Flat Irons For Your Hair

Evolution: Trouble Times Four

Bombardier Beetle

One of the mysteries of life is just the bombardier beetle. In regard to evolution, is a hard nut to crack. This small insect has a massive chemical defense system. When threatened, it is proposed that the two tubes tuck at his adversary, often a ant or spider. Then the bomber triggers a series of miniature explosions peppering his victim with boiling acid. It is very effective at keeping predators at bay.

What makes it work? The defense weapon is made of two storage glands, a combustion chamber, a pair of tube machines swivel gun type, and of course, the experience of the bomber, and instinct to use. The chemicals are stored separately and combined when used.

When combined, the toxic mix is 25 percent hydrogen peroxide, 10 percent hydroquinone, water and free oxygen, more enzymes that trigger the explosion. Of course, all these chemicals must be stored together, and used in appropriate locations, quantities and concentrations. Otherwise, this small error could easily blow itself extinction or boil itself alive. The fact that it does not show how well this insect is as a whole.

Bombardier controls, objectives, and burning of chemical weapons through a series of specialized nerves and muscles. Each rapid explosion is heard as "a". Oxygen shows a jet of hot steam and a solution of quinone at high pressure. It is a well-coordinated delivery system for a batch of drops of boiling acid burns anyone who dares to disturb the bombardier beetle.

How does a system Defense to develop happened? Every detail that had to be programmed in DNA.

Consider what is at stake here: storage bins, camera merge, separate chemicals and enzymes, the exact intake of water and oxygen, plus hundreds of nerves, muscles, and fibers woven into a working system. All these elements are coded and integrated into the DNA bomber.

To say that this defense system extraordinary result a series of errors is not a reasonable conclusion. You are on the same level as say a thousand pieces of a puzzle that happened, by chance, to fit perfectly formed complete mosaic.

That's asking too much of an injury or series of accidents. Someone with the intelligence piece together the same way, a person with intelligence arm the bombardier beetle.

There is another reason to doubt the evolution of a complex defense system. Predators not have allowed. Can you imagine ants, spiders and praying mantis arms crossed waiting for millions of years waiting patiently for mutations gradually perfect the bomber defense? No?

Given the chance, you can be sure, predators that have consumed this small error otherwise helpless to extinction. Thus we are obliged to say, the bomber's chemical defense system in all its complexity had to come on board as a single unit intact. It was designed.

Millipede Apheloria corrugata

What is true of the Bombardier is also true of the millipede Apheloria corrugata hydrogen cyanide shooting at his enemies. Once again incremental steps are not practical. The only reasonable explanation for these complex, integrated chemical defenses is the design - design by someone with a knowledge deep physics, chemistry, biology and microbiology.

Darwin Quote of the eyes and natural selection

Next we to consider the eye. This is where the rubber meets the road. This is the litmus test for evolution. Darwin recognized the problem and mentioned that at the origin of species: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and aberration correction spherical and chromatic, could have formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. "

Who can argue with that?

Vision

This is what we know about human vision: The light enters the eye through the transparent window called the cornea that covers the pupil. The pupil is an opening in the iris, the colored part of the eye. Light continues through the aqueous humor, a watery substance, until it lands on the lens. The objective focus, turn the light on the retina.

On the way to the retina, the light must travel through the vitreous, a clear gel that fills the center of eye, helping to maintain its shape. When light hits the retina, stimulating up to 137 million specialized cells known as rods and cones. (Cones are color detectors, detectors rods are black and white.)

Both rods and cones are receptors chemical switch. Sunlight activates these miniature on-off buttons generating nerve impulses estimated one billion per second. The mass of electrical impulses is forwarded to the cortex through the optic nerve and a neural network complex.

The cerebral cortex is equipped with a visual processing center that integrates data from both eyes and inverts the image upside down. That gives us our three dimensions of the right side-up image. Exactly how the brain interprets the electrical impulses and becomes an image is still a mystery.

Components of the eyes and functions

How complicated is the eye? Each eye contains more than 137 million pieces of essential work. Can you imagine a machine that complex? Let's look at some of these components and their functions.

The outer layer is called the sclera. It is white, semi-rigid, and gives the eye its basic form and provides a measure of protection as well.

The middle layer is called the choroid layer. It is a dark pigment that contains numerous blood vessels. Their job is to prevent light reflection inside the eye.

The inner layer is called the retina. It contains 130 million rods that see in black and shades gray, and 7 million cones provide sharp vision and color. Each cone is sensitive to single color: red, green or blue. The rod and cone cells are actually photoreceptor connected to sensory neurons. Changes of retinal light electrical nerve impulses.

Conjunctiva - A mucous membrane lining the inner surface eyelid and the exposed surface of the eye and lubricate them.

Cornea - A thick uniform, transparent, almost circular disc covering the lens. It serves as a window let light into the eye, and also protects the lens.

Aqueous humor - A clear lymph-like fluid between the cornea and lens.

Iris-On color pigmented membrane that separates the cornea from the lens. Adjust the size of the pupil regulates the amount of light in sight.

- Students of black circular hole through which light enters the eye.

Ciliary muscles - Controls the shape of the iris, which in turn adjusts the size of the pupil.

Lens - A party of the eye that focuses light to form an image of the retina.

The vitreous - the clear substance that fills the eye.

Muscles Eye - Six muscles attached to the view provided motion.

Tear ducts and glands - A lubrication system and eye protection.

The eye also has some enhancements:

Eyelashes and eyebrows - both help maintain the waste. Each serves as a defense mechanism for sight.

That's a remarkable number of pieces to work together for a common goal. Do not forget that each of these items should be coded in DNA in place appropriate to integrate and coordinate with all the features of the other eye. It has all the appearance of design. It is difficult to see how it could be something else. The very thought was given to Charles Darwin. The eye "with all its inimitable" gave him second thoughts about his theory of natural selection.

TV Analogy

Have you ever looked inside a television? Inside is a series of panels with many pieces in miniature, seemingly all mixed in a jumble. But that's not really the case. The groups are the circuit boards. And in the circuit boards are carefully arranged transistors, capacitors, resistors, conductors, transformers and other electronic components all create an image in the picture tube.

Every little part is exactly the right type, size and strength to that particular position on the circuit board. If something is not online, you probably will not get a picture. As in the eye, all parties are essential.

We know that television does not just happen. This to some smart people from a number of years to calculate technology and put in place. The eye is considerably more complicated than any TV. It has much more to bring pieces of what even the most expensive television. All indications that the human eye was written by someone whose intelligence and technology are far superior to ours. On the Origin of Species, Charles De Darwin seems to agree.

Evolutionary explanation for vision

How do evolutionists account for the hearing? They believe that the eye that began as a light sensitive place in a cell. Step by step, random mutations after mutation, the photosensitive cells bent inwards to form a retina. Somehow mutations did transparent skin on the surface, some of which resulted in a lens focuses light onto the newly formed retina.

Again, random error after error error after added parts to the view that eventually became fully functional, complex, detailed body we have today. Evolutionists hold a series of compound eyes of different creatures to say that show the evolutionary steps leading to the human eye.

What about the evolutionary history? Quite. Speculation about a gradual mutation directed the construction of the look is just that - speculation. No eyes partially formed in the fossil record. The different types of eyes? Yes. But they are all complete and fully functional with every component systems in place and in mind.

Moreover, the eye itself it does not give us the vision. The optic nerve, thalamus, and a number of nerves connecting the eye and brain are all necessary. And there's more. The brain has a cortex primary visual cortex and visual association created to decode and interpret incoming information.

See how complex it is? The eye, optic nerve, the thalamus, the network of nerves, and visual processing centers of the brain, all had to be in place and fully operational before the hearing was possible.

How do evolutionists account these additional components in our visual system? They do not. Are ignored. Evolutionists can only say, "error after error DNA must have produced these essential ingredients. "incremental evolutionary steps is not a reasonable explanation for the view. Moreover, observation and dissection of plants and animals have not revealed any incomplete development of organs of any kind at present in nature. And the fossil record has not yet shown any development, incomplete body of any kind in the past.

Color Vision

Color vision, says biologist Michael Pitman, in his book Adam and Evolution, presents another problem for evolutionists. Most creatures do not. Only several bony fish, reptiles, birds, bees or other insects as well as varied, and primates see in color. Yes, I put aside other mammals such as cats, dogs, horses and bulls, all of whom are black, white and shades of gray.

That's just an interesting quirk of nature, unless of course you're an evolutionist protozoan-to-man. Then you have a problem. You are defending the proposition: The evolution of fish cones of the retina that allows color vision.
Developments in amphibians, vision Color was something missing, only to rise again (perhaps we should call it re-evolve) in certain birds and reptiles like. But when it came to mammals vision color was lost again. However, color vision made another turn and re-emerged in primates. How's that for a twisted story?

Two Eyes Standard

If you were to line up all amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, and search each of them face to face, what See? About the same as you see when you look at your own reflection in the mirror. To find a balanced symmetrical face, two ears - one on each side, two eyes with a view to a single nose in the center with a mouth just below. Species after species that fit the general description, including the vast majority of fish too.

But why two eyes? Evolutionists have an answer: "Three-dimensional vision is essential to our ancestors swinging through the trees." Using our imagination, we can see an unfortunate primate eyes blows in the trees, due to their lack of depth perception.

With their extinction only the two types of eyes were left to move forward. Bias Even if we accept the natural selection against a tree swingers single eye, which still does not explain all the other two eyes of amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals and fish, which never had to deal with tree swinging.

For all practical purposes, an eye should be sufficient. Think about everything you need to make a work of the eyes. Well over a hundred million individual parts must work together - with each other and with a network of nerves and a specialized agency of the optic nerve section of the brain. When the system is up and production - you have a vision.

It is almost impossible to see how the random errors of evolution could ever want to evoke an eye. Still, it's much more likely that the two eyes emerging from a source as questionable. One-eyed creatures, however, was not - in or out of the fossil record.

Of course, two eyes are better than one. Covering an area more wide, and has built a replacement should one go wrong. Depth perception itself to predators in locating prey, the prey and helps to avoid predators. But if you start considering the evolutionary advantages, why not three eyes instead of two? Would not it be even better? Sure, why not four or five eyes while we're at it?

How many times has slipped to a predator on the back of innocent prey? If the dam had an eye or two on the back of your head, would it not be an advantage in the contest of evolution?

However, no amphibians, reptiles, birds or mammals or has opted for the shortcut the evolution of one eye or the evolutionary advantage over both eyes.

If the only thing at work here is random, random mutations outside the wall, those two eyes persistent creatures dating back millions of years make no sense at all. Moreover, if the amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals were designed, there is no logical explanation for the consistent pattern. The designer liked the two ears, two eyes, nose and mouth look only. And that's the way he did.

Ear components and functions

Turning his attention to the ear, we find a repetition of the history of the eyes. Characters are different, but the issue is the same. The outer ear, ear canal, eardrum, Eustachian tube, hammer, anvil, stirrup, cochlea, cochlear nerve, and central auditory temporal - lobe all work in harmony for a common purpose. In fact, ears serve two purposes: hearing and balance.

This is how the ear works: The outer ear collects sound and funnels into a one-inch irregular shaped ear canal. The channel acts as a filter. Numerous hairs over four thousand wax-producing glands to prevent the entry of foreign particles and provides a constant moisture for half delicate and inner ear.

The eardrum is located at the tip of the ear canal. Sound vibrations are transmitted from the eardrum to a trio bones together in the middle ear. They are named for their shape: the hammer, anvil and stirrup. These three tiny bones amplify sound in the inner ear. Pressure air is equal on both sides of the eardrum by a vent that goes from the middle ear to the throat. It is called the Eustachian tube.

In the inner ear, we find what appears to be a small snail shell. This little device is the cochlea. The cochlea is only the size of a hazelnut, but has a great job. As general, compared with one of two things. Some say it's similar to a telephone system with enough channels for a good-sized city service.

Other the cochlea compared to a piano keyboard with twenty thousand or more different keys. Anyway, you get the idea, is a very small but extremely complex structure.

Incoming sound frequencies that have been amplified by the hammer, anvil, stirrup combination, hair-like vibration sensory cells the cochlea. The work of the cochlea is to translate sound waves into nerve impulses. Strike different sound frequencies in different sections of the sensory cells in many combinations. Nerve impulses travel from the cochlea to the auditory nerve and brain. And that's what we hear.

Once again, we see a body that has every appearance of design. It takes a leap of faith to claim is an accumulation of DNA errors. No proof of this claim nor the facts support it. The only reasonable conclusion is that someone with a good solid knowledge of physics, biology and technology of micro-designed and made this body complex, intricate and delicate.

Analogies and Conclusion

Have you ever seen a cornfield? A cornfield is just acre after hectares of corn stalk all about the same height, all in rows with little grass in any medium. After seeing a field of corn, would never occur you that everything could be an accident. Nature just does not do that sort of thing. Someone cleared the ground and planted the seeds.

Let's try another example. On both sides of the road there is a row of evenly space dogwood. And each tree is surrounded by a single row of flowers. Nobody has to tell him that someone deliberately planted trees and flowers.

We know that Mount Rushmore is the similarity of the four U.S. presidents. If your geography teacher told you that the heads of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt accidentally formed by erosion of natural persons, I believe? If the English teacher told you the first dictionary English summary the result of an accidental explosion in a printing press, are you laughing?

Nature is not orderly. Not symmetric, nor is artistic or creative. No, it's just Otherwise - disorganized, erratic and chaotic. You and I know if nature is left to fend for themselves, to grow an assortment of weeds irregular, but not a row crops. Grow an odd collection of several trees scattered here, there, there, wild cherry, but not equal time, with a single row of flowers around each.

The erosion will create ugly cuts on the slopes, but not going to carve statues of presidents on the rock. An explosion can blow a print Store in pieces, but will not create a dictionary. Nature does not build things, it creates patterns, and not produce complex designs.

Nature did not create bomber defense system chemical, or the hydrogen cyanide millipede system or the human eye or ear. Nor does nature create the extraordinary team called the brain, whose function is still beyond our comprehension. The only logical explanation is that each one was designed. And where is clear evidence of this design is reasonable to assume a designer.

Speaking in vague generalities, evolution often seems plausible. But get to the crux of the issue of specific organs such as eyes and ears, we find an inadequate response trends and impractical.

About the Author

Jerry Boone, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, United States webmaster@merechristianity.us Mr. Boone is a sailor, author, and webmaster of http://merechristianity.us with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Anthropology from Georgia State University. His works include: Mere Christianity.us and SAFETY LINE - EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN, an apologetic study published 1998.