Monday 21 December 2009

The FIG WASP

THE FIG WASP

I've put up some amazing things, but this is certainly one of the highest ranking. Judge for yourself.

The fig tree has a tightly closed inflorescence, which means that the hundreds of tiny flowers (florets to give them their proper name) are completely inclosed inside the fig. They can't be seen from the outside.



Each species of fig seems to be pollinated by only ONE species of wasp! There are about 730 species of fig so that would seem to require 730 species of wasp- but not all of these are known as yet.

How do the insects find the flowers?

When the tree is ready for pollination, it releases tree-specific volatile substances which the wasp tracks down to their source. Lo and behold, there's the flower, or the inflorescence, rather.

So the female finds the inflorescence. Thousands die in the search process though, because it's a big world out there.

How do they get in?

When she finds it, there is another big hurdle to cross. The entrance to the inflorescence (called the ostiole) is extremely small, and lined with bracts, which are placed there to keep out the unwanted. They fit tightly, and that makes life very difficult for the unwanted, but no less so for the wasp, to get in.

She, however, has been explicitly designed for this very task.

Her head and thorax (chest) are extremely flattened and elongated: just the job for squeezing past the bracts! ('Remarkably adapted' is the description. Ho ho ho!) Her 'teeth', on her mandibular apparatus, point backwards, and she's got teeth on her hind legs, also pointing backwards. They do so in order to prevent her from slipping out!



Her wings very often break off in the struggle to get in - so once in there, there's no way back.

Once inside, she sets about, in complete or nearly complete darkness, to pollinate the stigmas, and to lay eggs in some of the ovules. She distinguishes between those ovules which are going to become seeds, and those which are not.

Those ovules whose styles are too long for her ovipositor to reach the ovule, she simply pollinates.

Those ovules her ovipositor can reach, she leaves unpollinated, so they will only contain her larvae.

This makes certain that the plant will survive, and that her larvae will have food to eat.

What happens then? She dies. Her young never see her alive, and can't copy her actions - but they do exactly the same as she did.

As the eggs develop and hatch out into larvae, the eat the endosperm of the ovules they have been laid in, and they grow into adulthood.

The males mate with the females, and amazingly, chew a hole in the wall of the maturing or matured fig SO THAT THE FEMALES CAN GET OUT.

Then they die.


The females in the meantime, load up with pollen, or get covered in it, and then set off to find another flower inflorescence.

EVOLUTIONARY DIFFICULTIES

1 How do we explain the fact that the young never see the adult in action - and yet they do exactly the same as she does?

2 How do the males know that unless they dig a hole, the females won't get out, the plants won't get pollinated, and their own species will die out?

3 How is it that only the fig wasp pollinates the fig flowers? Without the wasp, as with the bucket orchid, the fig will die out, and without the fig, the wasp will die out?

4 How did the female 'develop' the elongated and flattened shape that enables her to get into the ostiole?

5 How is it thar her ovipositor length has become the determining factor in whether the ovules get pollinated or not? If it was too long, then no pollination would take place. If it was too short, then the eggs would not be laid. So who or what determined that length?

6 How did this relationship, as specific and complicated as it is, ever get started?

7 Where did the plant get the necessary chemical knowledge to produce the volatile substances which attract the wasps, and how did it know that it would attract them anyway?

8 Where did the insects get the brain to figure out that if they followed the scent, they would find a fig they could pollinate?

It happens, that once the fig is pollinated, and the females have left the fig, its colour and smell change, and it becomes attractive to the fruit eating community like birds, bats, monkeys etc etc.

Does God take thought for wasps? And figs? And birds? And monkeys? Obviously, He does!

Here's another account: http://figs4fun.com/Links/FigLink006a.pdf

The common fig is a member of the genus Ficus. Ficus is a large genus with some 2000 tropical and subtropical tree, shrub and vine species distributed around the whole world.

The fruit of all ficus species isthe syconium, an enlarged, fleshy and hollow peduncle bearing closely massed tiny flowers on its inner wall. The true fruits are tiny drupelets which develop from these flowers.

The problem is these flowers are borne on the inside of the syconium. They never open to the outside world like respectable roses, cabbages and oak trees.

How do they get pollinated?

That's their weird sex life. Hold on for this is complicated.

F. carica and some closely related species come in two basic forms: edible figs and caprifigs. Caprifigs are the host of the fig pollinator Blastophages psenes or fig wasp which lays its eggs in the caprifig's short-styled female flowers.

The male fig wasp grows, mates and dies inside the caprifig fruit in which he is born. The female is more adventuresome.

She leaves the caprifig fruit through its ostiole or eye (picking up a lot of pollen in the process) and flies off in search of a new fruit at the right stage of development in which to lay her eggs.

The kicker is this: female fig wasps lay so many eggs in each caprifig fruit that very few, if any, of the female flowers ever produce seeds. Not good for ficus species survival.

Evolution (or God, if you prefer) provided a solution: the edible fig.

The plant and fruit look just like those of the caprifig, but have two important differences: no male flowers, and the female flowers have long styles which prevent the fig wasp from laying her eggs.

If she enters the fruit of an edible fig, she searches desperately for, but finds no suitable female flowers. As she does, she scatters the pollen she picked up leaving the caprifig. And, this pollenizes (or caprifies) the edible fig. When caprified, each fruit will produce several hundred to several thousand seeds per fruit, depending on the variety.

Not so great for the individual fig wasp, but good for the ficus species. Overall, the situation benefits both figs and fig wasps. There are plenty of caprifigs to nourish the fig wasps and plenty of edible figs to produce fig seeds which develop into fig and caprifig plants.

NEWS FLASH!


NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!


“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus


AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!


35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.






CDR Version






Published by phillauren.org

The Miracle of Illogic

THE MIRACLE OF ILLOGIC


NEWS FLASH!


NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!


“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus


AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!


35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.






CDR Version






Published by phillauren.org


I am always amazed when I hear of some anthropologist finding a crude, brutishly made, blunt, prehistoric stone axe. Because, immediately, they leap upon it, with great cries of triumphant glee, crowing happily that our ancestors made it, and it was xyzanthropus wot did it n thousand years ago.

The product of human intelligence they cry! See, hominids made it. Or something else did. And look how advanced it is! Why, there's a slot here for the haft of the axe to fit in! And some indentations where the binding was attached to hold the device together. And look! There's a few skulls nearby with marks of an axe indented into them! That proves that xyzanthropus used tools as weapons! A tool maker, and a weapons maker! A mark of extremely advanced stages of human evolution!

Little realising that this is really a ton of garbage.

That blunt, crude stone axe is mark of human intelligence of very high order for the time, they say.

But then, the same evolutionary palaeontologist finds a fossilised flight feather. Or some tissue with DNA in it.

That flight feather, or fossil thereof, shows considerable amounts of aeronautical engineering skill, enabling us to know that the bird could and did fly. It is clearly designed for the purpose.

In the DNA are millions of coded, precisely detailed instructions, for the construction of that feather, far surpassing anything even modern Homo sapiens can construct.

And yet, they cannot see that that feather, and that DNA could not possibly have evolved. Nobody in their right senses would claim that the stone axe evolved. But they claim the feather and the DNA did.

It takes a Miracle of Illogic to make that leap.

The Arctic Rose

THE ARCTIC ROSE
http://ucdnema.ucdavis.edu/imagemap/...10/pollbio.htm

Got a satellite dish which can track a satellite?

Well, I've got news for you: this plant beat your gadget's designers to it.

In the arctic, heat is at a premium. And so, the arctic rose attracts the insects which pollinate it with the freebie of heat!

The little arctic rose is shaped like a radio telescope monitoring outer space: but for a far more useful purpose.

The parabola shape of its petals gathers and reflects heat from the sun's rays as well as foil, and focusses warmth on the stamens and the stigma!

Both food (nectar and pollen) and warmth (from the parabolic structure) are available to the insects here - so they come to these private sun traps, which are about 10 degrees warmer than elsewhere. They themselves become warmer and better able to fly in very short time, and move on to the next solar heated flower!

They've got to work hard, because the Greenland summer is only about 5 weeks, even though there are nearly 24 hours of daylight. Therefore the plant has to keep warm all day.

So how does it do it? Its stem rotates because of its extraordinary design, and it tracks the sun 24 hours per day, being never more than 2 degrees off course!

So evolution lads, how did this one evolve?

1 Let's leave aside the meiosis and mitosis questions - ie how does the plant figure out that its gametes (sex cells) must contain half the required number of chromosomes.

2 How did it know that it had to get insects in to pollinate itself? And how did it know there were such things as insects, anyway?

3 How did it figure out that warmth and food are essential to insects?

4 How did it conceive the idea of a nice reflective parabolic shape that would focus (focus? - what's that in plant language?) the heat on the stigma and stamens?

5 How did it invent the tracking device, which allows it to know that there IS a sun, where that sun is, and alter its position to follow the sun?

6 And how did it get the plans for the tracking device into its own genes when it had figured out everything else?


NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!


“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus


AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!


35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.






CDR Version





Published by phillauren.org

The Archerfish

THE ARCHERFISH (Toxotes spp)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10268.html

Still on the theme of being able to see both under water and in the air, we have this lovely little specimen called the archerfish.

A New Scientist article describes it thus:

Awesome skills of spitting archerfish revealed


The Indo-Pacific fish is able to spit water at its prey out of the water, and hit it. A video shows a fish leaping out of the water to catch an insect.

"Scientists had thought their hunting technique was an unsophisticated skill, based on blasts of water with a "spit and hope" quality.

However, in 2004 researchers showed that these fish are able to precisely judge the size and position of prey above the water line, taking into account the distorting effect on light of passing from air to water."

There's another fascinating feature. The mouthparts are poked out of the water when firing the blast.



That means 2 things at least.

1 The eyes are UNDERWATER while the gun is OUT of the water in the air. Imagine underwater frogmen with a gun firing at a helicopter. They can only see the target, and have no radar, sonar or other aid. What are the chances? And remember, they have brains.

2 Somehow the fish has figured out that if it remains too far UNDERWATER, the jet will be either weakened or won't reach the surface because of water resistance. So it sticks its mouth out of the water.

Their mouthparts are specially designed to enable this unique phenomenon to take place. As far as I know, no other fish in the world can do this accurate spitting, and therefore this is an evolutionary nightmare: no relatives, no gradual acquisition of the necessary physical characteristics, and definitely no acquisition of the instinctive behaviour pattern. No common ancestors.

So where did it come from?

Here is the obligatory, stupid comment: "This suggests the behaviour is evolutionarily "hardwired" and not subject to learning, the researchers say."

Not learned. Right there in our faces. Where did it come from?

Let me point out the difficulties any evolutionary theory has to face.

1 The unique mouthparts. No other fish has them, and they have to work first time, or the fish would have starved. They don't eat anything else.

DIET

Archerfish prey mainly on insects, which are shot down from overhanging branches with a strong and accurate jet of water. They form a spitting tube by positioning their tongue against a groove on the roof of their mouth.

Water is forced through this tube by quickly snapping shut their gills creating a very effective water pistol. For maximum accuracy the tip of their snout extends out of the water while the rest of the body remains submerged. They direct the jet of water with the tip of their tongue.

1. How did they learn to do this with the mouthparts when they've got them?
Remember the question: "Duh! Now what the hell do I do with this??"

2 The ability to take account of the differences in refractive index of water and air. From underwater, an insect would appear to be somewhere else than directly above the fish, and not in a straight line. Somehow the fish corrects for this. How?

3 How does a fish calculate that it will take more force to blast a bigger prey off its perch into the water? It obviously does, says the article - so where did this bit of 'fishy intelligence' come from?

ArcherFish: Changing Caliber to Fit Prey
by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

"A fish learning the laws of optics is an amazing feat. But to combine those optical laws with the precision shooting of a sniper and then calculating the force of the shot according to the size of the prey (in order to obtain food), defies evolutionary explanation.

How was this creature able to “evolve” these distinctive abilities, and furthermore, why go through all the trouble? Why not just eat aquatic animals like other fish?"


Heidi Hardman remarked:

In a series of experiments, the researchers showed that the fish do not learn this by remembering which combinations of spatial configurations and the corresponding images were rewarding in the past. Rather, the fish extracted the underlying law that connects spatial configuration and apparent size. This remarkable cognitive ability allows the fish to readily judge a target’s objective size from underwater views they have never encountered before (2004).

Random mutations, anyone? Thought so.


NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!


“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus


AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!


35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.






CDR Version






Published by phillauren.org

The Four-Eyed Fish

NEWS FLASH!

NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!


“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus


AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!


35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.






CDR Version






Published by phillauren.org

THE FOUR-EYED FISH (Anableps spp.)

http://whozoo.org/Intro2000/rafajohn/tempagetwo.htm

"The fish does not actually have four eyes, but the eye is divided to allow the fish to see both above and below the waterline. A narrow band of epithelium divides the upper and lower halves of the eye.


Each half of the eye has a separate pupil, iris and cornea, but the retina is divided. Both halves of the eye use the same lens, with the upper light path traveling through the short axis of the lens, while the lower light path travels through the long axis.

This dual use of the lens corrects for the different behavior of light in air and in water, with the underwater lens face more strongly curved. The underwater half of the eye projects an image to the upper half of the retina, while the part of the eye above water projects to the lower retina.

The upper eye must be occasionally wetted to prevent dehydration, but when the fish is completely submerged, the image from the upper half of the eye is out of focus."

Here is another very informative article about the eye, diagrams and all:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/tp.bridges/anableps2.html,

We mentioned the Trilobite eye, and it's correction for spherical aberration by the use of calcite lenses in the ommatidia.

Here now is another remarkable eye. IT CORRECTS FOR seeing in the water, and seeing out of the water, and can apparently see both AT THE SAME TIME. And obviously, makes sense of what it does see!

I wonder what Dawkins would say about this one.

1. Both types of eye are built in to a single eye structure

2. The fish obviously has stereoscopic vision

3. So it has the necessary nervous structure, and instinctive behaviour to match

4. Most remarkably of all, the eye corrects for above water, and underwater viewing. The refractive indices of the two mediums are widely different.

So Who knew about all that when designing the fish?

The Life Cycle of the Liver Fluke

There is something ugly in this article.

This example may be gruesome in some ways, but it does demonstrate what I consider to be an unevolvable phenomenon.



The mature liver fluke lives in the bile duct of a mammal.

It is a flat, leaf shaped organism when mature, which is hermaphrodite, containing both testes and an ovary.

It produces eggs, self-fertilised, which pass into the mammal's duodenum. Strangely enough, they are not digested by the proteolytic enzymes produced by the pancreas.

The eggs pass out in the faeces of the animal in an unembryonated state. They take 2 weeks or so to develop into 'miracidia' as they are called, which are actively mobile, and swim using flagella, no less.

A snail, coming into contact with the miracidia, is penetrated by them, and they burrow into the snail's digestive tract, where a 'sporocyst' forms: completely different in appearance to the flagellated miracidium.

Inside this structure, a 'redia' forms, which is again completely unlike the sporocyst, and inside the redia, another quite different form develops called a 'cercaria'. Inside one redia, many cercaria form and eventually there are so many of them, the snail dies. Each cercaria looks like a tadpole with a tail.

The cercaria erupt out of the snails tissues, find wet grass blades, and swim up the film of water, and then encyst, in which form they are able to resist drying out to a limited but not indefinite extent.

The cyst is now ingested by the mammal as it eats the grass. It survives the passage through the rumen, the reticulum, the omasum and the abomasum - the four stomachs of a ruminant animal - and when it reaches the duodenum the cyst wall digests, and the young parasite emerges.

Amazingly, it burrows its way through the duodenal wall, into the peritoneal cavity, and finds its way to the liver. There it feeds on the host's blood, grows to maturity, and then, again remarkably, makes its way into the bile duct where it lays its eggs, and the cycle begins again.

IMPOSSIBILITIES

It would be difficult to imagine a life cycle like this: but there it is.

Every stage is preparatory to the next, and any failure to develop say the redia, would mean the end of the life cycle.

So the young swim.

They produce digestive enzymes to penetrate the snail.
Having penetrated the snail they become something totally different.

Where did the instinctive behaviour come from? At what point in the parasite's evolution did it decide to enter a snail? And when it entered, why did it decide to go through 2 phases?

How did it know that it had to get out of the snail's body and on to the grass? And why grass which would be eaten by mammals? It then encysts - in order to pass through the mammal's stomach(s).

How could it be that the cyst's material resist the digestive juices of 4 ruminant stomachs? And then, conveniently digests in the duodenal juices?

But the young parasite itself is not digested! It somehow has the equipment to bore its way through the duodenal wall, and in the darkness of the peritoneal cavity finds its way unerringly to the liver. As if it knew the anatomy of the sheep!

And finally, it somehow finds its way into the bile duct - the only place where it could possibly lay its eggs and be certain that they would enter the sheep's alimentary canal again.

This life cycle is complex to the nth degree. Everything had to be in place AT ONCE for this to happen: the liver of the sheep, the gall bladder, the snail, the grass, the sheep's grass eating habit.

It is totally inexplicable on any evolutionary hypothesis.




NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!


“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus


AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!


35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.






CDR Version






Published by phillauren.org

The Cambrian Explosion

THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION

Having read a great deal about this ‘explosion’ I want to put before the expanding readership some little facts that they may not know. These facts show that it is far beyond the bounds of credibility for so many, and such varied organisms to have evolved in any step by step fashion. Simply because they appeared so suddenly and in one fell swoop.

This obviously bothered Darwin, and later on, Gould and many other palaeontologists.

There is no credible evolutionary explanation of the phenomenon, and I am amazed to know that so many informed people (on the subject of the Cambrian explosion, I mean) can look at those facts in the face, and still go along with the ToE.

What does ‘Cambrian’ mean?

Palaeontologists dig down into the earth’s crust, and they have found that there are many layers of rock. They’ve given the layers names, and the names depend on the kind of fossils in the rock.

The oldest animals/ plants are in the deepest layers, which are the oldest ones, and the newest animals/plants are in the highest ones.

Right at the very bottom of the layers is granite, which cannot and does not contain fossils, and is the oldest of the rocks.

So imagine a pack of cards resting on a granite surface. The granite represents the basement layer of rocks and piled on top of it are the cards, each of which represents a layer of rock. The layer resting on the granite is called the ‘Pre-Cambrian’ layer, and contains a very limited number of fossils: limited both in number and kind.

The layer on top of that one is the ‘Cambrian’ layer, and it is this one we are going to discuss in brief.

What’s in the Cambrian Layer?

To everybody’s astonishment, especially the people who believed in the gradual evolution theory, there are thousands of different kinds of animals and plants in that layer, and they weren’t simple ones either.

Here’s a quote that shows this: http://science.enotes.com/earth-science/cambrian-period. My comments in square brackets.

“…In these strata, the earliest known chordate (spinal cord-bearing animal), Pikaia, was first found.

[It was a pretty complex animal, reminiscent of Amphioxus, a chordate studied still, and living still today.]

Based on the obvious and regular segmentation of the body, Walcott classified it as a Polychaete worm. It resembles a living chordate commonly known as the lancelet and perhaps swam much like an eel.

Other marine creatures of Cambrian seas included the archaeocyathids and stromatoporoids (two extinct, sponge-like organisms that formed reefs),

primitive sponges and corals,

simple pelecypods and brachiopods (two kinds of bivalves),

simple molluscs, http://www.palaeos.com/Invertebrates...lacophora.html

primitive echinoderms

and jawless fishes, [they may be jawless, but they are distinctly still fish!]

nautiloids, and a diverse group of early arthropods (including many species of trilobites).

Trilobites were particularly abundant and diverse, and over 600 genera of Cambrian trilobites are known.

Some species of trilobites were the first organisms to develop complex eye structures.

[This guy has just got to be joking. Note the foolish comment ‘to develop complex eye structures’! As if they were all previously lurking around blindly, carrying out experiments trying to improve some duff eye structure or the other! Not at all. The eye of the trilobite appears fully formed, and fully complex.

It contains calcium sulphate, which some claim is of the correct refractive index to correct spherical aberration, no less! Spherical aberration was only solved by Joseph Lister in 1830, the problem having been noted since the construction of the telescope by Galileo and others.]


Numerous Cambrian reefs, patch reefs, and shallow-water mounds were formed by stromatolites, a layered mass of sediment formed by the daily trapping and binding action of a symbiotic growth of blue-green algae and bacteria.”

This is only a cursory look at the Cambrian. Gould’s Wonderful Life goes into considerable detail on the subject, and is well worth a read, if only to amaze yourself, and provoke the question in your mind: how the dickens did all this evolve so suddenly?

Or, did they evolve?

Another Evolutionary Nightmare: The Lungs of Birds

NEWS FLASH!


NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!


“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus


AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!


35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.






CDR Version






Published by phillauren.org


BIRDS’ LUNGS

As Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”

Here’s a prize example which pulverises it completely.

One of the very biggest stumbling blocks to the theory of evolution by gradual steps or in mighty leaps, is that group of magnificent creatures, the birds.

The theory at present, holds that the birds evolved from the reptiles. That the scales of reptiles somehow became frayed out and turned into feathers over millions and millions of years.

Look carefully at the scales on this snake.



Here’s a flight feather:



I’m sure you can see some of the visible problems involved in producing the flight feather from the scale. When we look at the detailed structure of the feather, the problems become astronomical, and the evolution proposal hopelessly absurd.

That somehow, a torpid, cold-blooded reptile turned into the warm-blooded bird with probably the highest metabolic rate in the animal kingdom. (In case the pedants are out in force, I am referring to the ectothermic and endothermic animals. Ectotherms have variable body temperatures, endotherms have constant body temperatures).

Whatever problems evolving that lot involved, they pale into insignificance in the presence of the one fact which I shall now describe. It is the difference between the lung of a reptile, and the lung of a bird.

To crudely illustrate the problems that the evolutionist has to account for, think of an ordinary balloon with air entering and leaving the balloon constantly full or partially deflated.

It enters the neck, goes into the balloon, and is squeezed out. BOTH INFLOW AND OUTFLOW USE THE SAME NECK. So air that is going to go out of the balloon, can mix with the air that’s just coming in. There is TWO WAY airflow.

That’s a reptile’s lung, very similar to ours. There’s a MIXTURE of incoming and outgoing air in our lungs.

Now think of one of those long, thin balloons, like the ones used at parties to make dogs and so forth, with a hole AT BOTH ENDS.

Bend it into a U shape, and blow into one end.

Air goes in at one end, and out the other, rather like a jet engine or a wind tunnel.

That’s how the bird’s lung works. IT USES ONE WAY TRAFFIC. There is NO MIXING of incoming and outgoing air.

How does the first sort of lung (in the reptile) become the second kind (in the bird)?

No evolutionary explanation for that fact is possible, and to hypothesise dinosaurs with feathers running round and turning into birds is a complete nonsense. Their lungs say so. As Michael Denton says:

“Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes.”

So imagine a reptile whose lungs developed a big hole in the bottom for the air to flow through. Guess what? Yeah.

“Just as the feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and barbules are coadapted to fit together perfectly, so the avian lung cannot function as an organ of respiration until the parabronchi system which permeates it and the air sac system guarantees the parabronchi their air supply are both highly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated manner.”

Those are the headlines. Here is some more detail so any interested parties can examine them and satisfy themselves that the above description is correct. Follow the blue arrows in the exhalation diagram (the top one) and the inhalation diagram (below) to see that there is no mixing of incoming and outgoing air.

The advantageis that air, high in oxygen content, always moves unidirectionally through the lungs.”

Here is a more pictorial representation of exhalation. Just follow the blue arrows.




and inhalation:





The system is described as a counter-current/flow system, where air with the highest concentration of oxygen meets blood with the lowest concentration of oxygen across the membranes. It is an extremely efficient system, used by intelligent design engineers to maximize heat exchange or other. “In counter-flow heat exchangers the fluids enter the exchanger from opposite ends. The counter current design is most efficient, in that it can transfer the most heat.” Wiki.

Now you’ve looked at those facts, can you imagine how the one system could have evolved from the other?

Denker also raises the interesting point that “the avian lung cannot be inflated out of a collapsed state as happens in all other vertebrates after birth. … the air capillaries are never collapsed as are the alveoli of other vertebrate species; rather as they grow into lung tissue, the parabronchi are from the beginning open tubes filled either with air or fluid (which is later absorbed into the blood capillaries).”

This set of facts alone finishes any idea that a bird evolved from anything. This kind of breathing occurs nowhere else in the vertebrates. Birds have no ‘common ancestors’ - nor even close relatives.

Therefore birds are a completely unique creation, and did not ‘evolve’ from anything else.

I cannot see any possible mechanism whereby this could have evolved, and it is up to the gallant rearguard-fighting proponents to produce some explanation or the other, fanciful or otherwise. I think Goldschmidt’s idea was probably the best:

PS

Nice summary here:

http://www.science.org.au/nova/newsc.../104ns_002.htm

“When a bird breathes in, air does not go directly into the lungs. Instead, it enters the air sacs, where it is stored briefly before passing into the lungs at the next inhalation. In this way, air enters and exits a bird's lungs at different points - in via the air sacs, out via the windpipe - allowing them to maintain near-constant, one-way airflow through their lungs. This allows a countercurrent system to be set up between the air and the bloodstream, with air passing in one direction and blood in the other. The result is far more efficient gas exchange between air and blood than is possible in lizards, or even mammals.

The differences between animals that use air sacs and those that don't are striking. Birds extract more oxygen from the air than any other animal of comparable size. At sea level they are 33 per cent more efficient at extracting oxygen than mammals. At 1500 metres a bird may be 200 per cent more efficient. This gives birds a huge advantage over mammals at altitude. It also explains why geese can migrate over the Himalayas at an altitude that would kill a human.”
__________________

""This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.""—Sir Isaac Newton

Friday 18 December 2009

The Non-Evolution of Plants: Where did the Flowering Plants Come From?

PLANTS AND THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION:

WHERE DID THE FLOWERING PLANTS COME FROM?


We have seen that evolution has no explanation to offer for the absolutely gigantic phenomenon of instinct’s origin.

The migrating birds are only the tip of a gigantic iceberg: because as I have said before, EVERY function which supports life is instinctive: from breathing, eating, reproducing, moving etc – instinct is universal in the living world.

However, it is the Plant Kingdom which presents, in my opinion, the most ENORMOUS difficulties for evolution theory. The picture in the animal kingdom is messy – but the plant kingdom leaves us in no doubt at all that evolution is a complete non-starter.

Let’s begin with the two most difficult problems of all, leaving aside the question of the origin of life itself.

Nitrogen Fixation

As we all know, life is impossible without proteins. Enzymes which make the reactions which support life possible at manageable temperatures, are proteins.

DNA, the carrier of the genetic code of life, contains nitrogen, and without nitrogen it would be useless.

The Problems Regarding Nitrogen

There are 2 such problems.

1 Life cannot function without proteins – and proteins cannot be made without proteins to make them! A truly vicious cycle.

But it’s No.2 I want to focus on in this article.

2 Nitrogen absolutely MUST get into the cells for life to go on. But nitrogen is one of the most unreactive gases on the planet. It combines with nothing at normal temperatures.

In nature, at the temperature of lightning flashes, (about 30000 -50000 C) it is forced to combine with oxygen in the air. That process produces gases containing nitrogen, which then dissolve in rainwater and form nitric and nitrous acids.

Those acids fall on the earth and combine with other substances there, forming nitrates and nitrites which are then available to plants. The plants use them to manufacture their own tissues, animals eat the plants, and so nitrogen enters the living world.

That however, is not the main entry point.

There are microorganisms (called cyanobacteria) which fix nitrogen, taking it directly from the air. There is a very small group of other bacteria in the root nodules of leguminous plants, which do the same – hence farmers like to plant clover and other such plants, because they introduce nitrogen into the soil and the crops benefit.

So far so good.

The cyanobacteria, as we mentioned above, ‘fix’ nitrogen, and are the entry point of the largest amounts of nitrogen into the living world. They soak up the nitrogen, incorporate it in their tissues, and then die, liberating nitrogen compounds for use by other life forms.

Fixing Nitrogen

This is not an easy process. Lightning flashes do it. Haber and Bosch invented the process called by their names, which is currently used today. They got Nobel prizes for their invention.

In essence, they use a temperature of >400C, catalysts of one sort or another, high gas pressures and so forth. It is a complex process requiring high degrees of technical knowledge to create and operate, and it works, producing ammonia which is used as the basis of fertilisers and explosives..

The cyanobacteria are among the oldest, if not the oldest fossils ever found. They date back to the pre-Cambrian era, upwards of three billion years ago http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html.

So we have the completely extraordinary picture, of this lowly group of bacteria, right from the dawn of life, FIXING NITROGEN, no less. At normal, average temperatures. Unlike Haber and Bosch, they don’t need 400C, high pressures, metallic catalysts and so forth.

This reaction is performed exclusively by these bacteria, using an enzyme complex termed nitrogenase. This enzyme consists of two proteins - an iron protein and a molybdenum-iron protein.

We are immediately in the realms of miracle.

First, this lowly bacterium is able to perform, in a far superior and safer manner to the Haber- Bosch process, the difficult feat of fixing nitrogen.

Second, they’ve been quietly doing this for more than 3 billion years, having invented the process with no kind of brain.

Third, they invented the enzyme complex and use it, unchanged to this day.

But I said ‘miracle’ a moment ago.

It’s this. That enzyme complex consists of two PROTEINS. Proteins, remember, NEED NITROGEN in their molecular structure. So if nitrogen WASN’T available to enter their tissues, the proteins could never have formed.

But nitrogen COULDN’T enter their structure UNTIL IT WAS FIXED and available. So what fixed it? Why, the cyanobacteria of course. But…..!!!

Another point of immense interest is that the cyanobacteria have remained unchanged from the very beginning. Here are some ancient ones, and some modern ones. They haven’t changed at all.

Which is very revealing. The design cannot be bettered, has not been bettered in 3.5 billion years.

Another Amazing Fact

And there is another amazing fact. The cyanobacteria are ALSO able to photosynthesise. They have chlorophyll – and that is the second most important compound in nature, without which, life as we know it would perish.

But photosynthesis produces oxygen, and that oxygen interferes with the nitrogen fixing process. So how to avoid this conflict in cells which can do both? The Designer solved it at a stroke.

He separated the two parts of the organism that perform the two separate processes.

Ancient

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/origin7sm.jpg
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/.../ApexChert.jpg

Modern

http://www.geology.wisc.edu/homepage...nobacteria.jpg

Please understand that this is one of the most fundamental processes of life on this planet. Unfixed nitrogen is useless to life, though it does play a part in maintaining the proper balance of gases in respiration.

Without nitrogen fixation, there could be no proteins.

Without proteins, life itself would be impossible.

Without proteins, nitrogen fixation itself is impossible.

The vicious cycle will certainly strangle the theory sooner or later in the open-minded.


THE ORIGIN OF THE ANGIOSPERMS

About half of the plants on the planet are ‘angiosperms’.

That term means : ‘plants which have their seeds in a closed ovary.’ What does that mean?

Think of an apple or a plum fruit. The edible fruit, as a whole, is the vastly enlarged ovary of the plant. The seed (in the case of the plum) and the pips (seeds in the case of the apple) are ‘enclosed in the ovary’. The ovary has become filled with good things which animals can eat, and in the process, the seeds are dispersed elsewhere to produce new plants.

Here is a helpful diagram to show what I mean:
http://www.learner.org/jnorth/images...ower_parts.gif

Notice, the ovule, which will become the seed, is INSIDE THE OVARY. This is the distinguishing characteristic of the angiosperms.

The more ‘primitive’ plants, the ‘gymnosperms’ have ‘naked seeds’ which are NOT ENCLOSED in an ovary.

The impossibility which faces the evolutionist is: if the gymnosperms are the predecessors of the angiosperms, then how did the seed become ENCLOSED in the ovary, while in the gymnosperms it is NOT ENCLOSED? There is absolutely no explanation of this phenomenon extant.

Such is the force of this fact, that Darwin had this to say:

"The rapid development as far as we can judge of all the higher plants within recent geological times is an abominable mystery."
—Charles Darwin in a letter to Sir Joseph Hooker, 1879.

Nothing has changed.

The botanist Chester A. Arnold, who studies fossil plants at the University of Michigan, makes the following comment:

It has long been hoped that extinct plants will ultimately reveal some of the stages through which existing groups have passed during the course of their development, but it must be freely admitted that this aspiration has been fulfilled to a very slight extent, even though paleobotanical research has been in progress for more than one hundred years.

Arnold accepts that paleobotany (the science of plant fossils) has produced no results in support of evolution: "[W]e have not been able to track the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present."
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/orig...plants_05.html

“More than one-hundred years ago, Darwin called the origin of angiosperms an "abominable mystery". Angiosperms appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, with no obvious ancestors for a period of about 80 to 90 million years prior to their appearance. Not even fossil leaves or pollen are known from this earlier time.”
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/anthoph...hophytafr.html

It doesn’t seem likely that they will either. As I said before, moving the seed from OUTSIDE the ovary to a position INSIDE an ovary, permits no intermediate conditions.

As we might expect, there are guesses galore, but Arnold (above) has stated the matter very clearly and correctly.

This is a magnificent disproof of common descent.

The angiosperms, as said before, constitute about half the plants on the face of the planet.

So this is not a minor objection, it is one of unimaginable magnitude. Animal life depends in the main, for example, on the grasses for food . Grasses are angiosperms – so the theory cannot account for the existence of this most vital single group of plants.

As we will show later, it cannot account for the existence of the gymnosperms either – so that is well over 75% of the plant kingdom.

What opinion must one hold of a theory of origins that fails so dismally to account for such major groups of organisms? A pretty low one, I suggest.

For such an important group of plants to emerge out of nowhere in the Cretaceous as they do, is positive proof of Creation. It is exactly what we would predict based on a creation model. No ancestors, common or otherwise. Just BANG! Here we all are, chaps.

Here’s Berkeley again:

The rapid diversification of angiosperm taxa began in the Albian,

[incidentally, just notice the question begging! It did evolve; they did diversify; but we haven’t a clue where they came from! Reminds me of Arnold Lunn’s comment: “Now faith is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen”]

in the mid-Cretaceous, and has continued to this day. At that time, there is an almost exponential increase in angiosperm diversity, and there does not appear to have been any major extinctions of groups in between. Despite the large numbers of taxa that are known from rather early in this diversification, there is no indication of where the taxa are coming from. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/anthoph...hophytafr.html


To help you orientate yourself as to what ‘Cretaceous’ means, here is a geological chart.
http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/...x-Geo_time.JPG

Notice how late it really is. That means they have had a lot of history to examine in order to find the ancestors they need. They haven’t found any.

Common ancestors anybody?


NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!


“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”

OR

Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus


AT LAST!

The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is

NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!


35,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=17.30

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only $19.97 as pdf.
$27 plus $5 p&p in CDR format.






CDR Version






Published by phillauren.org