiments. He set up soil cultures in jars and added fungal species, one at a time. As each new fungus species was added, the culture did better to a maximum of six different species. But the original soil sample had contained 43 fungal species. Above the six species however, no improvement in the culture was observed. So the question of why there is so much diversity in nature remains unanswered for the vast majority of scientists.

It is obvious that nature does not fit evolutionary expectations about diversity. Instead the tremendous richness and variety are clearly a matter of choice on the part of the Creator. God did not just create useful designs, he lavished upon the creation artistic and amazingly varied designs. He did this to make nature interesting and beautiful. Not only are the richness and diversity of coral reefs and the rainforest a mark of God’s creative hand, but so is life in lakes, the ocean, in soil and indeed in all the local natural communities with which we are familiar.

There are so many stories: school teachers who lost their jobs, students who did not receive their earned degrees, candidates who did not secure academic jobs, university faculty who lost their jobs or who were assigned to less meaningful work – all had one thing in common – their colleagues feared they might criticize Darwinism. Some victims blatantly criticized evolution in their work while others never actually did so. Almost all were labeled as religious whether they were or not. Often nobody actually knew what their religious views were, but if the individual was critical of establishment science, it was assumed that the person was promoting a religious agenda. Apparently there is no occasion in most academic circles in the United States, in which it is considered appropriate to question Darwinian interpretations of nature. All too often, according to a new book by Jerry Bergman, the questioner has been drummed out of academic circles.

For thirty years Dr. Bergman has collected documentation on cases of viewpoint discrimination in the United States. Some of the events which he relates are recent, such as the stories of Dr. Caroline Crocker and Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, both of whom are featured in the movie Expelled. Other famous cases which he discusses include those of Dr. Dean Kenyon (one of the scientists in the DVD Unlocking the Mystery of Life) and Dr. Raymond Damadian who holds the basic patent for the MRI machine – but who, famously, did not receive a Nobel Prize for the MRI when other subsequent workers were recognized in 2003.

Dr. Bergman not only outlines past scenarios in which discrimination has occurred, he also discusses various stages in the process including initially light hearted queries about the individual’s opinions, then a name-calling phase such as “nutcase”, then informal complaints and then formal charges and, finally, procedures to fire the person or deny their degrees, or whatever. In cases where the victim seeks legal recourse, it is almost unheard of for them to win their cases.

Dr. Bergman has chosen events which are diverse and interesting, however sad the outcomes. It has to be remembered that these are real people’s lives and careers which have been derailed. Most unexpectedly, these people ran into trouble because they honestly thought it was possible to discuss these issues in science. Most of these people had excellent credentials, but these were not enough to save their careers. Most Americans believe that they are protected against blatant discrimination of any sort. According to Dr. Bergman however, this is not the case, and the situation is growing worse. The first step toward counteracting these situations (which can happen in Canada too) is to become informed. So do buy the book and read it.

Everyone knows that very few of the DVDs, which we promote, have previously been shown in large commercial theatres. Yet here we have one that was shown in the United States in the spring of last year, and in Canada at the beginning of July. In that it was designed for major outlets, everything about this film is highly professional. Ben Stein is a big name star in the United States. His past activities include training in economics and the law, a period as presidential speech writer, as an academic, a political commentator, and as a star of a major film (Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. 1986).

Since this is a documentary with a serious message, the problem for the producers was to make it interesting and entertaining at the same time. The theme is that highly qualified scientists in the United States are losing their jobs because they dare to see the work of an intelligent creator in the origin of life, of the universe, and of everything else. This calls the objectivity of the scientific establishment into question when they let or encourage this to happen.  Amusing, but relevant film clips, are interspersed with this serious presentation, in order to make the whole appealing to a general audience.

One section of the film includes discussion on the implications of social Darwinism and the effects of such an attitude in recent European history. Later, interviews with establishment scientists are included. In that establishment science claims to be neutral in attitude and based on fact, this DVD conveys an important message. American scientists, in general, have very biased ideas about what they are willing to conclude about nature. They do not want to see any trace of design in nature, and they are willing, indeed anxious, to banish from their ranks anyone, however qualified, who thinks differently. This is a wake up call for the general public. Establishment scientists are biased in their pronouncements. It is appropriate to consider the work of the banished scientists and of others promoting intelligent design and the creation models. A good place to start is to view this film and to show it to others.

Dr. Austin’s training and more recent research programs mean that his lectures will be extremely interesting and beneficial. The October issue of Institute for Creation Research’s Acts and Facts, for example, declared that “the National Creation Science Foundation (NCSF), ICR’s new funding initiative to promote quality research, has awarded its first grant to eminent geologist Dr. Steve Austin. NCSF has signed a major contract with Dr. Austin for his continued management of the Flood-Activated Sedimentation and Tectonics (FAST) project.”

Dr. Austin received his training in geology from four state universities (University of Colorado, University of Washington, San Jose State University in California and Pennsylvania State University). It was at the latter institution that in 1979 Dr. Austin earned his Ph.D. in coal geology. He successfully defended the thesis that the sinking of a massive floating mat of huge club moss trees had resulted in the formation of a uniform layer of coal over a large area in Kentucky. Shortly thereafter, Mount St. Helens erupted and he had the unique opportunity to confirm a hypothesis which he had made based on geological evidence. As a result of the May 1980 events at Mount St. Helens, he was able to observe how a resulting floating log mat behaved on Spirit Lake. These observations from the recent past and the geological past, provided interesting insights into the worldwide flood of Noah.

For more than thirty years Dr. Austin has had a varied and exciting career in research as a geologist. His research adventures have taken him by helicopter into the crater of Mount St. Helens volcano, by raft through the entire Grand Canyon, on horseback into the high Sierra, by four-wheel drive into remote areas of Yellowstone, by elevator into some of the deepest coal mines, by SCUBA onto the Great Barrier Reef of Australia, by bush plane onto high glaciers of Alaska, and on foot into remote desert areas of Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. He loves exploring evidences of catastrophic geologic events, especially the evidences for Noah’s Flood. He most recently went to Argentina to study the geology of some rocks and a river which Charles Darwin mentioned in terms of long slow processes. The visit provided highly successful and Dr. Austin discovered clear evidence of catastrophic process instead.

Currently Dr. Austin is a consulting geologist in private practice. For thirty-six years he was research associated in geology at the Institute for Creation Research. For sixteen years he was Chairman of the Geology Department at ICR. His graduate students have made advancements in industry, research and education. He has been leader of fifteen field tours to Grand Canyon with more than 2000 participants. His popular lectures on Mount St. Helens have been attended by more than 25,000 people. He is author of three books: Catastrophes in Earth History; Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe; and Footprints in the Ash. He has also produced a computer software package, more than thirty technical papers and two video programs.

The February/09 issue of Acts and Facts from Institute for Creation Research, includes an article by Dr. Austin called “Darwin’s First Wrong Turn”. This is about his visit to Argentina this past December carried out to discover if Darwin’s first scientific conclusions, made at this site, were valid or not. Based on these adventures, he put together a ten minute video clip which he made available on YouTube and which it is possible to purchase.

A major problem with the flight-bird-to-penguin evolution theory is the fact that penguins have so many non-bird traits that they “are everything a bird should not be” (Gilpin, D. 2007 Penguins. Paragon Books p. 6).  Moreover, a common hypothesis is that energy conservation contributes to the evolution of flight loss, an idea supported by the fact that many flightless animals have low basal metabolic rates and low pectoral muscle mass. Penguins however, have neither low basal rates nor small pectoral masses (McNab, B.K. 1994. American Naturalist 144 (4) p. 628)

Non-bird Traits

One of many examples of a non-bird trait that penguins possess is that they do not have thin, hollow, light bones – as do all flight birds – but rather heavy, solid bones. These solid bones add to their dense body weight, a trait that is required to swim under water (Resnick, Jane P. 1997. Penguins. Kidsbooks p. 12). The Emperor Penguin weighs over 60 pounds (27 kg), the King Penguin weighs 35 pounds (16 kg), while the weight of most other birds is measured in ounces (or grams). The Little Blue or Fairy Penguin is slightly over one foot (30 cm), and the Emperor close to four feet (more than 1 m) tall, yet both are heavy for their size.

Furthermore, no bird can dive like a penguin or stay under water for as long as 18 minutes as can a penguin (Resnick p. 14). Birds spend most of their time in the air; penguins spend all their time in the water or on land, and none in the air. Birds have excellent vision in air; penguins have poor vision in air but excellent vision in water (Pettingill, O. S. Jr. 1975. Another Penguin Summer. Charles Scribner’s Sons p. 10). Birds have feathers; penguins have a thick waterproof, almost fur-like, covering.

Vestigial Wings

The major problem with the claim that penguins have vestigial wings is that it is demonstrably false. In fact, penguins have well designed flippers that enable them to achieve marvelous acrobatic feats both on land and in water. Their flippers have some similarity to wings but have a very different function and design than wings. The forelimbs are flattened and do not bend in the center as can a bird’s wing (Gilpin, p. 8; Carroll, R. L. 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. Freeman and Company p. 357). Also penguin hind limbs are short and located at their rear, allowing them to walk upright in a way that resembles human locomotion.

Their ingenious flipper design is a major reason why they are incredibly fast swimmers – their streamlined torpedo-shaped body can slice through the water so fast that, when swimming upwards vertically, penguins can shoot out of the water as high as six feet (2 m). Penguins are also extremely maneuverable in water, turning rapidly with grace. Although they waddle on land, they can speed slide on ice by lying face down and gliding forward like a sledder by pushing with their feet and flippers. There is also no evidence of wings being converted into flippers in the past. As Simpson concluded: “From their bones it is clear that all known fossil penguins walked and swam in the same queer ways as modern penguins” (Simpson, G. G. 1976. Penguins: Past and Present, Here and There. Yale University Press p. 71). And subsequent fossil discoveries have continued to support this conclusion.

Penguin Relationships

Ironically, the closest living relative of the penguins is currently believed by many to be the albatross, a bird that penguins do not physically closely resemble, but all other living animals are even more different (Gilpin p. 10). Penguins are physically closer to the now-extinct, flightless Great Auk than to any living bird. The problem evolutionists have is that, even though penguins are in many major ways very different from birds, they are even more different than all other known animals. They are a very unique animal, unlike any other living bird or mammal, and this fact makes it very difficult to fit them into any evolutionary scenario.

Another problem is 17 species of penguins exist that are morphologically very different in size, temperament, colouration, and other traits and inhabit very different climates, and no evidence exists of their evolution. They all belong to the family Spheniscidae, yet are very different, and no clear intermediates, living or fossil, have yet been found to link them (Pettingill p. 10).

Fossil Record

Penguins have an excellent fossil record, as would be expected considering their heavy bones that preserve very well. Another reason for their excellent fossil record is that a large number of penguins existed that lived in a very widespread area, from the Antarctic to the tropics in the southern Hemisphere.             Simpson notes that, although we expect ancient penguins to be “decidedly more primitive” than those now living, instead what is found is “in some ways certain of the late Eocene penguins seem to be even more specialized, that is, less primitive, than those still extant” (p. 58). What the fossil record reveals is fully seventeen fossil genera, while only six are recognized today. Thus Carroll declared: “The fossil record demonstrates that penguins were more diverse in the Tertiary than in the modern fauna. The largest of all penguins, which was approximately 1 ½ m high, is known from the Oligocene and early Miocene” (p. 357).

Simpson admits that, although “a surprising number of … fossil penguins have been discovered and studied,” we have no evidence of their evolution – thus, we must rely on “indirect approaches,” which amounts to speculation.  Simpson adds “the situation is not hopeless” because “indirect approaches can usually lead to a plausible theory” (p. 57). Yet Simpson admits that the earliest fossils show that the first known penguins: “were already completely adapted to the penguin way of life and had all the characteristics of the basic penguin plus some special characteristics of their own, different in the various species. At first sight that seems quite disappointing [to prove evolution], and so it is to some extent.” (p. 58-59)

Problems for Evolution

Emperor Penguins lay eggs like a bird but live in the extreme Antarctic cold. This creates major problems: the egg, if it rolls on the ice or is exposed to the cold wind, freezes within minutes, killing the embryo (Jacquet, L. 2006. March of the Penguins. National Geographic Society p. 52). However, exhausted from producing and laying the egg, the female must return to the sea or she will die. The egg must then be transferred to the male, who keeps it warm under a specially designed flap of skin between his feet and his stomach.

Transferring the egg to the male is no easy task, and to do so successfully the male and female must act in perfect synchrony. One misstep or hurried movement causing the slightest error, and the egg will freeze solid (Jacquet p. 54). Evolutionists have not even begun to speculate how this system could evolve. What would seem more likely to evolve is the selection of mating grounds that require a shorter trip to the sea, instincts that drive the male to fetch food for the female, and a system to allow the female to incubate the egg.

Many animals have enough physical and genetic similarities to other animals that a plausible evolutionary scenario can be postulated. With penguins, so many major differences exist between them and all other life forms, that postulating a plausible evolutionary theory of their origins has proved to be a critical problem for evolutionists. As a result, the bird-to-penguin evolutionary theory was proposed, but major, if not lethal, problems exist with this evolutionary hypothesis. Meanwhile, let us enjoy what we know of those amazingly designed creatures, the penguins.

Isn’t it interesting? Even plant shapes are important. The leaf shapes and sizes, and arrangement on the branches, mean that different canopy designs are required. Of course, in winter, there are buds along the bare branches (arranged at angles which will produce the canopy shape as well as the new leaves). These buds provide the promise of fresh growth in the spring. Moreover the buds must protect the tender growing shoot against the extreme cold of winter.

The evergreen trees are interesting too. These have narrow needles so that the plants won’t lose too much water during those drying winds of winter. We have all heard of freeze dried products in the grocery store. It is not good for trees to have their leaves freeze dried. So we see arrangements of branches and of needles on the branches, which are designed to conserve maximum water in winter and to display the needles to maximum sunlight in summer. Thus we see the cone shape of so many evergreen trees!

Even weeds are fun to examine. Did you ever notice the design features with which they are provided for obtaining needed resources? Weeds often have a low rosette (circle) of leaves which covers the ground and which prevents other plants from developing in the vicinity. Imagine a lawn full of dandelions. Their rosettes cover the grass and it does not have a chance to grow. Moreover weeds often have deep roots which hog the water in the soil. With ample resources, weeds grow quickly. All too soon they are in flower, and shortly thereafter, there are weed seeds everywhere! Weeds are certainly beautifully designed to out compete the plants we might prefer to see in the garden.

So, if you are artistic, why not draw or take photos of beautiful living things. Everyone, artistic or not, can write down observations (with date and place) and collect more information once your interest has been kindled.