Genesis 1:21
“And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
‘There is a chocolate-covered snack bar in the UK called a Penguin, with a picture of that bird on its wrapper, and for 40 years, TV commercials have urged us to “Pick up a Penguin”. Most of us would like to do just that, as these flightless birds are among our favorites. They seem to have charm in bucket loads, and, for many of us, the penguin enclosure is one of the first ports of call when we visit the zoo. They amuse and delight us with their awkward, waddling gait, but if their enclosure has an underwater viewing window, then their gracefulness enthralls us as they use their wings, appearing to fly through the water.
One British comedian remarked that penguins exist to show men what useless fathers we are. It is true that the males of many penguin species seem to be expert fathers, taking care of chicks and even incubating eggs for their mates.
Evolutionists struggle to understand penguins. The oldest known penguin fossil appears to be just like a modern penguin, despite being given an evolutionary age of 62 million years. They do not appear to be related to any other family of birds. Evolutionists also have no mechanism or explanation for why penguins are only seen in the Southern Hemisphere.
As usual, it makes far more sense to reason that the penguin kind was a separate creation by God, who gave them all their delightful qualities.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/pick-up-a-penguin/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=pick-up-a-penguin&mc_cid=9ea7341aec&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
Genesis 1:25
“And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
‘The okapi is a fascinating animal. It is much shorter than a giraffe, being five feet tall, compared with 18 feet for the giraffe. It is placed by zoologists in the family Giraffidae as the only other extant genus, along with the giraffe. Evolutionists believe that giraffes and okapis have a common ancestor. Creationists consider that, in most cases, the evolutionary family is pretty much equivalent to the created kind, or baramin. So creationists also group giraffes and okapis within the same baramin. Different species are usually identified as being in the same baramin by their ability to hybridize. However, a search of the literature does not reveal any hybridization data. We assume they are in the same baramin by cognitum – i.e., they share so many of the same features by human cognitive senses.
Both animals have the same shaped head. Their teeth are very similar, having the same number and properties. They have the same unusual almost black tongues with which they remove leaves from trees to consume them. But the necks of the okapis are not long. Yet, they stretch their necks in order to reach leaves as high as possible, but only reaching lower branches. One could challenge evolutionists on why okapis did not also evolve longer necks for the same reason as the giraffes did, as they would have increased their food sources. The existence of the okapi is a considerable difficulty for evolutionists to explain.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/the-giraffe-of-the-forest/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-giraffe-of-the-forest&mc_cid=043349151c&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
https://creationresearch.net/ This is part of an email from Creation Research News.
‘DINOSAUR ON WRONG CONTINENT according to reports in Bath University 5 November 2020, Science Alert 6 November 2020, SciTech Daily 7 November 2020, and Cretaceous Research, 2 November 2020; doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2020.104678. An international team of scientists have found fossil jaws and the teeth of a hadrosaur (a “duckbill dinosaur”) in a phosphate mine in Morocco. Using the fossils they estimate the dinosaur was about 3 metres (10ft) long – fairly small for a hadrosaur, but still a large animal. The rock layer it was found in is dated as 66 million years, putting it in the Cretaceous period. The scientists were surprised to find it in Morocco as hadrosaurs are believed to have evolved in North America, a long way from Africa. According to current continental drift theory Africa was separated from other continents by deep oceans hundreds of kilometres wide during the Cretaceous, which would have made it almost impossible for hadrosaurs to migrate to Africa. Nicholas Longrich, of the Milner Centre for Evolution at the University of Bath UK, who led the study said “It was completely out of place, like finding a kangaroo in Scotland. Africa was completely isolated by water – so how did they get there?” According to Longrich “It was impossible to walk to Africa,” so the research team suggested it must have crossed the water by swimming, floating or rafting on debris. Present day ocean crossings by animals such as iguanas and tortoises by rafting are rare, but have been documented. According to the Bath University Press Release, “Duckbills were probably powerful swimmers – they had large tails and powerful legs, and are often found in river deposits and marine rocks, so they may have simply swum the distance”. Nour-Eddine Jalil, from the Natural History Museum of Sorbonne University (France) commented: “The succession of improbable events (crossing an ocean by a dinosaur, fossilization of a terrestrial animal in a marine environment) highlights the rarity of our find and therefore its importance”. (item in brackets in original)
ED .COM. Finding hadrosaur remains in Africa is only a problem for those who believe the story about the evolution of dinosaurs made up by people who were not there to see it happen. BUT this finding is not a problem if you believe the history of the world as set out by the Creator and Judge who created dinosaurs and then judged the world with the world-wide Flood (see Genesis 1-9). When God created the world there was one ocean and one land mass, so dinosaurs could have roamed anywhere in the time between their creation and Noah’s Flood. During that flood all air breathing, land dwelling animals outside the Ark were wiped out. Many dinosaurs were swept up by flood waters (both fresh and saltwater), along with masses of sediment, then dumped and buried. Added to the evidence they were drowned, that explains the finding of dinosaurs in “river deposits and marine rocks”. They did not live in rivers or the sea – they died in flood waters. Ipso facto, such fossils found on different continents are not the evidence of evolution – they are the remains of world-wide destruction.’
‘The platypus is perhaps the most evolution-defying creature on Earth. It’s not enough that it’s a mammal that lays eggs, has a bill like a duck, tail like a beaver, dense fur like an otter, webbed feet for swimming, hunts with its eyes closed underwater using electroreception, and wields venomous spurs, but now we can add “glows in the dark” to the long list of mind-boggling traits.1
Biofluorescence is a glow-in-the-dark phenomenon in which short wavelengths of light are absorbed and longer wavelengths are re-emitted based on the specific bio-physical properties of hair, skin, scales, or feathers. Biofluorescence has been documented in a wide range of fish, reptiles, amphibians, and birds.2-7 Among mammals, biofluorescence of the fur when exposed to ultraviolet light has been previously demonstrated in several nocturnal taxa including marsupial opossums and placental flying squirrels.8-9 In this new research paper from Mammalia, scientists have documented the fluorescence of the fur coat of the platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) under ultraviolet light. That makes this the first report of biofluorescence in a monotreme mammal.
The researchers analyzed three different platypus specimens in two different museums under both ultraviolet and visible light. Since previous research found no differences between fur coat fluorescence for other mammals in either living or museum specimens, the scientists were confident that their results applied to living platypuses. The top view (dorsal) of the animals showed a strong fluorescent blue color under the ultraviolet light while the bottom view (ventral) contained a blend of greens and blues. Under visible light, the fur was brown. Ultraviolet visual perception capability has been shown to be widespread among mammals, so this type of biofluorescence can be detected by other animals.10
So, why is fluorescent fur important? At this point, the biofluorescence trait is being consistently documented in creatures like the platypus which are active under low-light conditions. The platypus forages for food at night and at twilight. And because the platypus closes its eyes when it submerges in the water, foraging for food based on innate mechanoreception and electroreception systems, it is likely that this trait doesn’t help it to visualize other platypuses underwater. But on land and in the dark, biofluorescence may help platypuses interact with other platypuses, or the trait might be used in methods of visual interaction with other kinds of creatures.
At this point, there is one thing we know for sure: the platypus is a living testament to the failure of evolutionary theory to explain the diversity and complexity of animal life. Because the platypus is so unique, evolutionists are befuddled to explain its origins and are unsure of its place in their mythical evolutionary continuum. Clearly, the platypus and all other plants and animals speak to the fact that a mighty and omnipotent Creator made and engineered them all.
Stage image: Platypus specimen under visible and ultraviolet light.
Stage image credit: De Gruyter. Copyright © 2020. Adapted for use in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holders.
References
1. Anich, P. S. et al. 2020. Biofluorescence in the Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus). Mammalia. DOI: doi.org/10.1515/mammalia-2020-0027
2. Pearn, S. M., A. T. Bennett, and I. C. Cuthill. 2001. Ultraviolet Vision, Fluorescence and Mate Choice in a Parrot, the Budgerigar Melopsittacus Undulates. Proceedings Royal Society London B. 268: 2273-2279. doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1813.
3. Weidensaul, C. S., B. A. Colvin, D. F. Brinker, and J. S. Huy. 2011. Use of Ultraviolet Light as an Aid in Age Classification of Owls. Wilson Journal Ornithology. 123: 373–377. doi.org/10.1676/09-125.1.
4. Sparks, J. S., et al. 2014. The Covert World of Fish Biofluorescence: a Phylogenetically Widespread and Phenotypically Variable Phenomenon. PloS One 9:e83259. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083259.
5. Gruber, D. F. and J. S. Sparks. 2015. First Observation of Fluorescence in Marine Turtles. American Museum Novitates. 3845: 1-8.
6. Lamb, J. Y. and M. P. Davis. 2020. Salamanders and Other Amphibians are Aglow with Biofluorescence. Scientific Reports. 10: 2821. doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59528-9.
7. Meisner, D.H. 1983. Psychedelic Opossums: Fluorescence of the Skin and Fur of Didelphis Virginiana Kerr. Ohio Journal Science. 83:4.
8. Pine, R. H., J. E. Rice, J. E. Bucher, D. J Jr Tank, and A. M. Greenhall. 1985. Labile Pigments and Fluorescent Pelage in Didelphid Marsupials. Mammalia. 49: 249-256. doi.org/10.1515/mamm.1985.49.2.249.
9. Kohler, A. M., E. R. Olson, J. G. Martin, and P. S. Anich. 2019. Ultraviolet Fluorescence Discovered in New World Flying Squirrels (Glaucomys). Journal of Mammalogy. 100: 21-30.
10. Douglas, R. H. and G. Jeffery. 2014. The Spectral Transmission of Ocular Media Suggests Ultraviolet Sensitivity is Widespread Among Mammals. Proceedings Royal SocietyB. 281: 20132995. doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2995.’https://www.icr.org/article/glow-in-the-dark-platypuses-illuminate-the-creator/?utm_source=phplist9201&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=Christmas+Ornament%2C+Glow-in-the-Dark+Platypuses%2C+and+More%21
whatyareckon 