He who builds His layers in thesky, The Lord is His name

(Amos 9:6; NKJV)

W e tend to focus on weatherevents relative to where welive. Rarely do we contemplatethe global interaction of atmospheric con-ditions. However, this myopic view ischanging. In Part 1 of this series, we re-viewed the eastward atmospheric transportof Saharan desert dust and particulates andtheir impact in the production of snow inthe Sierra Nevada Mountains of California(Froede, 2015). Now we examine evidencethat suggests Saharan dust and aerosolscontribute to the outbreak of red tides along

the West Florida coastline. What are thepossible implications for a biblical world-view?

Saharan dustHolmes (2001) reviewed the impact thatdust derived from Asian deserts and theAfrican continent has on humans. Froede(2003) documented the transport of largevolumes of dust and particulates, includingplant seeds/spores, insects, and small birdsfrom the Saharan desert and related it topossible post-Flood plant/insect/animal dis-persion. Rucker (2004) reported on thepossible Atlantic crossing of the snowyegret (Egretta thula). Evidence suggests

Volume 20 Number 2 March / April 2015 A publication of the Creation Research Society

... continued on p.6

Creation Matters Saharan Dust Part 2:

Red Tide off Southwestern Coast of Floridaby Carl R. Froede, Jr., B.S., P.G.

FIGURE 1. Saharan dust clouds travel thousandsof miles and fertilize the water off the WestFlorida coast with iron, which can create algal

blooms, sometimes called red tides.Credit: NASA Scientific Visualization Studio

[http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/dust/].

P atterns and similarities aboundthroughout the natural uni-verse. Electrons revolvearound the nuclei of atoms much likemoons orbit planets, planets orbitsuns, and suns orbit galaxies. Humanfingerprints, while similar, are suffi-ciently dissimilar to identify one indi-vidual out of the billions who inhabitthe earth. Snowflakes share the samesix-sided crystal structure, yet theydisplay infinite variety, so much sothat no two of the scores of billionsof them formed each year are exactlythe same. Are these commonalities,and countless others, the result of naturalforces that made the universe by blind,random chance, or evidence of a CommonDesigner, Who created everything by Hisinfinite power, knowledge, and wisdom?

According to the theory of evolution,all living things descended or evolved froma common ancestor, which, to the theorysproponents, explains why groups of crea-tures share similar traits that can be traced

back in time to the first organic cell.Thus, granting that the original livingcell could evolve out of dead matterto begin with, all plants and animalsevolved from cells arranged in an evermore complex order, in a hierarchy ofstructural similarities, finally arrivingat man. The study of such inheritedshared traits is known as commondescent or homology and is (or hasbeen) one of the fundamental prem-ises of evolution (Bergman, 2001).

Ever since Darwin penned TheOrigin of Species, evolutionists havepointed to similar physical features

in animals as evidence that they descendedfrom a common ancestor. The structure ofvertebrate forearm bones is a popular exam-

... continued on p. 2

Common Ancestry or Uncommon Wisdom?by Terry P. Beh

FIGURE 1. Comparison of anterior limb bones of vertebrates.Diagram from Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity,

1971, Creation Research Society. Used by permission.

2 | Creation Research Society

ple. As Figure 1 indicates, all vertebratesfrom amphibians to man share a like patternof bones in the forelimbs, including a hu-merus, radius, ulna, and carpals (wristbones). Most also have five digits (fingers),though some have fewer and some, as inhorses and birds, are modified and look verydifferent.

Of course, nature is also full of exam-ples of creatures with similarities that couldnot have come from a common ancestor,like human eyes and those of the octopus,or echolocation in bats and porpoises(Statham, 2012). To solve this dilemma,believers in evolution came up with thetheory of convergent evolution. Alsoknown as homoplasy, its the idea that suchcommonalities among widely differentclasses of living things evolved separatelythat by chance these diverse groups of or-ganisms just sort of converged on thesame design, which evolved independentlyof each other.

Its a very convenient explanation.However, does it credibly explain how, forinstance, eyes could have evolved indepen-dently at least 40 separate times, including11 distinct methods of producing images,in creatures as diverse as tiny water fleas togiant squids? The problem is multipliedwhen one considers that, according to evo-lution, the oldest eyes in the fossil recordthose of trilobites, which are compound eyeslike those of flies, and supposedly around

530 million years old (Figure 2)are insome ways more complex than those ofrecent man (Bergman, 2001).

Between homology and homoplasy,blind, undirected, unintelligent evolutionseems to have covered all its bases. AsStatham (2012) put it,

Hence, in the thinking of evolution-ists, similarity with common ances-try is evidence for evolution, andsimilarity without common ancestryis evidence for evolution. Whateversimilarity they find, then, is evidencefor evolution!

Despite this heads-I-win-tails-you-lose reasoning that evolutionists like toemploy, modern sciences such as microbi-

ology, embryology, and genetics have in-creasingly undermined, and essentiallydisproved, common ancestry/homology.For instance, studies have shown that manyhomologous features in different animalsdo not arise genetically from similar (orhomologous) DNA coding, nor do theydevelop embryonically in the same (or ho-mologous) way, as evolution would demand(Statham, 2012; Bergman, 2001).

Nonetheless, secular science stubbornlyclings to homology as a pillar of evolution-ary understanding and even as evidenceagainst the existence of God. As one evolu-tionist queried (Holding, 2006; emphasisadded):

Why would an infinitely powerfuldesigner choose to repeat the samedesign over and over in his cre-ations? Why, in his infinite wisdom,could he not use a radically differentdesign for each of his supposedlyindependent creations?

Yes, of course, God could have usedan infinite number of radically differentdesigns for His creation if He had so chosen.But why would He? Statham (2012) hasnoted that this might lead people to believethere were many gods (much less an infinitenumber). Moreover, doing so would actual-ly contradict Gods very nature and one ofHis essential attributes wisdom.

While researching the topic of wisdom,I came across this definition (Anonymous,2013):

Wisdom is the ability to think andact using knowledge, experience,

Creation MattersISSN 1094-6632

Volume 20, Number 2March / April 2015

Copyright 2015 Creation Research SocietyAll rights reserved.

Editor:Glen W. WolfromAssistant Editors:Jean K. Lightner

Robert HillFor membership / subscription information,

advertising rates, and information for authors:Glen W. Wolfrom, Editor

P.O. Box 8263St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263

Email: CMeditor@creationresearch.orgPhone/fax: 816.279.2312

Creation Research Society Website:www.creationresearch.org

Articles published in Creation Matters represent theopinions and beliefs of the authors, and do not necessarily

reflect the official position of the CRS.

ContentsSaharan Dust Part 2: Red Tide off SouthwesternCoast of Florida...............................................................1

Common Ancestry or Uncommon Wisdom?................1

Math Matters: Imaginary Numbers................................3

Problem & Solution: Circulation Insert Miracle Here 4

Matters of Fact: Pre-flood Spider Food........................5

without excuse! The Testimony of Gods UnlimitedUnderstanding.................................................................8

Speaking of Science Backward Wiring of Eye Retina Confirmed as Optimal................9 Crinoid Pigment: 240 Million Years and No Evolution?................9 Natural Evil May Be Broken Good...........................................10 Adult Brain Can Build New Neurons..........................................11

All by Design: Extraordinary Eyes...............................12

Uncommon Wisdom...continued from page 1

FIGURE 2. Very large compound eye (esti-mated 560 lenses) with eye-shade of thetrilobite Erbenochile erbeni. Photo credit:Creative Commons, by Moussa Direct Ltd.

Retrieved on February 17, 2015 fromhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Erbe

nochile_eye.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdomhttp://creation.com/does-homology-provide-evidence-of-evolutionary-naturalismhttp://creation.com/does-homology-provide-evidence-of-evolutionary-naturalismhttp://creation.com/not-to-be-used-again-homologous-structures-and-the-presumption-of-originality-as-a-critical-valuehttp://creation.com/not-to-be-used-again-homologous-structures-and-the-presumption-of-originality-as-a-critical-valuehttp://creation.com/not-to-be-used-again-homologous-structures-and-the-presumption-of-originality-as-a-critical-valuehttp://creation.com/homology-made-simplehttp://creation.com/homology-made-simplehttp://creation.com/homology-made-simplehttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Erbenochile_eye.JPGhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Erbenochile_eye.JPGhttp://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/images/snowflake_c_NOAA.jpghttp://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/images/snowflake_c_NOAA.jpg

Vol. 20 No. 2 March/April | Creation Matters | 3

understanding, common sense, andinsight It is a habit or dispositionto perform the action with the highestdegree of adequacy under any givencircumstance. This involvesthewillingness as well as the ability toapply perception, judgement, andaction in keeping with the under-standing of what is the optimalcourse of action.In short, wisdomis a disposition to find the truth cou-pled with an optimum judgement asto what actions should be taken inorder to deliver the correct outcome.

Notice that in this description, which Ifound rather insightful, words like opti-mum seem to characterize wisdom andthose who possess it. In short, wisdomatleast in a practical sense and especially interms of building thingsmight be definedas the ability to obtain optimal results withthe minimal use of resources, or to achievethe greatest possible effects (or good) withthe least amount of effort.

Therefore, if a certain design workswell for one practical purposesay, forlocomotionit behooves a wise individualto adapt it for use in as many applicationsas possible. Expecting God to act otherwiseas evidence of His existence would be likerequiring human beings to re-create thewheel over and over again to prove howsmart they are. Such an exercise would notonly be a complete waste of time and ener-gy, but would actually be the opposite of

wise; it would be stupid. In fact, it wouldindicate a God that was infinitely unwise. Actually, the fact that God can take abasic designlike the bone structure in theforelimbs of vertebratesand adapt it formovement in so many different creatures,from amphibians to birds to mammals tomen, is proof of His amazing ability toachieve optimum results from minimal re-sources. Instead of common descent and itslaughable counterpart, convergent evolu-

tion, similarity in living things is evidenceof the Almightys uncommon wisdom andcreative genius.

As the Bible tells us in Romans 1:20,we can see through the natural world that(Gods) invisible attributes are clearlyseeneven His eternal power and God-head. Indeed, in addition to His wisdom,the similar patterns we see in nature ex-pressed in almost endless variations, likesnowflakes (Figure 3), reflect Gods verynature: a single divine Being comprised ofa variety of PersonsFather, Son and HolySpirit, co-existing in an essential unity.

References:Anonymous. 2013. Wisdom. Wikipedia, Retrieved on

February 17, 2013, fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom

Bergman, J. 2001. Does homology provide evidenceof evolutionary naturalism? Journal of Creation15(1):2633. Retrieved on November 24, 2014,from http://creation.com/does-homology-provide-evidence-of-evolutionary-naturalism.

Holding, J.P. 2007. Not to Be Used Again: Homol-ogous structures and the presumption of origi-nality as a critical value. Journal of Creation21(1):1314. Retrieved on November 24, 2014,from http://creation.com/not-to-be-used-again-homologous-structures-and-the-presumption-of-originality-as-a-critical-value.

Statham, D. 2012. Homology made simple. Creation34(4):4345. Retrieved on November 24, 2014,from http://creation.com/homology-made-sim-ple.

FIGURE 3. There is an endless variety ofsnowflakes. Photo credit NOAA.

www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/images/snowflake_c_NOAA.jpg

byDon DeYoung, PhD

Imaginary Numbers

T he equation x2 = 25 has two solu-tions, x = 5. However, how doesone solve the same equation witha negative sign, x2 = 25? Common senseconcludes that there is no possible solutionfor x. After all, how could one possiblysquare a value for x and get a negativeresult? A calculator likewise gives an errormessage for square roots of negative num-bers.

This negative square root problem wasstudied centuries ago and an artificial solu-tion was suggested: x = 5i where i= .In 1637, Rene Descartes (15961650)coined the term imaginary number for thesymbol i. He meant it as a derogatory

term, believingthat the squareroot of a nega-tive number was

meaningless.

Today, four centurieslater, imaginary numbers are perva-

sive in science and technology. Com-binations of real and imaginary numbers

are called complex numbers, for example10 + 5i. Such numbers are two dimensionalin nature. A typical graph has a real hori-zontal axis and an imaginary vertical axis.

Practical applications of complex num-bers occur in electrical engineering, fluidflow, quantum theory, and elsewhere. Inelectronics the letter j often is used inplace of i to avoid confusion with thesymbol for electrical current. The descrip-tion of electromagnetic waves, with com-plex numbers as a key mathematicalcomponent, leads to the success of cellphones and wireless Internet.

Mathematics is the overall language ofcreation. The entire field of mathematicswas established by God to give structureand unity to His creation. To this descriptionalso can be added the terms symmetry,beauty, and elegance. Mathematics extendsfrom real numbers to the complex, andperhaps to realms yet unexplored. As exer-cises, can you show that (1 + i)(1 i) =2,and i7 = i ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdomhttp://creation.com/does-homology-provide-evidence-of-evolutionary-naturalismhttp://creation.com/does-homology-provide-evidence-of-evolutionary-naturalismhttp://creation.com/not-to-be-used-again-homologous-structures-and-the-presumption-of-originality-as-a-critical-valuehttp://creation.com/not-to-be-used-again-homologous-structures-and-the-presumption-of-originality-as-a-critical-valuehttp://creation.com/not-to-be-used-again-homologous-structures-and-the-presumption-of-originality-as-a-critical-valuehttp://creation.com/homology-made-simplehttp://creation.com/homology-made-simplehttp://creation.com/homology-made-simplehttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Erbenochile_eye.JPGhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Erbenochile_eye.JPGhttp://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/images/snowflake_c_NOAA.jpghttp://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/images/snowflake_c_NOAA.jpg

4 | Creation Research Society

I f you want to water your grass, anynumber of sprinklers or branchingsprinkler systems would work just fine.But lets say you wanted to water everyblade of grass individually and to the sameextent. That would be a problem that neededa very specialized and meticulous engineer-ing solution.

This problem is similar to the one facedby the human body which needs to contin-uously provide oxygen and nutrients to andremove waste from every one of its onehundred trillion cells. We are told that thesolution to this problem, a closed circulatorysystem under positive pressure from theheart that branches into minute vesselscalled capillaries, came about by unguidedchance and natural selection. But this ideaseems even more miraculous than the actualsolution provided by the Creator which sowonderfully meets our needs.

A branching network from a singlelarge aorta to smaller and smaller arteries,arterioles, and finally microscopic capillar-ies permits the surface area for gas and wasteexchange to become very large while occu-pying a small volume. Thus, virtually everycell in the body can be reached by blood.In about 30 levels of branching, the surfacearea of the aorta compared to that of thecapillaries increases 1000-fold, and the pres-sure and speed of blood flow decreases by1000-fold.1 This provides sufficient surfacearea and time for gas and waste exchangeto occur efficiently. So, a branching net-work is the first key design element of thesolution to our problem.

The other key element of the solutionis blood. Blood is composed of 45% byvolume of cells. This makes the viscosityof blood about twice that of water to beginwith, accentuating the problem of flow insmall vessels. But even if blood were justpure water, like our example of a sprinklersystem, the turbulence caused by branchingand the cumulative friction of water mole-cules against the large capillary surface area

would require a pump with power far be-yond that of our heart. Instead, insertmiracle here because blood behaves asa non-Newtonian fluid containing cells, andbecause of how these cells flow throughsmall vessels, the resistance to flow in thesesmall vessels actually goes down rather thanup!

In small blood vessels water flows moreswiftly in the center than at the edges, whichcauses blood cells to spin. This spin, inturn, causes blood cells to group along thecenterline of the vessel, away from thefriction-generating vessel wall. Called theMagnus effect, the result is axial streamingof blood cells which actually reduces bloodviscosity in very small diameter vessels.1This is a very good thing for us, and some-what miraculous when appreciated as boththe elegant and precise solution to the prob-lem of using blood flow in tiny vessels asthe means of gas and waste exchange. Thisperfect physiologic solution is, in my view,yet another evidence of the Creators mag-nificent engineering prowess, as well as Hisgreat love for us.

Reference1. Denny, M and A McFadzean. 2011. Engineering

Animals How Life Works. The Belknap Pressof Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA.

Problem & Solution: Circulation Insert Miracle Hereby Michael G. Windheuser, Ph.D.

FIGURE 1. (A) Illustration of fluid dynamics.Because of friction at the inner surface of theblood vessel, blood-flow velocity is greater atthe center. As a result, the individual blood

cells spin. (B) Axial streaming arises as a con-sequence of the accumulation of blood cells at

the center of the vessel.After Denny and McFadzean, 2011, page 53

(ref. 1).

and Design in the World of Spiders. Coach-whip Books, Landisville, PA.

Brown, F, S.R. Driver, and C. Briggs. 1906. BDB-GESENIUS Hebrew-Aramaic and English Lex-icon of the Old Testament. Complete and un-abridged. BibleWorks v. 7 (2007).

Eggs, B. and D. Sanders. 2013. Herbivory in spiders:the importance of pollen for orb-weavers. PLoSOne 8(11):e82637.

Harris, R. L., G.L. Archer, and B.K. Waltke. 1980.TWOT The Theological Wordbook of theOld Testament. BibleWorks v. 7 (2007).

Holladay, W.L. (ed). 1997. A Concise Hebrew andAramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Basedupon the Lexical Work of Ludwig Koehler andWalter Baumgartner. BibleWorks v. 7 (2007).

Lightner, J.K. 2009a. Karyotypic and allelic diversi-ty within the canid baramin (Canidae). Journalof Creation 23(1):9498.

Lightner, J.K. 2009b. Curious patterns of variationwithin the Anatidae monobaramin and implica-tions for baraminological research. OccasionalPapers of the BSG 13:5.

Lightner, J.K. 2009c. Gene duplications and nonran-dom mutations in the family Cercopithecidae:Evidence for designed mechanisms drivingadaptive genomic mutations. CRSQ 46(1):15.

Lightner, J.K. 2010. Gene duplication, protein evo-lution, and the origin of shrew venom. Journalof Creation 24(2):35.

Lightner, J.K. 2015. Matters of Fact Are insectsalive? Creation Matters 20(1):45.

Spider Food...continued from page 5

Vol. 20 No. 2 March/April | Creation Matters | 5

Pre-Flood Spider Food?byJean K. Lightner, DVM, MS

Editors note: You may submit your question to Dr.Jean Lightner at jean@creationresearch.org. It willnot be possible to provide an answer for each question,but she will choose those which have a broad appealand lend themselves to relatively short answers.

Q What did spiders eatprior to the Fall?A Most likely plant-based foods

And to every beast of the earth andto every bird of the heavens and toeverything that creeps on the earth,everything that has the breath oflife, I have given every green plantfor food. And it was so. (Genesis1:30, ESV)

Biblical historySome might argue that the above verse doesnot include invertebrates. After all, they arenot birds. Some may creep along theground, but they do not have lungs likemammals, reptiles, or birds. So perhapsspiders captured and ate insects before theFall, much like they do today.

In the last issue (Lightner, 2015) wediscussed the Bibles description of inver-tebrates. Many of the points apply in un-derstanding this verse. First, the Bible doesnot have a separate term that refers to inver-tebrates in general. Instead, the creationaccounts use very broad terms to describethat God created life in all realms: sea, air,and land.

The word translated bird in the pas-sage above is a general term for a flyingcreature. Many Hebrew lexicons point outthat it can be used of birds, bats, and flyinginsects (Brown et al., 1906; Harris et al.,1980; Holladay, 1997). In fact, flying in-sects are listed beside birds and bats in theunclean lists of Leviticus 11 and Deuteron-omy 14.

Land dwelling invertebrates are listedwith other creatures that move along theground in Leviticus 11:42 (Lightner, 2015).Thus, both flying and terrestrial inverte-brates would be included in the creaturesmentioned in Genesis 1:30. This suggeststhat spiders were vegetarian at Creation andprior to the Fall.

What about the term breath of life inGenesis 1:30? The Hebrew more literally

reads as everything that has in it nepheshchayah. In other places nephesh chayahis translated living creatures (Genesis 1:20,21, 24; Leviticus 11:46). In our previousdiscussion, the case was made that thisphrase must include invertebrates (Lightner,2015).

Thus, it appears that Genesis 1:30 in-cludes terrestrial as well as flying verte-brates and invertebrates.

Silk and websToday many spiders trap insects in strategi-cally placed webs. If spiders were reallyinitially vegetarian, why do they have thisability today?

First, it is recognized that insects arenot the only things that spiders catch in theirwebs and eat. Pollen is also trapped on thesticky threads. This is not some accidentalcontaminant, either. The pollen is too largeto be accidentally swallowed by the spiders.Instead, the spiders produce enzymes todigest the food outside the mouth so it canbe consumed, just like they do when theyconsume insects. One study suggests thatin young orb-weaving spiders, an averageof 25% of their diet is pollen (Eggs andSanders, 2014).

Secondly, silk has many important usesbesides capturing food. Some spiders usesilk when building homes. It can be usedin several different ways for reproduction,including protection of the eggs. Silk isalso an important means of transportation.For example, many species can release athread of silk into the air which floats alonguntil it sticks to something. Once it does,the spider uses it to walk across. Manysmaller species of spiders can travel byballooning, where they climb up high andraise their abdomen into the air releasingsilk threads which catch the wind and carrythem off to a distant location (Arment, 2008).

Changes in historyWhen God created life, he intended forcreatures to reproduce and fill the earth(Genesis 1:22, 28; Isaiah 45:18). After theFlood, creatures reproduced and filled theearth again (Genesis 8:1519). By compar-ing creatures that come from the same cre-ated kind, we find that a considerableamount of variety has arisen since the Flood.

For example, dogs are unclean animals, soonly two of their kind were on the Ark.Yet today they have more variability inmany of their genes than could have beenpresent in those two ancestors (Lightner,2009a).

Genes that seem to exhibit the mostvariety often are genes related to how theanimal interacts with its environment. Indogs, this includes genes affecting the im-mune system and smell. In ducks, there isconsiderable variety in an enzyme that ispart of the egg white (Lightner, 2009b).Changes in enzyme specificity also appearto be responsible for allowing leaf-eatingmonkeys to thrive on their unusual diet, andfor the appearance of toxins in other crea-tures, such as venom found in some shrews(Lightner, 2009c; Lightner 2010).

It is important to recognize that thesechanges are not the onward-and-upwardchanges required to support the evolution-ary paradigm. In fact, many of the changesare degenerative on the molecular level,meaning they break something in thealready complex system. Other times, itmay be just an adjustment that helps theanimal do better in its environment. Thesechanges are certainly not just random acci-dents, but evidence of amazing design thatenables Gods creatures to reproduce andfill the earth!

There is considerable variety in spidersilk seen in our world today (Arment, 2008).Given the observations in other animals, itis reasonable to suggest that much of theamazing variety in spider silk may haveoriginated after creation. The originally-created spiders would have had the abilityto produce silk, and the underlying geneticswould have been complex enough to allowfor adaptive changes.

In a similar way, spiders and otheranimals were designed such that, after theFall, they were allowed to adapt to eatingmeat. Thus, God created the world verygood, but some of the adaptive changes thathave occurred since creation are clear evi-dence that our world is fallen.

ReferencesArment, C. 2008. Eight-Legged Marvels: Beauty

... continued on p. 4

6 | Creation Research Society

that more than dust has traveled westwardacross the Atlantic Ocean from the Africancontinent.

As atmospheric precipitants, dust andother aerosols can affect our biosphere inways that were previously not recognized.Research suggests that Saharan desert dustand particulates may produce seasonal redtides along the coastline of the southwestFlorida peninsula (Figure 1).

Dust and aerosol precipitationacross the southwesternFlorida coastlineAtmospheric modeling. A recent study byLenes et al. (2012) used an atmosphericmodel to test the relationship between Afri-can dust and the outbreak of red tides alongthe west coast of the Florida peninsula.Atmospheric models are some of the mostcomplex in the sciences and their predict-ability and results can vary (see below Cau-tions regarding computer modeling). Forthis effort, scientists integrated computermodels with known weather patterns andactual dust particulate data collected overmany years from several areas in the pan-handle and West Florida peninsula.

Through extensive air sampling, Pros-pero (1999a) identified Saharan dust depos-its over Florida and the eastern Gulf ofMexico. Over the course of his multi-yearstudy, he was able to link atmospheric de-position of the African dust to the late springposition of the Bermuda High (Prospero,1999b). On average, the greatest period ofdust deposition across south Florida occurswith summer rainfall between June andAugust, with an estimated 80% or more ofthe particulates removed from the atmo-sphere (Prospero et al., 1987). More recentwork confirms the link between seasonalwet weather and the removal of African dustfrom the atmosphere (Prospero et al., 2010).Does the deposition of dust and aerosolsderived from the Saharan desert have anyimpact on the land or in the Gulf of Mexico?

Biological Impact. For many years, marinescientists have known of the relationshipbetween nutrients and lifeessentially thatlife in the oceans can be stimulated throughthe addition of specific minerals. Iron isbelieved to be an important element in theproliferation of microscopic life within thesurface water of the euphotic zone (0 to 600feet). The addition of iron to the environ-ment was tested in the laboratory, measured

from an area where it was added to the openequatorial Pacific Ocean, and remotely mea-sured from a naturally enriched area westof the Galapagos Islands. When iron wasadded to oligotrophic seawater containinglow-levels of planktonic life it createdblooms of these life-forms (Martin, 1990;Martin et al., 1991; Martin et al., 1994).While subsequent studies have not producedthe same level of results, the correlationbetween the addition of iron to seawater andcorresponding blooms has been corroborat-ed (Wells et al, 1995).

Large volumes of iron-rich dust aredeposited annually into the oceans (Duce etal., 1991; Prospero et al., 1996). Theseparticles can provide a significant source ofbioavailable iron to planktonic life (Jickellsand Spokes, 2001). African dust depositionhas been linked to periodic blooms of thepelagic marine cyanobacterium Trichodes-mium off the west coast of Florida (Leneset al., 2001; Walsh and Steidinger, 2001).Can an atmospheric computer model aid inunderstanding the interaction between thesedata?

Modeling Results. The atmospheric mod-eling of Saharan-derived dust over the southFlorida peninsula conducted by Lenes et al.(2012) reached the following conclusions[brackets mine]:

1. Generally, the highest percent ofdeposition [of Saharan dust andparticulates was] observed duringthe summer months (JuneAu-gust) as a consequence of bothmaximal dust delivery from Afri-

ca and the highest precipitationrates (p. 7).

2. The model results demonstratedthe spatial and temporal depen-dence upon both aeolian dust andprecipitation. Wet deposition esti-mates were 413 times greaterthan dry deposition, with a major-ity of dust/iron input occurring inthe summer between Tampa Bayand Charlotte Harbor (p. 8).

3. Given the high Fe-demand neededto carry out biological nitrogenfixation, the late June fertilizationevent further alleviated Fe-limita-tion of the N-fixing cyanophyte,Trichodesmium erythraeum, lead-ing to a significant increase inbiomass (10) and the subsequentrelease of new nitrogen to thewater column as dissolved organicnitrogen. This pattern is consistentwith annual summer blooms ofTrichodesmium on the WFS[West Florida shelf] (p. 7).

It should be noted that the cyanobacte-rium Trichodesmium spp. is not the causeof red tide outbreaks along the coast ofsouthwest Florida. Rather, it is likely thefirst step in a cascade of chemical processesinitiated by the addition of newly-dissolved

Saharan Dust, Part 2...continued from page 1

Figure 2. The red tide is clearly visible as theoval-shaped red area to the west of the shore inthis November 21 image from the Sea-viewingWide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS) flyingon the OrbView-2 satellite. Credit: SeaWiFS

images courtesy the SeaWiFS Project,NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, and OR-BIMAGE. MODIS fluorescence image courte-

sy the Institute for Marine Remote Sensing(IMaRS), College of Marine Science of Uni-

versity of South Florida.

FIGURE 3. A biblical geologic timescaleshowing possible periods of atmospheric-

transported dust and aerosols. The depositionof these particles could have stimulatedplankton blooms, possibly before, during,and following the Flood. Further study is

required.

Vol. 20 No. 2 March/April | Creation Matters | 7

organic nitrogen, which is converted to ureaand ammonium and stimulates growth ofGymnodinium breve, the dinoflagellate re-sponsible for red tides along the West Flor-ida coast (Lenes et al., 2001) (Figure 2).

Implications for biblical historyThe global Flood of Genesis was a uniqueevent in Earth history. The uniformitarianmantra, The Present is Key to the Pasthas limited use in defining biblical history.We can only speculate on the events asso-ciated with the Creation and Flood in anattempt to collect data to support our ideas.However, we can occasionally gain an un-derstanding of past processes from thoseoperating in the present. The annual atmo-spheric transport of Saharan dust westwardacross the Atlantic continues as it likely hasfrom the close of the Flood Event Time-frame to the Present Timeframe (Figure 3).Evidence can be found in the thin red mis-identified soil layers throughout the Ba-hamas and Florida Keys. (It has also beenidentified in soils in the Amazon RiverBasin.) On land, these Saharan dust depositshave contributed iron and possibly othernutrients to plant growth.

African dust is also deposited throughatmospheric precipitation to seawater. Sci-ence has confirmed that it can stimulate thegrowth of cyanobacteria, changing marinechemistry, and possibly promote the onsetof red tides capable of killing marine life.Fortunately, these events are of short dura-tion and cover a limited area. The study ofSaharan dust as it relates to the productionof Trichodesmium spp., and possibly thedinoflagellate Gymnodinium breve, occursin the present. The possible impact of pre-historic red tides to the West Florida coast-line from a historical Bible-basedperspective is a matter of conjecture. But itremains an interesting area for further in-vestigation. Are large concentrations of di-noflagellates preserved in sedimentarylayers on the Florida continental shelf, thatmight be indicative of past red tide events?Only further study can answer this question.

Cautions regarding computermodelingGreat care must be exercised in the devel-opment and use of computer models. Thequality of the model is only as good as thedata used in its construction. Providing asense of scientific objectivity, a computermodel can be perceived to carry more sig-nificance than the data actually allow(Oreskes et al., 1994; Bredehoeft, 2005). Toprove effective, the model should produce

results consistent with new data that werederived over extended periods of time. Asnew data are discovered, the model must berevised accordingly.

Atmospheric computer models aresome of the most complex tools in science.We interact with daily weather forecasts thatextend from the present into the future. Evenwith the best available data, the weathermay not prove to be accurate beyond a singleday. However, some atmospheric patternsare predictable enough to allow for a generalunderstanding of expected seasonal condi-tions. Such is the case with the study byLenes et al. (2012).

AcknowledgmentsI am grateful for my wifes continuing sup-port of my research and writing efforts. Ithank Jerry Akridge and John Reed for theirreview and helpful comments. Any errorsthat may remain are my own. Glory to Godin the highest! Proverbs 3:56.

ReferencesCRSQ: Creation Research Society QuarterlyBredehoeft, J. 2005. The conceptualization model

problemsurprise. Hydrogeology Journal13:3746.

Duce, R.A., P.S. Liss, J.T. Merrill, E.L. Atlas, P.Buat-Menard, B.B. Hicks, J.M. Miller, J.M.Prospero, R. Arimoto, T.M. Church, W. Ellis,J.N. Galloway, L. Hansen, T.D. Jickells, A.H.Knap, K.H. Reinhardt, B. Schneider, A. Soud-ine, J.J. Tokos, S. Tsunogai, R. Wollast, and M.Zhou. 1991. The atmospheric input of tracespecies to the ocean. Global BiogeochemicalCycles 5:193259.

Froede, C.R., Jr. 2003. Dust storms from the sub-Sa-haran African continent: Implications for plantand insect dispersion in the post-Flood world.CRSQ 39:237244.

Froede, C.R., Jr. 2015. Saharan Dust Part 1: Cir-cumnavigation of Earth and deposition as snowin California. Creation Matters 20(1):1.

Holmes, H. 2001. The Secret Life of Dust: From theCosmos to the Kitchen Counter, the Big Conse-quences of Little Things. Wiley, New York,NY.

Jickells, T.D., and L.J. Spokes. 2001. Atmosphericiron inputs to the oceans. In: Turner, D.R., andK. Hunter, (editors), The Biogeochemistry ofIron in Seawater, pp. 85121, Wiley, Chistest-er, UK.

Lenes, J.M., J.M. Prospero, W.M. Landing, J.I. Vir-mani, and J.J. Walsh. 2012. A model of Saha-ran dust deposition to the eastern Gulf ofMexico. Marine Chemistry 134/135:19.

Lenes, J.M., B.P. Darrow, C. Cattrall, C.A. Heil, M.Callahan, G.A. Vargo, R.H. Byrne, J.M. Pros-pero, D.E. Bates, K.A. Fanning, and J.J. Walsh.2001. Iron fertilization and the Trichodesmiumresponse on the West Florida shelf. Limnologyand Oceanography 46(6):12611277.

Martin, J.H., 1990. Glacial-Interglacial CO2 change:The iron hypothesis. Paleoceanography 5:113.

Martin, J.H., R.M. Gordon, and S.E. Fitzwater. 1991.The case for iron. Limnology and Oceanogra-phy 36(8):17931802.

Martin, J.H., K.H. Coale, K.S. Johnson, S.E. Fitzwa-ter, R.M. Gordon, S.J. Tanner, C.N. Hunter,V.A. Elrod, J.L. Nowicki, T.L. Coley, R.T.Barber, S. Lindley, A.J. Watson, K. Van Scoy,C.S. Law, M.I. Liddicoat, R. Ling, T. Stanton,J. Stockel, C. Collins, A. Anderson, R. Bidig-are, M. Ondrusek, M. Latasa, F.J. Millero, K.Lee, W. Yao, J.Z. Zhang, G. Friederich, C.Sakamoto, F. Chavez, K. Buck, Z. Kolber, R.Greene, P. Falkowski, S.W. Chisholm, F. Hoge,R. Swift, J. Yungel, S. Turner, P. Nightingale,A. Hatton, P. Liss, and N.W. Tindale. 1994.Testing the iron hypothesis in ecosystems ofthe equatorial Pacific Ocean. Nature 371: 123129.

Oreskes, N., K. Shrader-Frechette, K. Belitz. 1994.Verification, validation, and confirmation ofnumerical models in the Earth Sciences. Sci-ence 263:641646.

Prospero, J.M. 1999a. Long-term measurement of thetransport of African mineral dust to the south-eastern United States: implications for regionalair quality. Journal of Geophysical Research104:15,91715,927.

Prospero, J.M. 1999b. Long-range transport of min-eral dust in the global atmosphere: Impact ofAfrican dust on the environment of the south-eastern United States. Proceedings of the Na-tional Academy of Science 96(7):33963403.

Prospero, J.M., R.T. Nees, and M. Uematsu. 1987.Deposition rate of particulate and dissolved alu-minum derived from Saharan dust in precipita-tion at Miami, Florida. Journal of GeophysicalResearch 92:14,72314,731.

Prospero, J.M., W.M. Landing, and M. Schulz. 2010.African dust deposition to Florida: Temporaland spatial variability and comparison to mod-els. Journal of Geophysical Research 115,D13304. doi:10.1029/2009JD012773.

Prospero, J.M., K. Barrett, T. Church, F. Dentener,R.A. Duce, J.N. Galloway, H. Levy Jr., J.Moody, and P. Quinn. 1996. Atmospheric de-position of nutrients to the North Atlantic Ba-sin. Biogeochemistry 35(1):2773.

Rucker, B.R. 2004. Stormy arrival for African cattleegret in the New World. CRSQ 40:220.

Walsh, J.J., and K.A. Steidinger. 2001. Saharan dustand Florida red tides: The cyanophyte connec-tion. Journal of Geophysical Research/Oceans106:11,59711,612.

Wells, M.L., N.M. Price, K.W. Bruland. 1995. Ironchemistry in seawater and its relationship tophytoplankton: A workshop report. MarineChemistry 48:157182.

8 | Creation Research Society

by Timothy R. Stout

The Testimony of Gods UnlimitedUnderstanding

There is no wisdom orunderstanding or

counsel against the LORD(Proverbs 21:30, NKJ)

E volutionists would do well to heedthis warning. On February 4, 2014,there was a widely-publicized debatebetween Ken Ham, a Bible-believing cre-ationist, and Bill Nye, an evolutionist whorejects creation by the living God. Thedebate is available on video (1) andby transcript (2).

Several times in the debate,Mr. Nye asked Mr. Ham a question,What predictions can be madeusing the biblical model? Al-though this is not what Mr. Nyemeant by the question, I submitthat because of the above verse,there is a very good prediction wecan make, viz.,Any and all argu-ments evolutionists dream up against thebiblical model, and that might seem stronginitially, will in time be shown to be false.

This prediction is further confirmed inIsaiah,

Present your case, says the LORD,Bring forth your strong reasons,says the King of Jacob. Let thembring forth and show us what willhappen; let them show the formerthings, what they were, that we mayconsider them, and know the latterend of them; or declare to us thingsto come.Indeed you are nothingand your work is nothing; he whochooses you is an abomination (Isa-iah 41:2124; NKJ)

Let all the nations be gathered to-gether, and let the people be assem-bled. Who among them can declarethis and show us former things? Letthem bring out their witnesses, thatthey may be justified; or let themhear and say, It is truth. (Isaiah43:9, NKJ)

These passages acknowledge that thoseopposing God might claim strong reasonsfor their rejection. However, God declaresthat these reasons will not stand up. Theyare nothing. So are those who present them.And, those who choose to follow them are

an abomination. In other words, There isno counsel against the Lord.

Thus, man in his own wisdom is inca-pable of deriving truth about the formerthings, including the creation of the Heav-ens, of the Earth, and of living organisms.Evolutionary theory is ultimately doomedto failure from its beginning. Instead, weare dependent on God to reveal the formerthings to us. God has specifically designedthe creation so that a person will not be ableto explain, truthfully and accurately, origins,

apart from the testimony He has given usin Scripture. It is important that we graspthe significance of this and not waver whenchallenging those who challenge God.

In Isaiah 43, above, God extends Hischallenge to all nations, not just the Jews.He mocks those who reject Him and Histestimony, commanding them to bring outtheir witnesses for the former things. Ulti-mately, God declares that these people needto hear and pay attention to what God hasrevealed and then say of His Word, It istruth.

What are some of these former sup-posed strong arguments for evolution? It isnot the purpose of this short article to delin-eate these. With only a little effort one couldaccumulate a substantial list by perusing thepages of the Creation Research SocietysCRS Quarterly and Creation Matters.Books like Icons of Evolution (3) and Re-futing Evolution (4) document the demiseof many of the former evidences of evolu-tion.

In Psalm 147:5 (NIV), the Bible de-clares the glory of God: Great is our Lordand mighty in power; His understanding hasno limit. One way in which our Lordreveals His unlimited understanding is themanner in which He made the universe and

the life that is in it. He deliberately madethem in such a way that they reveal Himand His basic attributes (Romans 1:20). Hedeclares that there is no excuse for theperson who refuses to say of His testimony,It is true.

We as creationists have the privilegeof presenting the strong reasons of God toa world which desperately needs to knowand understand them. Let us present themaggressively, faithfully, and without com-promise.

References1. Nye, B. and K. Ham. 2014. Bill Nye De-bates Ken Ham. Answers in Genesis, Feb-ruary 4, 2014.www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI2. Browning, B. (ed.). 2014. Transcript ofKen Ham vs Bill Nye Debate. RockyMountain Creation Fellowship.www.youngearth.org/index.php/archives/rmcf-articles/item/21-transcript-of-ken-ham-vs-bill-nye-debate

3. Wells, J. 2000. Icons of EvolutionScience orMyth: Why Much of What We Teach aboutEvolution Is Wrong. Regnery Publishing, Inc.,Washington, DC.

4. Sarfati, J. 2007. Refuting Evolution. Creation Min-istries International, Powder Springs, AR.

We as creationists have theprivilege of presenting the

strong reasons of God to a worldwhich desperately needs toknow and understand them.

http://crev.infohttp://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-02/aps-mot022715.phphttp://phys.org/news/2015-02-image-sensors-biological-retinas.htmlhttp://phys.org/news/2015-02-image-sensors-biological-retinas.htmlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkIhttp://www.youngearth.org/index.php/archives/rmcf-articles/item/21-transcript-of-ken-ham-vs-bill-nye-debatehttp://www.youngearth.org/index.php/archives/rmcf-articles/item/21-transcript-of-ken-ham-vs-bill-nye-debatehttp://www.youngearth.org/index.php/archives/rmcf-articles/item/21-transcript-of-ken-ham-vs-bill-nye-debate

Vol. 20 No. 2 March/April | Creation Matters | 9

Editors note: Unless otherwise noted, S.O.S. (Speaking of Science) items in this issue arekindly provided by David Coppedge, editor of Creation-Evolution Headlines athttp://crev.info. Opinions expressed herein are his. Unless otherwise noted, emphasis is addedin all quotes.

Backward Wiring of Eye RetinaConfirmed as Optimal

Y ou cant get any better performance out of aneyeball than the way its designed, backwardwiring and all.

The mystery of reverse-wired eyeball is solved,according to a press release from the American PhysicalSociety.1 Erez Ribak, of Technion Israel Institute ofTechnology, believes that, for the first time, his researchteam has discovered why the photoreceptors are posi-tioned behind a tangle of neurons.

Previous experiments with mice had suggested that Mllerglia cells, a type of metabolic cell that crosses the retina,play an essential role in guiding and focusing light scat-tered throughout the retina. To test this, Ribak and hiscolleagues ran computer simulations and in-vitro experi-ments in a mouse model to determine whether colors wouldbe concentrated in these metabolic cells. They then usedconfocal microscopy to produce three-dimensional views ofthe retinal tissue, and found that the cells were indeedconcentrating light into the photoreceptors.

The retina is not just the simple detector and neural imageprocessor, as believed until today, Ribak added. Its opticalstructure is optimized for our vision purposes. The discoveryof Mller cells acting as light concentrators and waveguides datesback to May 2007.2

The counter-intuitive backward wiring has long been usedby evolutionists as evidence for bad design, the argument beingthat a Creator would never design an eye this way. It must haveevolved, they claim, because natural selection is a tinkerer thatcobbles together parts just to get something that works.

Surprisingly, this same article that found optimal structure inthe retina also attributed it to evolution. The press release begins,

From a practical standpoint, the wiring of the human eye a product of our evolutionary baggage doesntmake a lot of sense. In vertebrates, photoreceptors arelocated behind the neurons in the back of the eye resultingin light scattering by the nervous fibers and blurring ofour vision. Recently, researchers at the Technion IsraelInstitute of Technology have confirmed the biological pur-pose for this seemingly counterintuitive setup.

Its not clear if those are Ribaks views or if the appeal to evolutionwas invented by the press release author.

Perhaps the best proof that retinas are well-designed is shownby attempts to mimic them. PhysOrg3 tells about attempts at oneinstitution to create image sensors that behave like biologicalretinas. The interviewee says, Our sensor, on the other hand,is based on the Dynamic vision sensor (DVS) principle, whichis itself inspired by the way biological retinas work. Its veryhard to imitate, though. Well naturally real biological retinasare more complex, with many different types of pixels (cells)

which are also communicating with their neighbours, heexplains. Such properties would be very complicated or im-possible to develop with standard CMOS technology.

How, then, could a blind process of evolution come up withan image sensor vastly superior to what our top-notch engi-neers are capable of designing with purpose and planning?1. American Physical Society (2015, February 27). Mystery of the re-verse-wired eyeball solved. Retrieved March 10, 2015, from

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-02/aps-mot022715.php2. Franze, K., J. Grosche, S.N. Skatchkov, S. Schinkinger, C. Foja, D.

Schild, O. Uckermann, K. Travis, A. Reichenbach, and J. Guck. 2007.Muller cells are living optical fibers in the vertebrate retina. PNAS 104(20):82878292.

3. CORDIS (2015, February 18). Image sensors that behave like biological ret-inas. Retrieved March 10, 2015, from http://phys.org/news/2015-02-image-sensors-biological-retinas.html

Crinoid Pigment: 240 Million Years andNo Evolution?

P igments from crinoids fossilized in early Mesozoicstrata are identical to modern counterparts. In 2013 there were reports of fossilized crinoidsfrom Paleozoic strata (Mississippian, 350 million years)with preserved pigments produced by the organisms.That finding was since cast into doubt, but Klaus Wolk-enstein of the University of Gttingen has somethingalmost as good: unambiguous pigments from Mesozoic crinoidfossils (Triassic, 240 million years up to Jurassic, ~150 my) frommultiple locations around the world (Europe, Africa, and theMiddle East) that are virtually identical to modern examples.

The pigments he studied are secondary metabolites madeby cellular machines in the organism. Secondary metabolitesusually are not preserved, he says. These complex organicmolecules with 9 or 10 carbon rings sometimes have bromineatoms attached in living examples; the bromines are not found inthe fossil examples, probably due to diagenesis (chemical changesbetween deposition and fossilization) and the fact that chemicalbonds of bromine to carbon are not as stable as carbon-carbonbonds.

In his paper in PNAS1, Wolkenstein leaves no doubt that heis an evolutionist; he claims the pigments evolved by naturalselection. Structural conservatism in natural products overgeological time indicates that the compounds had functions thatwere important for the organisms that produced them, he says. Still, he couldnt help but be surprised at the exceptionalpreservation of these molecules. He used the words persistentand widespread often in the paper. Here are some other surprisingaspects of the story:

1. Multiple proofs: However, most interesting are chemi-cal proofs of these pigments in Jurassic representativesof two orders that still exist today allowing directcomparison of ancient and modern crinoid pigmentswithin the same clade.

2. Oxygen surprise: It is striking that fossil crinoids withpreserved hypericinoid pigments generally are found

Speaking of Science

http://crev.infohttp://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-02/aps-mot022715.phphttp://phys.org/news/2015-02-image-sensors-biological-retinas.htmlhttp://phys.org/news/2015-02-image-sensors-biological-retinas.htmlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkIhttp://www.youngearth.org/index.php/archives/rmcf-articles/item/21-transcript-of-ken-ham-vs-bill-nye-debatehttp://www.youngearth.org/index.php/archives/rmcf-articles/item/21-transcript-of-ken-ham-vs-bill-nye-debatehttp://www.youngearth.org/index.php/archives/rmcf-articles/item/21-transcript-of-ken-ham-vs-bill-nye-debate

10 | Creation Research Society

associated with hardgrounds, oolitic limestones, orreefal carbonates , which were deposited in well-ox-ygenated environments where exceptional preserva-tion of organic substances usually would be leastexpected.

3. Sandstone surprise: In the case of the Tendaguru lo-cality, which is mainly known for the discovery of dino-saur remains, the pigments are preserved even infossils from a sandstone-dominated coastal lithofa-cies. The embedding sediments are predominantly lightcolored and show low contents of organic matter. How-ever, pigments were not found in bituminous sediments,like shale, even though one famous lower-Jurassic site insouthern Germany, the Posidonia Shale, contains well-preserved isocrinids and fossils with organic tissue ma-terial.

4. Rapid burial: It is also striking that the pigments gen-erally are preserved in articulated crinoid remains,suggesting rapid burial of the animals, and in moremassive structures such as the roots of millericrinids.Crinoids are delicate and usually fall apart (disarticulate)easily after death.

5. Global distribution, longevity, and diversity: thespatial distribution of hypericrinoid pigments amongfossil crinoids is almost worldwide, the stratigraphicdistribution ranges at least back to the Middle Trias-sic, and the taxonomic distribution comprises represen-tatives from at least four (Encrinida, Isocrinida,Comatulida, and Millericrinida) of the eight post-Paleo-zoic crinoid orders. The qualifier at least impliesmore might be found.

6. Remarkable stasis: Almost the same pigments werefound in all samples independent of occurrence, stra-tigraphy, or taxon of the crinoids... Despite minor di-agenetic changes the pigments preserved in the fossilcrinoids show astonishing similarities to those of theirextant relatives.

The paper includes photos of some of the fossils that are sodetailed, they look as if living crinoids were spray-painted withacrylic. The original pigment colors are clearly evident. Wolken-stein doesnt rule out the possibility older examples will be found;the occurrence of hypericinoids and related pigments in Paleozoiccrinoids cannot be excluded, he says. Still, finding intact molecules from delicate creatures said tobe 240 million years old is remarkable, to say nothing of the factthat they have escaped evolutionary change in all that time.1. Wolkenstein, K. 2015. Persistent and widespread occurrence of bioactive qui-

none pigments during post-Paleozoic crinoid diversification. PNAS 112(9):27942799.

Natural Evil May Be Broken Good

T hings in nature we consider nasty are sometimesgood systems that have broken.Allergic shock: Our immune systems can sometimesturn on us and trigger a violent reaction like asthma orallergic shock. The culprit is a powerful antibody calledIgE that is usually present in small quantities100,000times less than similar antibodies in the immunoglobulinfamily. ScienceDaily1 describes how IgE is regulated under

normal conditions:During evolution, our bodies have thus developed severalself-restriction mechanisms around one of their mostpowerful immune weapons, IgE. Because a cell carryingIgE can no longer move, it can only survive for a brief period just long enough to play a short-lived protective roleagainst parasites, toxins and poisons. It then self-destructsby committing a sort of hara-kiri which strongly reducesIgE production and hence the triggering of allergies.

When this tightly-regulated defense weapon proliferates dueto the breakdown of regulatory mechanisms, the condition cantrigger extremely violent allergic reactions.

Friendly fire: The gut has a large population of mercenaries (gutbacteria) that aid in digestion. Certain types are normally benefi-cialbut when they multiply out of control, they become toomuch of a good thing, PhysOrg2 says. Most insects have Wol-bachia in their digestive tracts. Normally, these microbes form acooperative partnership, but a single genomic change can turnbeneficial bacteria into pathogenic bacteria, by boosting bacte-rial density inside the host. How many human pathogens startedout that way?

Derailed development: Birth defects are a tragic experience formany parents. Development from embryo to adult is a carefully-orchestrated process, but sometimes things can go wrong.ScienceDaily3 discusses how cells communicate when forminginto tissues. They send signal molecules, such as Wnt, throughprotrusions in the membrane called filipodia. A researcher at theKarlsruhe Institute of Technology describes what can happen whenthese communication pathways are disrupted: Distribution ofthese signal molecules has to be controlled precisely, Dr. SteffenScholpp, head of a research group of the KIT Institute of Toxi-cology and Genetics (ITG), explains. Smallest changes of theconcentration or the transport direction may cause severedamage, such as massive malformations during embryonal de-velopment or formation of cancer.Alligator defense: The possibilities for avoiding infection in filthyenvironments can be appreciated by studying alligators. Alliga-tors live in bacteria-filled environments and dine on carrion,ScienceDaily4 says, Yet this ancient reptile rarely falls ill.Researchers at George Mason University want to find out why.They know that alligators produce antibacterial peptides thatrespond before the immune system can generate antibodies.Humans generate these, too; its part of your generalized im-mune response to the world. Monique van Hoek wants to seeif we can develop treatments by understanding the alligatorsheightened protection from bacteria:

The reason why were so interested in them: they are partof natures way of dealing with the onslaught of bacteriaand viruses that we face every day. Every breath that youtake, everything that you eat, youre constantly exposedto bacteria and your body needs to fend them off in someway.

The article claims that These reptiles have evolved with aformidable defense against bacterial infections, but per-

haps the main difference is in the activity levelof innate systemsthat serve all ani-

mals, depending ontheir environment.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150213081519.htmhttp://phys.org/news/2015-02-good-extra-genes-bacteria-lethal.htmlhttp://phys.org/news/2015-02-good-extra-genes-bacteria-lethal.htmlhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150114072703.htmhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150211184703.htmhttp://phys.org/news/2015-02-friendly-fungi-barley-growers-world.htmlhttp://phys.org/news/2015-02-friendly-fungi-barley-growers-world.htmlhttp://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-02-cancer-chaos-base-mutation-cancer-like.htmlhttp://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-02-cancer-chaos-base-mutation-cancer-like.htmlhttp://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-02-lack-rna-melanoma-growth-metastasis.htmlhttp://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-02-lack-rna-melanoma-growth-metastasis.htmlhttp://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-02-newborn-neurons-adult-brain-environment.htmlhttp://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-02-newborn-neurons-adult-brain-environment.html

Vol. 20 No. 2 March/April | Creation Matters | 11

Friendly fungi: Think of fungus and you may picture moldy bread.Actually, a friendly fungus can help barley plants grow strongerwith better yield. PhysOrg5 reports on good prospects for improv-ing harvests of barley, the fourth leading cereal crop:

Botanists from Trinity College Dublin have made a break-through discovery that could save barley farmers sleeplessnights and millions of Euro each year: naturally occurringplant-friendly fungi prevent crop-ravishing diseases fromspreading, and also aid plant survival in testing environ-mental conditions.

Importantly, these amazing little organisms cause no harmto the plant roots in which they take up their abode.However, their gift of immunity against common seeddiseases greatly reduces the need for farmers to sprayenvironmentally damaging chemicals, which can affectecosystems in a plethora of negative ways.

Cancer tipping point: One single DNA base mutation can causechaos leading to cancer, Medical Xpress6 reports. This cancer-specific mutationhas an unexpectedly deep and broad impacton the phenotypic properties of the cell. Another article onMedical Xpress7 links melanoma metastasis to a breakdown inRNA editing of a certain enzyme.1. CNRS (2015, February 13). Immune cells commit suicide to prevent allergy.

ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 11, 2015, fromhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150213081519.htm

2. Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciencia (2015, February 10). Too much of a goodthing: Extra genes make bacteria lethal. PhysOrg. Retrieved March 11,2015, from http://phys.org/news/2015-02-good-extra-genes-bacteria-lethal.html

3. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (2015, January 14). How cells communi-cate. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 11, 2015, fromhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150114072703.htm

4. George Mason University (2015, February 11). Alligator blood contains natu-rally strong germ fighters. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 11, 2015, fromhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150211184703.htm

5. Trinity College Dublin (2015, February 9). Friendly fungi: How they couldhelp barley growers feed the world without chemicals. PhysOrg. RetrievedMarch 11, 2015, from http://phys.org/news/2015-02-friendly-fungi-barley-growers-world.html

6. Danbrot, S.M. (2015, February 10). Of cancer and chaos: Single base muta-tion induces cancer-like gene profile and major unexpected impact on phe-notype. Medical Xpress. Retrieved March 11, 2015 fromhttp://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-02-cancer-chaos-base-mutation-cancer-like.html

7. Nature Cell Biology (2015, February 16). Lack of RNA editing leads tomelanoma growth and metastasis. Medical Xpress. Retrieved March 11,2015, from http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-02-lack-rna-melanoma-growth-metastasis.html

Adult Brain Can Build New Neurons

A dogma-challenging find raises a question: does the environ-ment create the mind? A team of Princeton neuroscientists seems intent on findinga naturalistic explanation for a surprising discovery about the brain:Newborn neurons in the adult brain may help us adapt to theenvironment. Medical Xpress1 explains the problem:

The discovery that the human brain continues to producenew neurons in adulthood challenged a major dogma inthe field of neuroscience, but the role of these neurons inbehavior and cognition is still not clear. In a review article

published by Cell Press February 21st in Trends in CognitiveSciences, Maya Opendak and Elizabeth Gould of PrincetonUniversity synthesize the vast literature on this topic, review-ing environmental factors that influence the birth of newneurons in the adult hippocampus, a region of the brain thatplays an important role in memory andlearning.

The authors discuss how the birth ofsuch neurons may help animals andhumans adapt to their current envi-ronment and circumstances in a com-plex and changing world. Theyadvocate for testing these ideas usingnaturalistic designs, such as allowinglaboratory rodents to live in more naturalsocial burrow settings and observinghow circumstances such as social statusinfluence the rate at which new neuronsare born.

So was there a clear evolutionary link to this discovery?Gould and her collaborators recently proposed that stress-induced decreases in new neuron formation might im-prove the chances of survival by increasing anxiety andinhibiting exploration, thereby prioritizing safety andavoidant behavior at the expense of performing optimallyon cognitive tasks. On the other hand, reward-inducedincreases in new neuron number may reduce anxiety andfacilitate exploration and learning, leading to greater re-productive success.

The problem with this explanation is that it explains oppositeoutcomes. Fewer neurons inhibit exploration and improve surviv-al. More neurons encourage exploration and improve survival.This flaw in the theory seems to have gone unnoticed by Gouldand the team. Heres what they say they know at this point:

Because many studies that investigate adult neurogenesisuse controlled laboratory conditions, the relevance of thefindings to real-world circumstances remains unclear.

1. Cell Press (2015, February 21). Newborn neurons in the adultbrain may help us adapt to the environment. MedicalXpress. Retrieved March 11, 2015, fromhttp://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-02-newborn-neurons-adult-brain-environment.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150213081519.htmhttp://phys.org/news/2015-02-good-extra-genes-bacteria-lethal.htmlhttp://phys.org/news/2015-02-good-extra-genes-bacteria-lethal.htmlhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150114072703.htmhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150211184703.htmhttp://phys.org/news/2015-02-friendly-fungi-barley-growers-world.htmlhttp://phys.org/news/2015-02-friendly-fungi-barley-growers-world.htmlhttp://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-02-cancer-chaos-base-mutation-cancer-like.htmlhttp://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-02-cancer-chaos-base-mutation-cancer-like.htmlhttp://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-02-lack-rna-melanoma-growth-metastasis.htmlhttp://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-02-lack-rna-melanoma-growth-metastasis.htmlhttp://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-02-newborn-neurons-adult-brain-environment.htmlhttp://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-02-newborn-neurons-adult-brain-environment.html

12 | Creation Research Society

Creation Research SocietyP.O. Box 8263

St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263USA

Address Service Requested

March / April 2015Vol. 20 No. 2

Creation MattersCreation Matters

E volution teaches that living creaturesand their unique physical propertiesdeveloped, by chance, over immenseperiods of time. Hmmm... lets ask the mantisshrimp about this! In the last issue we mar-veled at the powerful striking force of theshrimps forelimbs. Lets take a look at thiscreatures unique vision.

Each of the mantis shrimps two eyes sitsupon an independently rotating stalk. Theirsare compound eyes, with thousands of separatevisual units, each of which detects light inde-pendently. Three areas in the center of the eyeare specialized for color and ultraviolet (UV)light detection. Most animals that see in reg-ular colors (red through violet) do so becausetheir brains make comparisons of the outputsof red, green, and blue photoreceptors (light-detecting cells) in their retinas. Some animals(birds, reptiles, even some fish and insects)have a fourth type of photoreceptor that alsodetects UV light.

Mantis shrimp have up to sixteen typesof photoreceptors, most used for covering thevisible light spectrum you and I can see. Sixtypes of photoreceptors are each tuned to

different wavelengths of UV light. Two typesof light-sensitive proteins called opsins helpform visual pigments that react to differentwavelengths of light.

Light entering the visual units of the eyefirst passes through a crystalline cone beforestriking the photoreceptors. Protein buildingblocks called mycosporine-like amino acids(MAAs) within the cones block slightly dif-ferent wavelengths of UV light. Various ar-rangements of MAAs and the two opsins formthe six separate classes of UV photoreceptors.Interestingly, MAAs are not even producedby the mantis shrimp, but rather are somehowacquired from their environment. Two of theMAAs in mantis shrimp have never been seenanywhere else before, so the mantis shrimpmust be able to modify them for their uniquepurposes.

Mantis shrimp are extremely intelligent,brightly colored, and lead intricate social lives.Their specialized vision helps them surveytheir coral reef environment, identify food,and communicate with each other through UVpatterns reflecting off their bodies. Oh, onemore thing the photoreceptors that detect

colors from red through violet are connectedto different nerves than are the UV receptors,and they connect to different parts of themantis shrimps brain. If this creature werethe product of chance, evolution must havedesigned a complicated visual system twice,once for color, and once for UV!

Reference:Kwok, R. 2013. This shrimp packs a punch. Science

News for Students. Retrieved March 9, 2015,fromhttps://student.societyforscience.org/article/shrimp-packs-punch

OQuinn, J.C. 2015. Power punch. Creation Matters20(1):12.

Yong, E. 2014a. The mantis shrimp sees like a sat-ellite. NationalGeographic.com. RetrievedMarch 9, 2015, fromhttp://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/01/23/the-mantis-shrimp-sees-like-a-satellite/

Yong, E. 2014b. Natures most amazing eyes justgot a bit weirder. NationalGeographic.com.Retrieved March 9, 2015, fromhttp://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/07/03/natures-most-amazing-eyes-just-got-a-bit-weirder/

by Jonathan C. OQuinn, D.P.M., M.S.

https://student.societyforscience.org/article/shrimp-packs-punchhttps://student.societyforscience.org/article/shrimp-packs-punchhttp://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/01/23/the-mantis-shrimp-sees-like-a-satellite/http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/01/23/the-mantis-shrimp-sees-like-a-satellite/http://http://http://

Saharan Dust Part 2: Red Tide off Southwestern Coast of Florida by Carl R. FroedeCommon Ancestry or Uncommon Wisdom? by Terry P. BehMath Matters: Imaginary Numbers by Don DeYoungProblem & Solution: Circulation Insert Miracle Here by Michael G. WindheuserMatters of Fact: Pre-Flood Spider Food? by Jean Lightner...without excuse!: The Testimony of Gods Unlimited Understanding by Timothy R. StoutSpeaking of ScienceBackward Wiring of Eye Retina Confirmed as OptimalCrinoid Pigment: 240 Million Years and No Evolution?Natural Evil May Be Broken GoodAdult Brain Can Build New Neurons

All by Design: Extraordinary Eyes by Jonathan C. OQuinn