Remarkable Miniaturization Designs In Nature

How much specified complexity can an organism have which is smaller than a one-celled animal? Well, organisms like little tiny wasps with muscles, nerves, a digestive system, and a brain! Science daily reports…

“This is the first time the flight behaviour of the parasitic wasp is observed, which is used as biological crop protector that kills the eggs from which harmful caterpillars grow. It was known that parasitic wasps hitchhike on top of larger insects, such as butterflies, but until now nobody had seen how the wasps were able to fly to the butterflies and their eggs. The high speed movies show how the parasitic wasp jumps up into the air, elegantly flaps around, and then somehow lands — the insect sometimes boldly lands face-first.”

What enables these designs of Fairy wasps to remain so small? The answer is, they have no no nucleus rather 95 percent consists of 7,400 neurons. Physorg reports…

“A cell’s nucleus is of course, usually pretty important, it’s where the DNA is generally stored after all. It’s also usually the part of the cell that runs things, like causing a replenishment of proteins to keep cells alive, etc. This of course got the researchers to wondering how an insect could survive if most of its neurons had no nucleus.”

“The secret, the team writes, lies in the fact that the insect is so small, that neurons (with nuclei intact) that develop during the pupa stage apparently make enough protein to last the full five days of its adulthood, so, not needing them any longer, all but a few hundred of the nuclei are destroyed by bursting, making the cell smaller and saving room for other more important cells. The team notes that this is the first recorded instance of neurons existing in the wild without benefit of nuclei.”

Here is another, the government decides to give you an important job. This job consists of miniaturization technology and your job is to build an aircraft that can fly 18,000 miles and yet only weigh an ounce! Impossible you think? Perhaps for an aircraft but not for a tiny little bird weighing less than an ounce! This little creature has amazed scientists and observers alike with its migratory journeys.

Physorg reports on this incredible bird, known as the Northern Wheateater…

“The Alaskan birds spent the winter in Africa before returning back home, a journey of about 14,500 kms (9,000 miles) each way, in which they flew on average 290 kms (181 miles) a day. They travelled over Siberia and across the Arabian desert, heading to Sudan, Uganda and Kenya, a trip that took about 91 days on the outward trip but 55 days for the return leg.”

A tagged bird from Baffin Island flew over the North Atlantic, landed in Britain, travelled southwards across continental Europe, the Mediterranean and Sahara to winter on the coast of Mauritania, West Africa, taking 26 days out and 55 days back for a trip of about 7,500 kms (4,700 miles).”

“They are incredible migratory journeys, particularly for a bird this size,” said Ryan Norris of the University of Guelph in Ontario. “Think of something smaller than a robin but a little larger than a finch raising young in the Arctic tundra and then a few months later foraging for food in Africa for the winter.”

“The study appears on Wednesday in Biology Letters, a journal published by the Royal Society, Britain’s de-facto academy of sciences.”

A bird that looks like a staving sparrow with tiny wings is still able to fly across the world is quite amazing! Living organisms have a lot of diversity and specialized complexity which is only possible with existing embedded information that falsifies any Darwinian expectations. Miniaturization designs in nature are remarkable, thanks to God!

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Remarkable Miniaturization Designs In Nature

  1. “The high speed movies show how the parasitic wasp jumps up into the air, elegantly flaps around, and then somehow lands — the insect sometimes boldly lands face-first.”

    Only a creationist could think a total face-plant is good design because it’s the real world variant of their rhetorical technique: take a huge leap of logic and then fall flat on their collective face.

    Living organisms have a lot of diversity and specialized complexity which is only possible with existing embedded information that falsifies any Darwinian expectations.

    And these “Darwinian expectations” would be… and which biologists predicted these so-called “expectations”?

  2. Living organisms have a lot of diversity and specialized complexity which is only possible with existing embedded information that falsifies any Darwinian expectations.

    Please define “specialized complexity.”

    Then define “existing embedded information.”

    THEN answer Nullifidian’s questions.

    .

    Oh, and you might list your qualifications for discussing any of these subjects.

  3. Thanks, Michael for this interesting article, I have enjoyed your analogy, what was previously invisible is now seen. God is invisible to physical eyes but seen clearly with spiritual hearts. This is the chief purpose of man who was made for God’s pleasure and to give glory where glory is due. Many want a god or a theory made for man’s pleasure and to give glory to the scientist or creation rather than the Creator . To see these mini complexities at every level, creatures designed with astounding purpose and engineering as The Bible predicted long ago “what is seen was made from things that are invisible”. Man is still constantly being surprised of nature, why? if these things were expected we should be unimpressed and say ho hum bad design. When things look designed they most likely are whether we think it is good or bad is irrelevant until we can explain it better. If a fly falls on it’s face maybe it has a purpose of say latching on or puncturing something? These liitle nasty’s have some knockout punches to solve disputes and do not appear as clumsy as some might think to me. Science discovering nature continually gives us reasons to glorify the Creator who is an infinite source of designs such as these birds, who travel an amazing distance on almost nothing and accomplish great things in such a short time by simply following the design and purposes their Creator programmed into them. We would do good to find out what our designed purpose is from the Bible.
    You said “Living organisms have a lot of diversity and specialized complexity which is only possible with existing embedded information that falsifies any Darwinian expectations.”
    Someone might say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of Darwin’s theory of the origin of species. This reverses the scientific process and puts Darwin’s conclusions and expectations ahead of empirical observations of nature. We can admit we do the same but when we do this there is a purpose for why we presuppose this. We were created to worship the Creator, know of his existence and have a loving friendship with Him. Those who say they do not see Creation are simply suppressing the truth within and without. The expectations of Darwin were likely far from what he expected. Has science since discovered a crude simple common mechanism of gradual change? No everything has been reversed, mind boggling complexity that varies from creature to creature. This is only multiplying the process of explanation to an infinite number of small changes that science has not even begun to discover. Possible mechanisms turn out to be more complex than imagined and related in multiple ways with other processes, try ever so hard to find some simple mechanism that is common to every specialized creature. Modern evolutionary synthesis is attempting to do this and it continues to only add more theories within a theory to disseminate. If a follower of Darwin believed that a structure could never be found that wouldn’t work if any of their component parts were removed it would never destroy his theory and this argument been demonstrated over and over again. Werner Gitt has advanced information theory to describe embedded information as Universal Information and concludes that Dna/Rna or DRPSS are information embedded in living things because of meeting four attributes as outlined in His most recent book, Without Excuse. My qualifications for writing this lengthy reply to my brother Michael’s article is that there is a direct conflict between atheism and Biblical Christianity, subsequently whether a theistic evolutionist can see it or not there is a real spiritual war going on and I am in the Creator’s army not the devolvers army. If anyone happens to try and step between the front lines of a battle they will be wounded in the end by both sides, quickly join to the proven winner Christ Jesus the LORD. Which side are you on the Bible is the other side.

  4. Many want a god or a theory made for man’s pleasure and to give glory to the scientist or creation rather than the Creator .

    You are probably thinking of Francisco Ayala, the prominent evolutionary biologist, outspoken creationist opponent, and ordained Catholic priest who last year won the Templeton Prize. The citation states that he “has vigorously defended scientific theory from the influence of religious belief while also calling for mutual respect between the two.”

    Or perhaps you were thinking of astrophysicist Martin J. Rees, who won the current year’s Templeton Prize. Prof. Rees studies the big bang and the early universe. The Templeton Foundation has this to say: “In turn, the ‘big questions’ [Rees] raises – such as “How large is physical reality?” – are reshaping crucial philosophical and theological considerations that strike at the core of life, fostering the spiritual progress that the Templeton Prize has long sought to recognize.

    The Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, currently $1.5 million, aims to be an equivalent to the Nobel Prize in the spiritual field. It is awarded annually to a living person who “has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works”. The first winner was Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

  5. An example of Richards incoherent drivel—

    If a follower of Darwin believed that a structure could never be found that wouldn’t work if any of their component parts were removed it would never destroy his theory and this argument been demonstrated over and over again.

    An equivalent formulation of this statement is that belief in a lack of irreducible complexity would validate Darwin’s theory, and that no irreducible complexity has been demonstrated..

    Somehow I don’t think that is what he intended.

    My qualifications for writing this lengthy reply to my brother Michael’s article is that there is a direct conflict between atheism and Biblical Christianity,

    Apparently this is Richards only qualification. He certainly exhibits no others.

    By the way, to what does the comment reply? It is totally irrelevant to any of the points made by Nullifidian or me.

    You may “believe” what you like. But please do not mistake your faith for science.

  6. Notice Richard’s word never helps you to comprehend and make sense where you find none if you miss this word you miss the logic.

    Notice Richard’s reply is to his “brother Michael’s article” not directly towards a Olorin or Nullifidian blog comment, though I understand your harsh criticism is a long standing tradition. How he endures it shows a lot of undeserved respect for those who disagree in and criticise him personally in a brutish and childish manner. He never insults his commenters directly from what I have seen though He is often provoked to do so.

    Science or knowledge are connected, and are not strictly limited to physical constraints. A philosophical naturalist (or new-atheist) seems to.believe God cannot exist because nature excludes all possibility of God as real. A circular argument. An off shoot of this circular approach to knowledge is when a person constrains intelligence and information to strictly natural explanations. I believe a Biblical Christian can not separate as you may think spiritual information about Origins from physical.or natural information when Spiritual doctrines are being discussed. Man is not an authority of what science or knowledge can or cannot contain regarding any field of knowledge. You mentioned in a previous post Francisco Ayala and I was suprised after reading his approach to science here is what he was quoted as saying in the New York Times

    “But if God or some other intelligent agent made things this way on purpose, he said, “then he is a sadist, he certainly does odd things and he is a lousy engineer.”

    That is also the message of his latest book, “Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion” (Joseph Henry Press, 2007). In it, he writes that as a theology student in Spain he had been taught that evolution “provided the ‘missing link’ in the explanation of evil in the world” — a defense of God’s goodness and omnipotence, despite the existence of evil.

    This is a way of defining god in man’s image rather than God defining himself and explain himself as he should be given the benefit of the doubt. It suggests that the burden is for man to explain evil rather than seeking God’s own reason’s for evil and suffering. I hope you can admit this is the basic logic here. I have no problem with Dr.Ayala doing this as you said to me “you can believe what you want” but try to speak or answer for the God of the Bible is rather precarious. I would rather trust the explanation for evil given in the Bible as true, One example of this principle found in the Bible is Romans 3:4 “let God be true and every man a liar.” I give Bible doctrine a first hearing on evil or any issue before myself or Fransisco Ayala. I am sure he is a wonderful person and deserves a great deal of respect as a scientist as you mention but feelings are often misguided as we are a fallen creation and can not judge God ourselves. So in summary Fransisco Ayala does not seperate Science and Faith so why should I ?

  7. Notice Richard’s word never helps you to comprehend and make sense where you find none if you miss this word you miss the logic.

    Well, that sentence certainly does not help Olorin comprehend. In fact, the sentence seems to make no sense at all. Anyone?

  8. Sorry, I never type quickly with proper grammar, commas or periods etc. It really can make sense if you look at it carefully and keep that word in mind. Absolutes and even words alone are really interesting numbers, in philosophy, when you try to formulate an opposite of a logical argument, I guess it can turn out as a riddle and the meaning missed especially when you never use commas or periods enough. This newest blog article and paper cited by Michael and full paper link in Olorin post is somewhat a philosophical problem and is relative to this very argument that was missed here to falsify these kinds of mathematical conceptions of absolute never’s at source. Thanks for your patience and sorry for the continued confusion. Hopefully two negatives multiplied makes a positive this time for you. “When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Sherlock Holmes

  9. Sorry, I never type quickly with proper grammar, commas or periods etc.

    I see two alternatives.
    (a) Richard doesn’t know enough grammar to converse intelligently.
    . . . .We may conclude that he is too ignorant to know what he’s talking about.
    (b) He has no respect for his readers
    . . . . We may then believe that he prefers we not know what he’s talking about.
    In either case, there’s not much point in reading a bunch of incoherent drivel.

    This newest blog article and paper cited by Michael and full paper link in Olorin post is somewhat a philosophical problem and is relative to this very argument that was missed here to falsify these kinds of mathematical conceptions of absolute never’s at source.

    Even allowing for the word-salad grammar, Richard has no idea what Smolin is talking about. Most of the words have unspecified referents, and therefore convey no intelligible meaning.

    “When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Sherlock Holmes

    This is the only part of this comment that is intelligible. But of course it’s wrong. It is an egregious example of the logic fallacy of false dilemma.

  10. Wow I’m suprised you missed that again. I was hoping you had a sense of humor and a sense of investigation of the absolute premise never . I gave you one last go at it and apologize for the riddle, it was apparently a good one. The logical fallacy you just pointed out is exactly my point, thanks for pointing that out. I am glad we can agree on something. Now test
    The logic of suppositional naturalism against that. This is what I eluded to in regards to the paper you wanted me to read but I will post over there.

    Cheers :)

  11. I gave you one last go at it and apologize for the riddle, it was apparently a good one.

    Is that what it was? It didn’t make any sense.

    A true riddle contains the answer in the question itself. Here’s a good riddle” “Angry and hungry are two English words that end in -gry. But there are three words in the English language. What is the third?”

    This is what I eluded to in regards to the paper you wanted me to read

    Yet another example of incoherence. Please tell us how “elude” makes any sense at all in your sentence. What are you escaping from—or to?

    Your statement sounds as though you did not read the paper. at all Yet you undertook to discuss its contents. And missed its gravamen entirely.

    Face, it, Richard. It’s obvious to everyone except Michael by now that you are on an ego trip and are in way beyond your depth.. No one is buying the cutsey rationalizations anymore.

    “O vos stupidos, o vos stolidos.” —Fortuna (Carmina Burana)

  12. If the riddle is solved by punctuation”What”, that is exactly my mistake that created the secondary riddle although it was originally formed by reversing a truth by the addition of the word never. That is why I hinted the absolutes and double negatives. Did not mean to do this, but because you seem to like my posts thought I might as well continue to make it fun for you. I am enoying learning about your perspective and hopefully you have learned about mine that is all. I have to tell you the only reason I started conversing with you is you seemed to be a little upset when no one responded to you it goes back to this reply to David written by Olorin.

    “Sigh. Apparently David is another of Michael’s one-shot wonders.

    Like the bear in the forest who eats, shoots, and leaves, he reads, cites creationist swill, and absquatulates.

    ‘Twas ever thus.”

    You know I thought well here is a guy who just wants a chance to practice a little bit of debate with a believer and perhaps I can help him out. You have been very helpful to me, as I have never discussed these things with someone with a belief system like yours before. The comments about me personally that you make, are not mutual. I respect your intelligence and have learned a great deal about you. You are thoughtful in your responses and debate well. I can not agree with you as you can not with me on everything but probably on many things, I have family, neighbors and friends that the same is true of and we treat each other with mutual respect. If we were talking face to face I highly doubt you would continue to judge my motives the same or use the same words. You are right about me being in way beyond my depth, I have no phd no university no science diplomas but simply read when it is winter. I enjoy the subjects from the perspective of a labourer who works in the outdoors 12 months of the year ,which is presently coming back to life and will demand most my time. I have grown as a result of this opportunity to discuss things with someone like you so I thank you. I appreciate Michael for allowing this type of communication to occur so each can learn the why’s about each other’s sides. The Bible is truly the other side.

    Cheers Olorin :)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s