Nat Geo Aug 2009

And yes, had the delight of just sitting back and reading August issue of National Geographic.
I simply just wanted to share about some interesting facts they have in this month’s issue.

1. A deep-sea fish, the barreleye, of the genus Macropinna and species microstoma, is truly a magnificent creature. Living in the depths of up to 2000 feet underwater, this fish has to have eyes well adapted to capturing faint flashes of light; since when you are so deep below, light has to shine from on top, and the barrel eye has a pair of eyes oriented upwards, instead of the more familiar frontwards. It has also nostrils that take a frontward position, easily misinterpreted as eyes.
Now, the paradox created here is this, how can a pair of eyes, oriented in an upward position, look forward to aid the fish in hunting its prey? The answer, obtained from video captured from a remotely operated vehicle shows that the fish has muscles that can prop the eyes in the forward position to help the fish see as it hunts. Interesting indeed.

The Barrel eye; what looks like the eye is actually the nostril

2. In another article, we are told about an idea to shield the earth from the Sun’s powerful rays by introducing trillions of 2-foot wide sun deflectors orbiting a million miles from earth. This would cool the earth by several degrees. The other idea is to engage geoengineering by introducing reflective paricles such as sulphates into the stratosphere, methods of delivery are endless; planes, balloons, guns pointed upwards. This is rather linked to another article on the supervolcano beneath Yellowstone Park in USA.

3. In the millions of years ago, there had been several supervolcanic eruptions, the kind that spewed out gigantic amounts of ash and soot and chemicals into the atmosphere, blanketing as far as across the globe, casting a darkness shadow that chilled the climate, devastated many ecosystems in what is grimly known as a ‘volcanic winter’. The idea of a volcanic winter just does not seem right, winters are supposed to be a time of peaceful serenity; but definitely the volcanic winter isn’t.

4. The other interesting article was about mimicry in nature, I was just fascinated by some of the less conventional methods of mimicry employed in nature; definitely not the typical examples that we commonly encounter. Examples of which include: a parasitic fungi that wishes to free ride on the moist, coolness and safety of a termite mount, achieving so by assuming the shape and texture of termite eggs. Caterpillars that are ‘smart’ enough to chew on leaves in a manner that leaves no tell-tale signs of a caterpillar pillage, potentially dangerous to caterpillars as insectivorous birds flying on top tend to look out for areas of leaves severely attacked by caterpillars, since they signal a strong population of the juicy bug. So these caterpillars resort to eating neatly, strictly by the sides, maneuvering to attain the same shape of the leaves, albeit smaller. This will mislead the birds from thinking that the leaves have been attacked by caterpillars.

And there are also those that hitchhike and hijack. A type of parasite is known to be secreting sweet juices to attract ants to eat them, thereafter while in the abdomen, these parasite will produce chemicals to make the ants’ abdomen appear vivid red, like ripe fruits, therby enticing birds to eat them. When birds defecate, these parasite will repeat the cycle.

But sometimes, when one reads National Geographic, one has to be careful of its inclinations towards Darwinism. In a single paragraph, the author of the article on mimicry was able to pen down his strong attachment to Darwinism in his accounting for the mimicry observed in nature

It writes, and I quote “Of course, even the most cunning of nature’s caricatures have no narrative mastermind behind them. Mimicry exemplifies evolution by natural selection, the relentless struggle in which parents spawn a diversity of offspring that chance and nature’s cruel eye for weakness shear almost clean away. If your slight resemblance to bird dung gives you enough of an edge to guarantee your survival, your progeny may inherit your lucky charm. Maybe one will even top you as a dropping imposter, and within many generations, that trait would have spread to most of the population and become the gold standard for your kind. “

Easier said than done huh, just because appearing like a dung is good for you and you need to appear like a dung to survive does not make you have the capacity to appear like a dung.

I am rather perplexed by the West’s celebration of the ingenuity of the classical science polymaths such as Isaac Newton, Leonardo Da Vinci, Louis Pasteur, Faraday and many others and yet contradict these luminaries in their ever strong emphasis on a Designer who Created with a Plan.

Sure enough, It can be accepted that God in His Mercy give his creature adaptations to live better in an environment, and maybe this part is what they call evolutionism (whether it really is evolution is a debatable matter). But to use such methods to discredit the fact of creation with a design is difficult for me.

They have noted ‘imperfections’ in the world of mimicry. Small spiders that take to appear like army ants have a flaw in their plan, so they say. This is because, with the enlarged spiders’ fangs, these ‘imperfect’ mimics only manage to mimic an ant in a defenseless state, because ants encumbered with bundles (in this case is the enlarged fangs) are least likely to fight back.

This, they claim, is an indication that nature and chance are working on a new lineage of method on how to mimic; a new method embarked on the mimicry path.

They also said that if there are too many imitators, the original will lose value and hence all will have to ‘figure out’ new ways to avoid being prey. The example they gave was the non-poisonous frogs spotting large patches of vivid colours that were meant to warn of toxicity, a warning appropriately adopted by the truly poisonous ones. If, they say, too many non-poisonous frogs take up this approach, the vivid colours that once effectively served as a visual warning to predators will over time lose its value or brand name, since more and more vividly coloured frogs would be perfectly edible and non-poisonous, rendering the method outdated. This is what I call SPOIL MARKET.

But is this evidence enough for Evolution? Adaptation yes, but evolution that can cross species? Not likely. Even so, it may be God’s plan that he allows ‘evolution’ on a micro scale for the sake of adaptation to changing environment and circumstances, but this in no way denies the fact of creation.

And God knows best.