ContentsHerbivores and Plant Volatiles: Part 4 — Vegetable Crops..........................................1Condemnation of Terms such as “Purpose” and “Design”................................................1Membership Matters.......................................5Speaking of Science

A Second Code Controls the DNA Code................8 SETI: Shut Up and Keep Looking...........................8 Is This Frog Marrow Really 10 Million Years Old?..8 Bear-Tooth DNA Yields New Date Record: 400,000 Years..................................................................9 Likely, Evolution May Be a Fact, Presumably.........9 Cell Untangles Its Own DNA..................................9 Eye Can See Clearly Now....................................10 Darwinists Foment Civil Disobedience against Questioning Darwinism.....................................10

Nature Gives ... Blog Honors to Radical Atheists. 10

Creation Calendar.........................................11All by Design: Defying Gravity.......................12

Volume 11, Number 4 July / August 2006

— A publication of the Creation Research Society —

Herbivores and Plant Volatiles: Part 4—Vegetable Cropsby Emmett L. Williams, Ph. D. and George F. Howe, Ph. D.

... continued on p. 2

... continued on p. 6

Condemnation of Terms such as “Purpose” and “Design”by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.

V egetable plants grown com-mercially are of particular in-terest to researchers who

study defensive volatiles that arereleased from the plants in reactionto herbivore feeding. Such emissionsattract parasitoids and carnivores tothe feeding herbivores, thereby re-ducing and occasionally decimatingtheir population on a crop. As Pareand Tumlinson (1999) noted:

Leaves normally release smallquantities of volatile chemicals,but when a plant is damaged byherbivorous insects, many moreare released.

Induced volatilesThese induced volatiles may be ofdifferent composition and concentrationthan are the “normal” gases emitted by aplant. If the substances themselves or thesubstances that induce the formation of thedefensive volatiles can be determined, itmay be possible for humans to use thesecompounds on crops suffering herbivoredamage. Such use may induce the damagedplants and their neighbors to activate defen-

sive volatile attractants in a complex bio-chemical cascade of reactions. Gatehouse(2002) reported that:

... the accumulation of con-stitutive defenses is species-specific. Insect herbivores

activate induced defensesboth locally and systemi-cally by signaling path-ways... Plants also respondto insect attack by produc-ing volatiles, which can beused to deter herbivores, tocommunicate between partsof the plant, or betweenplants to induce defense re-sponses.

Ideally the herbivore damage willbe lessened as enemies of the herbi-vore answer “the call for help”(Wolfrom, 1992).

Cole plantsHerbivores of cole plants (see glos-sary) include the larvae of Pieris

brassicae, the cabbageworm (van Nouhuys,n.d.). The adult of this species is commonlycalled the large white butterfly (Figure 1).The volatiles released by the crops attract a

Figure 1. The large white butterfly, the adult form of Pierisbrassicae. Photographer, Hania Arentsen, Garden Safari, imageno. 1372017.

I nsect behavioral physiologist GracielaFlores recently published an article inNew Scientist in which she condemned

the use of certain terms in science articlessuch as “design,” “gate keeper,” and similarexpressions because they convey what shecalls “teleological language.” The articlewas prompted by her recent reading of ascientific article that used the word “design”in an “unmistakable teleological way,”which, she argues, is “improper.”

She has “always avoided teleologicallanguage, not only because it can be misusedwhen taken out of context, but because it isincorrect.” The reason it is incorrect, sheconcluded, is because “evolution has no

purpose” and has no designer as the word iscommonly used (2005).

Making the caseFlores stressed that scientists “ought to bemore careful, in the wake of the publicationof a New York Times op-ed by MichaelBehe of the Discovery Institute—the mostvisible arm of the Intelligent Designmovement—in which he supports his thesisby using comments of National AcademyScience President Bruce Alberts in the jour-nal Cell” (Flores, 2005). Behe stated thatthe resemblance of life to engineered mech-anisms, such as a watch, is “enormously

Creation Matters

“Purpose” and “Design”...continued from page 1

stronger” than what Paley imagined. Headded that, in the past half-century, sciencehas demonstrated ways in which the cell ispowered by nanomachines constructed ofmolecules, such as little molecular trucksused to ferry supplies and “little outboardmotors to push a cell through a liquid.”

After observing that a recent issue ofone of the leading science magazines, Cell,was devoted to “molecular machines,” andincluded articles with titles such as, “TheCell as a Collection of Protein Machines”and “Mechanical Devices of the Spli-ceosome: Motors, Clocks, Springs andThings” Behe (2005) noted that:

Bruce Alberts, president of theNational Academy of Sciences,wrote that “the chemistry thatmakes life possible is much moreelaborate and sophisticated thananything we students had everconsidered.” In fact, Dr. Al-berts remarked, the entire cellcan be viewed as a factory withan elaborate network of inter-locking assembly lines, eachof which is composed of a setof large protein machines. Heemphasized that the term ma-chine was not some fuzzyanalogy; it was meant literally.

Alberts (2005) responded tothis article by adding that “themajestic chemistry of life shouldbe astounding to everyone,” butthis fact

should not be misrepresented assupport for the idea that life’s mo-lecular complexity is a result of“intelligent design.” To the con-trary, modern scientific views ofthe molecular organization of lifeare entirely consistent with sponta-neous variation and natural selec-tion driving a powerfulevolutionary process. ...Because“intelligent design” theories arebased on supernatural explana-tions, they can have nothing to dowith science.

Futuyma (1998, pp. 5, 8) explained thereason why there is an aversion to usingterms such as “design” in science:

Darwin’s immeasurably important

contribution to science was to showhow mechanistic causes could alsoexplain all biological phenomena,despite their apparent evidence ofdesign and purpose. By couplingundirected, purposeless variationto the blind, uncaring process ofnatural selection, Darwin madetheological or spiritual explana-tions of the life process superfluous.

Using teleological language inscienceExamples of the use of terms such as“purpose,” “design,” “invention,”“molecular machine,” and “gate keeper” inthe scientific literature are legion. Oneexample of the term “gate keeper” is thefollowing (Lempinen, 2005):

Through the eyes of molecular bi-ologists Saba Valadkhan, the spli-ceosome is a huge, quirkymolecular machine functioning asthe gate keeper of human genetic

information. With more than 300parts, and constantly in flex, it hadbaffled scientists for two decades.So when Valadkhan saw the firstresearch results suggesting thatshe’d begun to solve the riddle ofthe spliceosome, she was a littlebit thrilled but largely skeptical.”(emphasis added)

Valadkhan’s research has revolution-ized science, holding promise in such areasas cancer and Alzheimers disease research.As a result of her work, she was given thevery prestigious Young Scientist Award(Valadkhan, 2005). Her work demonstratedthat the spliceosome not only helps to copygenetic data and delete introns, but “if some-thing is wrong in the genetic material, the

spliceosome usually finds it and discards it”(Lempinen, 2205). Specifically, she foundthat five RNA molecules in the spli-ceosomes are central to the proper function-ing of this critically important, complexcorrection system.

In another example, Neil Shubin (2004,pp. 90-93) and his colleagues at the Univer-sity of Chicago discussed the role of several“appendices designs” in tetrapods. Theirwork illustrates one way to deal with the“problem” of teleological language, namelyto use quotes around words that imply tele-ology, such as in the following example(Lieber and Fridén, 2000):

Muscle fibers are often depicted asprojecting in bundles (fascicles)from an origin on a proximal ten-don plate to an insertion moredistally. This simply does not dojustice to the wide array of muscle“designs” that are apparentthroughout the animal kingdom....

The varying architectural de-sign of human and other mam-malian muscles was used toillustrate the fact that musclescan be “designed” to performfairly specific functions.(emphasis added).

Note the word design is used in thisquote three times, twice in quotes,evidently to indicate that the musclelooks like it is designed, but actuallyis not. Morris (2005) explained thereasoning behind this conclusion:

Regardless of how much anorganism looks like it had beenintelligently designed, evolu-

tionists (without even soundingembarrassed) will insist that naturalselection has the power to make itlook like it was designed, eventhough it wasn’t.

One more paradigm is when StephenHetz and Timothy Bradley, both of theUniversity of California, Irvine, stated thatthe insect respiratory system was “designedto function most efficiently at high levelsof O2 consumption” (Flores, 2005; Hetz andBradley, 2005). These researchers claimedthat they “did not intend to imply that theinsects tracheal system is the result of thework of a designer,” noting instead that theyused the term design “as a shorthand for anawful lot of ideas, such as that the systemhas been shaped by selection pressures to

When such statements byDarwinian scientists are quoted by

critics ..., the scientist quotedoften claims that s/he was

“misquoted” or “taken out ofcontext” by people who believe

structures that look and functionlike they were designed were, in

fact, designed.

No. 4 July / August 2006

have a certain functional consequence”(quoted in Flores, 2005).

Bradley concluded that the word“design” could be used, but that he preferredthe expression “shaped by selection pres-sure.” When such statements by Darwinianscientists are quoted by critics of Darwin-ism, the scientist quoted often claims thats/he was “misquoted” or “taken out of con-text” by people who believe structures thatlook and function like they were designedwere, in fact, designed.

Yet another case in point is a paper thatconcluded that “structural materials in na-ture exhibit remarkable designs”(Aizenberg, et al., 2005). The authors addedthat the sponge is “an example of nature’sability to improve inherently poor buildingmaterials” because the design used resultsin “exceptional mechanical stability” inspite of the poor building materials(Aizenberg, et al, 2005). The design is sosuperior that it produces a textbook examplein mechanical engineering, namely

...the Euplectella sp. skeletalsystem is designed to providestructural stability at minimumcost, a common theme in bio-logical systems where criticalresources are often limited. Webelieve that the study of thestructural complexity of uniquebiological materials and theunderlying mechanisms of theirsynthesis ... ultimately will of-fer new materials concepts anddesign solutions.

Book titles, as well, use teleologicallanguage. An example is Invention andEvolution: Design in Nature and Engineer-ing by French (1988). As he explained:“Design for function is even more importantthan design for appearance. It is also afascinating pursuit which brings delight andchallenge to engineers and others who en-gage in it.” French (1988, p. 1) then stressedthat life looks designed, but is not—eventhough the design of life “exceeds” thatdesigned by humans:

Living organisms are examples ofdesign strictly for function, theproduct of blind evolutionaryforces rather than consciousthought, yet far excelling the prod-ucts of engineering. When theengineer looks at nature he seesfamiliar principles of design being

followed, often in surprising andelegant ways. Sometimes, as inthe case of flight, he is inspired toinvention: more commonly, he dis-covers his ideas are already embod-ied in some animal or plant.

French (1988, pp. 17–18) added that the“design in nature” is powerful enough toconvince any observer of its “excellence,”yet

so much of it is beyond our under-standing at present that we areusually in the position of believingthat the design is excellent, withoutbeing able to explain it fully. Forinstance, a cursory examinationmight suggest that the human kneeis a simple pivot or hinge joint, likea door hinge. It is much morecomplex than that, however ... it isnot at all easy to be sure that all itspeculiarities are improvementsover a plainer design. However,while there are cases where natural

design does appear to be at fault,it is much more probable that it isour understanding that is lackingwhen anything seems to us unac-countable or wrong.

This observation strongly supports the con-clusion that structures that appear to bedesigned, in fact, are.

Another example is a book titled TheArchitecture and Design of Man and Womanwhich is about “The Marvel of the HumanBody, Revealed” (Tsiaras and Werth, 2004).The book explains in text and stunningphotographs the “intricately constructedsystems and isolated structures” in the hu-man, and freely uses words such as de-signed, purpose, ingenious, and similar. Forinstance, the section on page 60 covers the“arterial design,” and page 69 the“astonishing efficiency” that the “ingeniousplumber” used to design the human “sound

machine.” Page 80 shows the “brilliantlyengineered ... living skeleton,” and page 116discusses “the wisdom of the body”—theendocrine system.

Reverse engineeringA major problem with censoring the use ofwords such as “design” is that scientists inmany fields work from a design mind setcalled “reverse engineering.” The researcherasks himself “how was this structure (orsystem) designed to function?” The thoughtprocess is similar to a company’s purchasingits competitor’s product in order to disas-semble it, to determine how it was engi-neered, with the goal of learning from thedesign how to improve one’s own product.

My own experience in the area of mo-lecular biology at a major research univer-sity from 1986 to date, first as a student,then as a research scientist and associateprofessor, is that the foremost questionasked is: “how was this cell organelle orstructure designed to function?” A whole

new field called “systems biology”tries to do just this. Gray (2005)explained that research on the heat-shock response, which is “theorganism’s ability to repair proteindamaged by heat or other stresses,”uses mathematical modeling todemonstrate how

complex workings of the heat-shock response reflect featuresthat make the protein repairfast, robust and efficient. “It

is how, if you had a good engineer,the process would be designed,”... the time is right for systemsbiology.

Gray (2005) concluded that life-sciencesresearchers require

[the] analytical tools of the engi-neers and their computer-sciencepartners to make sense of data thatis just too much for the unaidedhuman brain to handle. But engi-neers need the data and experi-ments of biology to test theirquantitative models; otherwise,they are just speculating—reverse-engineering natural systems in the-ory but not in practice. ... To un-derstand their data ... “They needquantification.” And on the engi-neering side it’s not enough tocome up with a design, whether ofa spacecraft or a heat-shock reac-

Concluding that the universewas not designed (when it

appears to be) is not science,but is rather an attempt to inject

one’s philosophy and religioninto science.

Creation Matters

tion. The engineer has to know ifthe design will work in the realworld.

Ignoring the obviousBecause of the growth of the IntelligentDesign movement, Flores (2005) recom-mended that scientists never use words suchas “design.” She quoted Ken Miller, whohas stated that he would not use the word“design” with students because “they aregoing to take the language too literally, andit will cause a misunderstanding.” Insteadof saying that a structure is designed, Millersuggested that the expression “it evolved”or “was shaped by selection pressure” toaccomplish a certain function should be usedinstead. Michael Ruse even admitted, ac-cording to Flores (2005), that “we all thinkin terms of design, although not in terms ofa hands-on designer,” to refer to the ortho-dox belief among scientists that “naturalselection” or “evolution” designs life. Thus,Flores stressed, it should not be implied inscience articles that a “designer” refers toan Intelligent Designer, such as God, butrather to a blind watchmaker designer, suchas natural selection.

Flores (2005) added that “other scien-tists refuse to self-censor” these words, andthen quoted Miller who concluded that “Iwouldn’t like to have to be aware that theenemies are looking over our shoulder” andfor this reason “have to choose your wordscarefully.” Note that those who believe that

Intelligent Design is behind the naturalworld at some level are termed “enemies”by these scientists.

Concluding that the universe was notdesigned (when it appears to be) is notscience, but is rather an attempt to injectone’s philosophy and religion into science.It appears that this is an example of Darwin-ists having to strain to get around the ideathat complex nanostructures, which clearlyappear to be designed, are, in fact, designedin the way most of us think as being intel-ligently designed. The controversy is thusnot over the question of whether life wasdesigned, but rather on the identity of thedesigner.

Acknowledgments. I wish to thank JohnWoodmorappe and Jody Allen for theirinsightful comments on an earlier draft ofthis paper.

ReferencesAizenberg, J., J.C. Weaver, M.S. Thanawala, V.C.

Sundar, D.E. Morse, and P. Fratz. 2005. Skel-eton of Euplectella sp: Structural hierarchyfrom the nanoscale to the macroscale.” Science309:275–278.

Alberts, B. 2005. Letter to the editor concerning“Intelligent Design.” The New York Times,February 12, p. A-16.

Behe, M.J. 2005. Design for living. The New YorkTimes, February 7, p. A-21.

Behe, M.J. 2005. Letter to Ms. Graciela Flores(unpublished).

Flores, G. 2005. Journals and intelligent design.The Scientist 19(4):12.

French, M.J. 1988. Invention and Evolution: Design

in Nature and Engineering. New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.

Futuyma, Douglas J. 1998. Evolutionary Biology,Third Edition. Sinauer Associates.

Gray, B. 2005. Systems biology: real life. Conver-gence. The Magazine of Engineering and theSciences at U.C. Santa Barbara. Summer, pp.4–6.

Hetz, S.K. and T. Bradley. 2005. Insects breathediscontinuously to avoid oxygen toxicity.” Na-ture 433:516–519.

Lieber, R.L. and J. Fridén. 2000. Functional andclinical significance of skeletal muscle architec-ture. Muscle & Nerve 23:1647–1666.

Lempinen, E.W. 2005. Valadkhan solves geneticpuzzle, wins 2004 Young Scientist Award. Sci-ence 307:1221.

Morris, H. 2005. Evolution—Impossible to embar-rass its believers (Back to Genesis, No. 200).Acts & Facts, August.

Shubin, N. 2004. The early evolution of the tetra-pod humerus. Science 304:90–93.

Tsiaras, A. and B. Werth. 2004. The Architectureand Design of Man and Woman: The Marvel ofthe Human Body, Revealed. New York: Dou-bleday.

Valadkhan, S. 2005. Young Scientist Award essaywinner. Construction of a minimal, protein-freespliceosome...TIBR.” Science 307:863–864.

Dr. Bergman teaches biology, molecular biology,chemistry, anthropology, and anatomy at North-west State in Ohio, where he has been on thefaculty for over 20 years. He may be reachedat: jbergman@northweststate.edu.

Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genomeby John Sanford, Ph.D.

2005. Ivan Press, 202 pages$17.00 (plus shipping and handling)

E volution’s primary axiom is that evolutionary change (i.e., commondescent) is accomplished by a combination of natural selection andrandom mutations. However, this book provides several challenges

to this axiom. Furthermore, because the mutation rate is higher than previ-ously thought, the health of organisms is declining about 1 to 2% pergeneration. This is based on modern research into genetics by a CornellUniversity researcher. The book is well written and is geared toward theeducated layman.

Order from:

CRS Books6801 N. Highway 89

Chino Valley, AZ 86323

877-CRS-BOOK

www.crsbooks.org

No. 4 July / August 2006

Membership Mattersby Glen Wolfrom, Ph.D.

F rom time to time in this space we willfeature information which is importantto our members. This may consist of

an explanation of current membership pol-icies and benefits. It may also be an oppor-tunity to announce new policies andopportunities for members.

At the recent (June 1–3, 2006) annualboard-of-directors meeting, a number ofmotions were passed which will be of inter-est to members.

Expansion of studentmembership eligibilityWhen the student membership category wasfirst implemented many years ago, eligibil-ity was limited to those full-time studentswho had not yet obtained a bachelor’s de-gree. Thus, student membership has beencomprised of high school and undergraduatestudents.

Realizing that the future of the creation-ist movement lies with those who are ableto obtain advanced degrees in key scientificdisciplines, the board of directors (BOD)agreed that it is important to reach thesepersons while they are undergoing theiradvanced education. Thus, the policy waschanged to also grant student member statusto those who are enrolled in full timepostgraduate science programs (e.g., MS,PhD, MD, and DVM). Those holding post-

doctoral positions are not eligible. Addi-tionally, a graduate student with a MS de-gree may request voting member statuswhile enrolled as a student member.

This policy is effective immediately.A description of the new requirements forstudent membership will be included on themembership application page in the Septem-ber issue of the Quarterly.

Group ratesThis next item is for those who participatein organizations that have interests whichare compatible with those of the CRS. TheBOD has established a group rate of $27each ($35 for foreign members) when 10 ormore new memberships are submitted to-gether. The payment must consist of a singlecheck or credit card charge for the entireamount. An individual application formmust be provided for each new member.

Examples of those who might benefitfrom the group rate include members oflocal creation groups, Sunday school class-es, Christian school science classes, highschool creation clubs, etc. If you havequestions regarding the procedures to qual-ify for group rates, please contact the mem-bership secretary: members@creationresearch.org 816-279-2312

Increase of annual membershipand subscription feesEffective September 1, 2006, the basicmembership annual dues will be increasedby $3, with other membership and subscrip-tion categories adjusted accordingly. Thenew rates will be:

• Voting Regular $35 Senior $30

• Sustaining Regular $35 Senior $30

• Student $30

• Subscriber $38

Additionally, the postage surcharge for for-eign members and subscribers will be in-creased to $8 per year.

This new fee structure will offset re-cently-incurred cost increases for printingand postage. As has been our practice, eachmembership will continue to automaticallyinclude a subscription to both the CreationResearch Society Quarterly and CreationMatters. We appreciate the continued sup-port by our members and subscribers whochoose to renew each year.

Creation MattersISSN 1094-6632

Volume 11, Number 4July / August 2006

Copyright © 2006 Creation Research SocietyAll rights reserved.

General Editor: Glen W. WolfromFor membership / subscription information,

advertising rates,and information for authors:

Glen W. Wolfrom, EditorP.O. Box 8263

St. 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.

Now Availablein the

CRS Online Store

GiftCertificatesShop at the CRS store

www.CRSbooks.org

Order from:

CRS Books6801 N. Highway 89

Chino Valley, AZ 86323

877-CRS-BOOK

www.crsbooks.org

Creation Matters

Part 4—Commercial Vegetable Crops...continued from page 1

tiny (7 mm, or 0.3 inches in length) waspparasitoid, Cotesia glomerata, which candestruct up to 75% of the cabbagewormpopulation on cole plants (vanNouhuys, n.d.).

In a study employing Brusselssprouts (Brassica oleracea), it wasfound that the oral secretions from afeeding cabbageworm induced therelease of attractant volatiles(Mattiacci et al., 1995). While eating,the larva often may be sealing its owndoom! These researchers, after con-siderable chemical analyses, pro-posed that the elicitor in the

dase. Mechanically damaged leavescoated with regurgitant resulted inthe attraction of C. glomerata. Thiswork is similar to the one reviewed previ-ously by Williams and Howe (2005), exceptthat it involves different elicitors and waspparasitoids.

Lima beans, cucumbers, andmitesThe two-spotted spider mite(Tetranychus urticae) herbivore candamage many different plants. It feedson more than 180 plant species inoutdoor and greenhouse environ-ments. The mite (Figure 2) employsits mouth parts to penetrate certainplant tissue. The contents of plantcells are then sucked upward throughthe mouth parts, providing nutritionfor the herbivore.

When lima beans (Phaseolus lu-natus) are attacked by the two-spottedspider mite, the plants release, denovo, a complex mixture of volatiles— several terpenoids, two terpenes,and methyl salicylate (Dicke et al., 1999)— to attract a predatory mite, Phytoseiuluspersimilis. The release of defensive volatilesoccurs throughout the entire plant, not justfrom the herbivore-damaged leaves. Whenonly mechanical damage occurs to plantleaves, only minute quantities of volatilesare released compared to herbivore-dam-aged plants.

The predator, P. persimilis, is onlyabout 0.5 mm (0.02 inches) in length, yet itis larger than its prey. It is orange to reddishorange in color and moves rapidly (Hoffman

and Frodsham, 1993). Under certain condi-tions it can completely eliminate its prey onvarious crops.

Cucumber plants (Cucumis sativus),upon attack by the two-spotted spider mite,

respond by releasing gases which are differ-ent from those of lima bean plants. Twoterpenoids, three oximes, and three nitrilesattract P. persimilis. Terpenoids are consid-ered major predator attractants, but eachplant species appears to emit a specificmixture and composition of volatiles. Vari-

ous plant species, and possibly differentcultivars of the same species, release variedmixtures and compositions of volatiles toattract predators (Takabayashi et al., 1994).

The same species of plant may releasespecific mixtures to attract specific preda-tors. The plant appears to avoid attractingpredators that do not feed on the particularherbivore pest that is damaging its leaves.Obviously, this suggests that a well-coordi-nated defense system is operating in plants.It is likely also that predators are well-tuned

to detect, locate, and attack a desirable prey.There is no reason to believe that controlsystems like these arose by evolution.

Potato plantsOne of the serious enemies of potato plants

is the Colorado potato beetle(Leptinotarsa decemlineata). Infesta-tions of this beetle can ruin potato(Solanum tuberosum) crops. Leavesof the potato plant are eaten by adultand larva (Jacques and Fasulo, 2005;Kuhar et al., 2005) (Figures 3 and 4)which also eat other members of thenightshade family (eggplant, tomato,and pepper plants, to name a few). Thepreferred host of the beetle, however,is the potato. The beetles reproducerapidly, often presenting potato farm-ers with a taxing problem.

A predator of the Colorado potatobeetle is the two-spotted stink bug

(Figure 5). We discussed the Southern greenstink bug as a “bad guy” in Part 3 of thisseries (Williams and Howe, 2006), whereasthe two-spotted stink bug (Perillus biocula-tus) is a “good guy.” It will consume bothlarvae and eggs of the potato beetle herbi-vore. Potato plants under beetle attack emit

volatiles to attract the two-spottedstink bug. A large variety of com-pounds is released, including greenleaf volatiles (six-carbon hexenolsand hexenals; Gatehouse, 2002), ter-penes, terpenoids, alcohols, and alde-hydes.

Terpenoids are the major group inthe mixture (Weissbecker et al.,2000). The predators of herbivoresmay respond to a large number ofblended components from variousplants. Mechanical damage can causepotato plants to release only smallamounts of volatiles for only a shortperiod of time (~1 hour), whereas

herbivore damage results in large amountsof gases being emitted over a sustained timeperiod.

Unfortunately, if a large number ofColorado potato beetles appear in a season,the natural defenses of the plant are over-whelmed (Kuhar et al., 2005) in what wecall a “revenge of the herbivores.” Theremay be a lack of predator population toeffectively control the beetle “outbreak.”Similar epidemic circumstances may de-velop in herbivore populations involvingother plants.

Figure 2. Two-spotted spider mite life cycle — adults, larvae,and eggs are seen in this image. Photographer, Whitney Cran-shaw, Colorado State University. Image no. 1325020.

Figure 3. Colorado potato beetle larvae. Photographer, Da-vid Riley, University of Georgia. Image no. 2511028.

No. 4 July / August 2006

ConclusionsMuch of the reported information on thissubject should be treated as tentative, andreaders are cautioned that concepts in thisfield can change over time and followingmore experimentation. Researchersoften disagree over each others’ work.Some conclusions may be based ononly limited experimentation. Allagree, however, that the plant-carni-vore-herbivore relationship is ex-tremely complex.

Such an amazing interacting pro-cess asks much of natural selectionand/or random events. Suppose theherbivore of a plant, evolutionarilyspeaking, developed before the plant-carnivore interaction. Is it not likelythat the plant could have becomeextinct before the needed defenseswere produced millions of years later?

The interaction of plant, herbi-vore, predator, and/or parasitoid is awell-timed process of biochemicalchain reactions. This dilemma is solvedevolutionarily by proposing of coevolutionof the interactions. It is postulated that theherbivore-predator, and possibly the plant-herbivore-predator system evolvedsimultaneously! This belief that de-sign and intelligent planning occur bynatural selection is not natural at all.It is as if nature, itself, looked aheadand produced the proper relationships.The odds against such cooperation’soriginating by random events are quitelarge, perhaps large enough to pre-clude its occurring in the real world.

We think the Creator knows theend from the beginning and that Heplanned, designed, and sustains thesecomplex systems. This is the onlyreasonable origins position, eventhough the supernatural has been ruledout by materialists. Voiding this pos-sible and reasonable explanation, suchscientists prefer self-invented schemes,man-made idols, in preference to the mostsensible solution—Creation.

GlossaryCole plants: various plants of the genusBrassica

Green leaf volatiles: generally comprisingsix-carbon aldehydes, alcohols, and estersemitted by plants

Methyl salicylate: oil of wintergreen

Nitriles: class of compounds with the gen-

Oxime: any compound containing the group

Terpenes: compounds consisting of five-

carbon isoprene units joined together in aregular pattern, usually head-to-tail

Terpenoids: similar to terpenes, assembled

and modified in many ways; well-knownterpenoids include menthol and camphor

ReferencesEditor’s note: All photos used by permission,www.forestryimages.com

Dicke, M., R. Gols, D. Ludeking, and M.A. Posthu-mus. 1999. Jasmonic acid and herbivory differ-entially induce carnivore-attracting plantvolatiles in lima bean plants. Journal of Chemi-cal Ecology 25:1907–1922.

Gatehouse, J.A. 2002. Plant resistance towards insectherbivores: A dynamic interaction. New Phytol-

ogist 156:145–169.Hoffman, M.P. and A.C. Frodsham. 1993. Natural

Enemies of Vegetable Insect Pests. CooperativeExtension, Cornell University. Ithaca, NY.[cited in Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acarina: Phy-toseiidae), Weeden, C.R., A.M. Shelton, Y. Liand, M.P. Hoffmann (editors). Biological Con-

trol: A Guide to Natural Enemies in NorthAmerica. Cornell University.www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/biocontrol/predators/phytoseiulus_persimilis.html (accessed 19July 2006).]Jacques, R.L., Jr. and T.R. Fasulo. 2005.

Featured Creatures: Colorado potatobeetle.http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/veg/leaf/potato_beetles.htm (accessed 19 July 2006).

Kuhar, T.P., J. Speese, III, E.R. Day, andR.J. Cordero. 2005. Colorado potatobeetle. Virginia Cooperative ExtensionPublication 444-012. Agriculture andExtension Communications, VirginiaTech.

Mattiacci, L., M. Dicke and M.A. Posthu-

herbivore-induced plant odor that attractshost-searching parasitic wasps. Proceed-ings of the National Academy of Sciencesof USA 92:2036–2040.

Pare, P.W. and J.H. Tumlinson. 1999. Plantvolatiles as a defense against insect her-bivores. Plant Physiology 121:325-331.

Takabayashi, J., M. Dicke and M.A. Posthu-mus. 1994. Volatile herbivore-inducedterpenoids in plant-mite interactions:Variation caused by biotic and abioticfactors. Journal of Chemical Ecology20:1329–1354.

van Nouhuys, S.D. n.d. Cotesia(=Apanteles) glomerata (Hymenoptera:Braconidae) in Weeden, C.R., A.M.Shelton, Y. Li and, M.P. Hoffmann(editors). Biological Control: A Guide toNatural Enemies in North America. Cor-nell University.www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/biocontrol/parasitoids/cotesia.html (accessed 19 July2006).

Weissbecker, B., J.A. Van Loon, M.A. Post-humus, H.J. Bouwmeester, and M.Dicke. 2000. Identification of volatilepotato sesquiterpenoids and their olfac-tory detection by the two-spotted stinkbug, Perillus bioculatus. Journal ofChemical Ecology 25:1433–1445.

Williams, E.L. and G.F. Howe. 2005. Herbi-vores and plant volatiles: Part 2—Caterpillar oral secretions induce volatilerelease by host plants to attract wasp par-asitoids. Creation Matters 10(5):1.

Williams, E.L. and G.F. Howe. 2006. Herbivores andplant volatiles: Part 3—Egg parasitoids,an introduction. Creation Matters 11(2):1, 6-8.

Wolfrom, G. 1992. Plant communication: “Callingall wasps.” Creation Research Society Quar-terly 28:156.

Figure 4. Colorado potato beetle adult. Photographer, Clem-son University — USDA Cooperative Extension Slide Series.Image no. 1435024.

Figure 5. Two-spotted stink bug adult. Photographer, LouisTedders, USDA Agricultural Research Service. Image no.1223096.

Creation Matters

Speaking of ScienceCommentaries on recent news from science

Editor’s note: All S.O.S. (Speaking of Science) items in this issue are kindly provided by DavidCoppedge. Opinions expressed herein are his own. Additional commentaries and reviews ofnews items by David, complete with hyperlinks to cited references, can be seen at:www.creationsafaris.com/crevnews.htm. Unless otherwise noted, emphasis is added in allquotes.

A Second Code Controls the DNA Code

M ore has been discovered about the histone or nu-cleosome code, a second genetic code independent

of the DNA genetic sequence that directs the formation ofproteins. The New York Times (Wade, 2006) reported onwork by scientists at Northwestern University who foundthat the wrapping of DNA around nucleosomes (made ofproteins, called histones, with varying “tails” of atoms)follows a pattern that regulates how genes are expressed.These patterns determine where transcription factors bind

to the DNA:

The pattern is a combination of sequences that makes iteasier for the DNA to bend itself and wrap tightly arounda nucleosome.  But the pattern requires only some of thesequences to be present in each nucleosome binding site, soit is not obvious.  The looseness of its requirements ispresumably the reason it does not conflict with the geneticcode, which also has a little bit of redundancy or wiggleroom built into it. (emphasis added)

The transcription factors are prevented from binding to the wronggenes when they are wrapped around parts of the nucleosome thatmake them inaccessible. The news story states that this code is highlyconserved (i.e., unevolved) in all living organisms:

The nucleosome is made up of proteins known as histones,which are among the most highly conserved in evolution,meaning that they change very little from one species toanother.  A histone of peas and cows differs in just 2 of its102 amino acid units.  The conservation is usually attributedto the precise fit required between the histones and the DNAwound around them.  But another reason, Dr. Segal sug-gested, could be that any change would interfere with thenucleosomes’ ability to find their assigned positions onthe DNA. (emphasis added)

Yet the phenomenon might just as well be interpreted as intelligentdesign instead of evolution.  In fact, Wade uses the “D word” at theend of the article, when describing how this new code explains amystery about DNA; viz., why there is redundancy in the number ofcodons that code for a given amino acid:

Biologists have long speculated that the redundancy mayhave been designed so as to coexist with some other kindof code … And this, Dr. Segal said, could be the nucleosomecode. (emphasis added)

The work is done by specialists in “computational biology” — afield of study more appropriate for design-thinking than for evolution-ary-speculating.  If Darwinists started computing the probability ofevolution, they would get discouraged real fast.Wade, N. 2006. Scientists Say They’ve found a code beyond genetics in DNA.

The New York Times, nytimes.com, posted July 25.www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/science/25dna.html?ex=1154059200&en=3c74802e232270b0&ei=5087%0A

SETI: Shut Up and KeepLooking

O n Space.com, Seth Shostak of the SETIInstitute answered the critics who think

they’re “barking up the wrong tree.”  Well-meaning people send him emails explainingwhy there is “still no confirmed chitter fromthe cosmos” after 46 years of looking.  The top fourinclude: (1) aliens use more advanced technology, (2)the Fermi Paradox means nobody’s there, (3) the aliens aren’t inter-ested in us warlike primitives, and (4) the real aliens are in the ZetaReticuli system.

His basic answer (in our words): we’ve only begun the search.Unless you can come up with better strategy that works, pitch in andhelp.  We’ve got a lot of stars to go.

Maybe there’s a bright side to this SETI business.  It keeps a lotof pesky Darwinists occupied and out of trouble.  This is fine as longas their acronym S.E.T.I. employs another: O.P.M. (other people’smoney).Shostak, S. 2006. Is SETI barking up the wrong tree? Space.com, posted 20 July.

www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_thursday_060720.html

Is This Frog MarrowReally 10 Million YearsOld?

L iveScience reported the finding ofintact bone marrow from fossils of

frogs and salamanders.  Without blinking aneye, reporter Ker Than (2006) croaked that themarrow is ten million years old.  Compare this discovery with theintact soft tissue and blood cells found in a T. rex specimen last year,he said:

The discovery raises hopes for finding soft tissue in otherregions and from other animals, including mammals,[Maria] McNamara [University College, Dublin] says, be-cause the amphibian bone marrow was discovered in anenvironment vastly different form the one in which the T.rex soft tissue was found. (emphasis added)

The article also surmises that many more examples of soft tissueand marrow may lie undetected in museum specimens.  See also thereport by National Geographic News, which says the marrow isorganically preserved and even maintains the original color.

Never question what the scientists say; that’s how symbiosisbetween the media and the Gurus of Knowledge is maintained.  Ithelps preserve the social order.  Imagine the chaos that might ensueif unbelievers started finding soft tissue in fossils from differentenvironments all over the world. It might throw the whole evolutionarydating scheme into a cocked hat and start a revolution.  Enforcedconformity may subvert freedom of thought, but it keeps the peace.Than, K. 2006. Rare discovery: Fossilized bone marrow is 10 million years old.

LiveScience.com, posted 24 July.www.livescience.com/animalworld/060724_fossil_bonemarrow.html

No. 4 July / August 2006

Lovett, R.A. 2006. Fossils yield 10-million-year-old bone marrow — A first. Na-tional Geographic News, posted July 25.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060725-fossil-bone.html

Bear-Tooth DNA Yields New Date Record:400,000 Years

A ccording to a story posted on Yahoo News, Swedish scientistsfound intact DNA in a bear tooth claimed to be 400,000 years

old.  The team leader remarked:

It is usually hard to find DNA that is older than 100,000years, and work on fossilized DNA mostly focuses on mate-rial that is a few tens of thousands of years old, at most.

Is it credible to believe these fragile molecules could survive formore than a few thousand years, let alone half a million?  If and whenthey find DNA in dinosaur soft tissue, one might think that evolutionarydating is going to be stretched to the snapping point.  But we’ve alreadyseen that evolutionary dating is as flexible as a cartoon superhero.Anonymous. 2006. 400,000-year-old DNA found in bear tooth. Yahoo News,

posted July 14.http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060714/sc_afp/swedenspainscience_060714171218

Likely, Evolution May Be a Fact,Presumably

W hen reading evolutionary science papers, one getsthe feeling there are more than the usual number

of words indicating conjecture, doubt and uncertainty.We decided to check this out in the July 11 issue ofCurrent Biology.  Scans for the words perhaps, probably,might, possibly, likely, may, apparently, seem, and

presumably,and their derivatives, were conducted on four papers —two papers dealing with evolutionary research, and two papers ofsimilar length that did not concern evolution.  On average, the twoevolutionary papers had 3.7 times as many conjecture words than didthe non-evolutionary ones.

Here are some quotes as examples (emphasis added):

The phylogenetic distribution of some of these mutationsindicates that they probably occurred before the divergenceof the two groups of whales.

Trichromatic colour vision in monkeys probablyevolved from an ancestral dichromacy present within thearboreal environment of early primates, where the drivingforce was the ability to distinguish the redness of ripe fruitsor reddish young leaves from a green background of foliageof highly variable luminance.

...this is therefore a possible explanation for the evolu-tion of colour vision so early in vertebrate evolution.

The intriguing possibility is, therefore, that in markedcontrast to placental mammals, the RH2 opsin gene has beenretained and is expressed in these marsupials.

Animals have evolved their visual sensitivity to matchaspects of their photic environment, and it is likely that theprimary adaptive selective pressure is the spectral range andintensity of daylight.

Why these losses have occurred is not immediatelyapparent.  Superficially, as these animals are all nocturnal,it could be concluded that colour vision is of little functional

significance and that the loss of the SWS1 cones is thereforeof little consequence.  However, many of these species haveclose relatives that are also nocturnal but retain both conetypes and presumably exhibit dichromacy.

Ironically, the same issue contained an editorial by Nigel Williamsthat began (emphasis added), “As creationists seek to increase theirinfluence on the scientific agenda, the world’s leading scientists urgedschools and colleges last month to stop denying the facts of evolu-tion.”  He then spoke out against public schools where “scientificevidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolutionof life on Earth are being concealed, denied or confused with theoriesnot testable by science.”

There’s the shell game.  Evolutionists preach about science andcriticize faith — but look at their research.  This is why Colin Patterson,in a moment of frankness, asked his evolutionary colleagues if theycould point to one thing about evolution that they knew was true.  Allhe got was silence.

Four papers from one journal, of course, do not represent astatistical sample, but maybe this anecdotal evidence can interestsomeone in performing a larger study on the comparative numbers ofconjecture words between evolutionary papers and research papers onobservable, testable lab science.

Cell Untangles Its Own DNA

D NA is packed like spaghetti in a basketball, butmust constantly be accessed by transcribers,

duplicators, and other molecular machines.  Scientistsat the Karolinska Institute, according to EurekAlert,have found a complex of protein machines that knowhow to untangle DNA (Anonymous, 2006).  Machinesthat can keep DNA from separating too early(cohesins) and keep DNA coils compact (condensins)have been studied extensively, but these scientistslooked more at another mechanism.  When they arti-ficially perturbed DNA strands, the machines went towork fixing the damage:

The research group has studied the third, less well understood,protein complex, known as the Smc5/6 complex.  This proteincomplex was found to bind to locations on the DNA strandthat the researchers had artificially damaged, suggesting thatit is directly involved in the repair process.  Moreover, theSmc5/6 complex also seems to be required for the disen-tanglement of undamaged chromosomes before cell divi-sion.  If these tangles, which are a natural consequence ofthe DNA copying process, are left unresolved the chromo-somes cannot be separated and sent to the two nascentdaughter cells.  Like in the repair process, the Smc5/6complex appears to resolve these intertwines by directinteraction with the DNA molecules, but this process isdifferently regulated as compared to the function in repair.(emphasis added)

The press release starts with a “wow” factoid: “Every second, thecells constituting our bodies are replaced through cell division.  Anadult human consists of about 50,000 billion cells, 1% of which dieand are replaced by cell division every day.”  Machines like the Smc5/6complex are essential to maintaining our genomic integrity.

So, evolutionists, please tell us again about how this all workedout in the mythical RNA world when none of these repair and main-tenance mechanisms had yet accidentally emerged.

Creation Matters

Anonymous. 2006. A protein complex that untangles DNA. EurekAlert, posted15 July. www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-07/ki-apc070306.php

Eye Can See Clearly Now

T he cornea has no blood vessels.  That’s weird.But it’s a good thing, or we would be looking

through a network of threadlike strands all the time.According to EurekAlert, scientists at Scheppens EyeInstitute decided to find out how the cornea staysclear.  They found that it is heavily stocked with aspecial protein, VEGFR-3, that halts the normal pro-gression of angiogenesis (blood vessel growth) thatoccurs in all other tissues of the body except cartilage.

If this were the only thing allowing us to see clearly, it would beamazing enough, but it’s just the tip of the eyeball.  For example, thereis an enzyme that helps to degrade the organelles in the cells of thelens to maintain its transparency. In mice, failure of the enzyme resultsin cataracts (Seydel, 2003).Anonymous. 2006. Scientists discover why cornea is transparent and free of

blood vessels, allowing vision. EurekAlert, posted 17 July.www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-07/seri-sdw071406.php

Seydel, C. 2003. A clear look at cataracts. ScienceNow, posted 27 August.http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2003/827/4

Darwinists Foment CivilDisobedience againstQuestioning Darwinism

T he new science standards in Kansas requirestudents to learn more about evolution, includ-

ing evidence for and against it (Anonymous, 2005).  Thestandards specifically exclude the teaching of intelligent design theory.To some activist groups, however, this requirement is so intolerable,they want teachers to disobey it.  According to Crowther (2006), thereis a campaign of misinformation about the standards, especially from“Kansas Citizens for Science,” including calls for teachers to disregardthem.

In response, the Discovery Institute has launched a new website,Stand Up for Science (www.standupforscience.com/), trying to correctthe misrepresentations with fact sheets and resources.  It includes apetition for citizens to join forces in supporting the new standards.According to Discovery Institute (Anonymous, 2005), Kansas joinsfour other states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Minnesota)and numerous local school boards requiring critical analysis of evolu-tion.

What will the ACLU do now?  They don’t have a legal leg tostand on, since (unlike the Dover case) there is no requirement to teachany alternatives to Darwinism.  This puts the Darwin Party in theuntenable position of having to argue that a biological theory shouldbe taught dogmatically.  Science is supposed to be the opposite ofdogmatism.

Anyone who thinks evolution is not controversial among parents,students and teachers and among scientists themselves hasn’t beenpaying attention.  When the evolution-as-fact-only crowd’s only courseof action is to lie and disobey, it tells you they have no legal groundsfor opposing the standards, and — most of all — no evidential casefor arguing that evolution is so obvious and factual that it is beyondscrutiny and therefore must be taught as dogma.Anonymous. 2005. Kansas becomes fifth state to allow teaching of scientific crit-

icism of evolution in public schools. Discovery Institute News, posted 7 No-

vember.www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3010

Crowther, R. 2006. Darwinists waging war on Kansas over evolution, encourag-ing schools to disobey state education guidelines. Evolution New & Views,posted 7 July.

Nature Gives Top Blog Honors toRadical Atheists

P . Z. Myers (U of Minnesota) has been one ofthe most foul-mouthed critics of creation, in-

telligent design and religion in general.  He has saidthat Abraham was worse than Hitler (Myers, 2005c).  Hehas ridiculed the crucifixion of Christ (Myers, 2005d).  Hisopinion on how to treat anti-evolutionists (Myers, 2005b):

I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric.  It’stime for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots andbrass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on thelunatics and idiots.

Yet this man’s blog, Pharyngula, was given top honors by Naturein its list of the the five top science blogs on the Internet (Anonymous,2006).  Second with the silver medal was Panda’s Thumb, anotherstrongly anti-ID blog to which Myers also contributes.  Once, heresponded on Panda’s Thumb about the stridency of his remarks(Myers, 2005a):

Please don’t try to tell me that you object to the tone of ourcomplaints.  Our only problem is that we aren’t martialenough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angryenough.  The only appropriate responses should involve someform of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the publicfiring and humiliation of some teachers, many schoolboard[sic] members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians.

Now you know where Nature’s heart is.  It has not changed muchsince it originated as Darwin’s mouthpiece in 1867, except that beforeevolution gained absolute power, they had to talk nicer and pretendto be interested in truth.  This does not disparage the many workingscientists, who submit their papers faithfully for publication to as widean audience as possible, when they have done good lab work in theirspecialty; but it shows you the mindset of the editorial board.  If theyendorse Myers’ kind of attitude as the way to carry on scientificdiscussions of controversial issues, do they have a case?Anonymous. 2006. Top five science blogs. news@nature.com, posted 5 July.

www.nature.com/news/2006/060703/full/442009a.htmlMyers, P.Z. 2005a. Comment #35130. Panda’s Thumb, posted 14 June.

www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/06/a_new_recruit.html#comment-35130

Myers, P.Z. 2005b. Perspective. Pharyngula, posted 4 August.http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/perspective/

Myers, P.Z. 2005c. So let's make sure it doesn't get that bad here. Pharyngula,posted 10 December.http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/so_lets_make_sure_it_doesnt_get_that_bad_here/

Myers, P.Z. 2005d. Benny was kind of passionate, I guess. Pharyngula, posted11 December.http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/benny_was_kind_of_passionate_i_guess/

No. 4 July / August 2006

paid advertisement

Creation Calendar

August 25–27Grand Canyon 3-Day Rafting TripCanyon Ministries (Tom Vail) and Creation Safaris (David Coppedge)

Registration: $710 per person (call or email for details)Contact: David Coppedge, (661)298-3685 bwana@creationsafaris.com

August 31–September 2Grand Canyon Rafting Trip with guide Tom Vail

Arizona Origin Science Association, Inc.Registration: $710 per person (call or email for details)Contact: Joseph, (480)540-8953 www.azosa.org/

October 14A Survey of Geology of Arizona and the Salt River Valley From a

Biblical Perspective by Jim Clarke, MSE Arizona Origin Science Association, Inc. 3 PM Calvary Community Church 7 PM East Valley Bible Church

Contact: Roger Heyen, RHeyen@cox.net (623) 581-7586October 31

Sixth International Conference on CreationismDeveloping and Systematizing the Creation Model of Origins

[to be held August 4–6, 2008]Contact: Dr. Andrew A. Snelling,

P.O. Box 1208, Springwood, Qld 4127 Australia aasnelling@ozemail.com.au

November 4 Arizona Origin Science Association, Inc.

The Demise of Darwinism by Frank Sherwin, ICR 3 PM Calvary Community Church

Evolution is Against The Law! by Frank Sherwin, ICR 7 PM Chandler Bible Church

Contact: Roger Heyen, RHeyen@cox.net (623) 581-75862007June 7 - 9

Annual Meeting of Board of Directors Creation Research Society Prescott, AZ

Note: Items in “Creation Calendar” are for information only; the listing of an event does not necessarily imply endorsement by the Creation Research Society.

Creation Matters

Creation Research SocietyP.O. Box 8263

St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263USA

Address Service Requested

Creation Matters

Nonprofit Org.US Postage

PAIDCreation Research Society

July / August 2006Vol. 11 No. 4

All by Design by Jonathan C. O’Quinn, D.P.M., M.S.

G eckos, a group of colorful, fat-bodiedlizards, are the heaviest animals thatcan walk effortlessly, even upside-

down, on the smoothest of surfaces. Re-searchers have identified a complex attach-ment system on the soles of gecko feet thatmakes this possible.

The sole of a gecko’s foot containsroughly one billion microscopic hairs, called“spatulae,” each about 200 nm in length andwidth. These are neatly arranged upon larg-er, finger-like projections called “setae,”each about one-tenth the diameter of a hu-

lie in organized rows that sit upon largerfolds of tissue called “lamellae,” visible tothe naked eye as tiny folds on the sole ofthe gecko’s foot.

What the gecko’s feet do is take advan-tage of water, which is present as a verythin film on every terrestrial surface in whatis called a “monolayer,” even in dry cli-

mates. The“stickiness” of agecko’s feet in-creases with in-creasing humidity,up to a certain point.Though it is not yet clearwhether this phenomenonis due to capillaryforces and hydrogenbonding, or to vander Waals forces,or perhaps both, itis clear that this isa complicated,highly-ordered biological sys-tem that takes advantage ofatomic and chemical proper-ties of even the slightestamount of water in the environment.

As such, it could not have evolved instages due to random chance, as evolution-ists claim. Rather, this suggests a planned

and intentional design by an intelligentCreator.

Bibliography:1. Huber, G., et al. 2005. Evidence for capillary con-

tributions to gecko adhesion from single spatulananomechanical measurements. Proc. Nat.Acad. Sci. 102:16293–16296.

2. Huber, G., et al. 2005. Resolving the nanoscaleadhesion of individual gecko spatulae byatomic force microscopy. Biol. Lett. 1:2–4.

Left to right: Danny Faulkner, Kevin Anderson*, GlenWolfrom, Russ Humphreys, Mike Oard, Ted Aufdem-

berge, Mark Armitage, Gene Chaffin, Ron Samec, DaveKaufmann, Gary Locklair, Dave Rodabaugh, Emmett

Williams*, George Howe, and Don DeYoung.

Not present: John Reed

* Kevin Anderson (Director of the Van Andel Creation Re-search Center) is a professional staff member who is located atthe VACRC, Chino Valley, AZ. Emmett Williams is a former

board member.