Humps store fat and also protect camels’ other tissues from heating due to sun light. It has also been reported that camels’ coats insulate them from heat by reflecting sunlight. This extra fat tissue (about 10-15 kg) provides not only energy in long desert journeys but also water through a biochemical process which leads to the production water molecules (1,111 g of water per 1,000 g of fat converted). It is also noteworthy that sparing a specific part of the body for storing fat and refraining from storage in other tissues provides decreased fat density, thus lessening heat retention due to fat.

Water is scarce in the desert and needs to be stored in large amounts when available. Amazingly, camels can drink up to 150-200 liters of water at once, and yet, after three days, there is no sign of water in their stomachs. Drinking so much water in such a short time could be a problem; this would be like a human drinking 20-40 liters of water in 10 minutes, which would induce water intoxication. The oval shape of camel’s red blood cells, and their ability to swell until double in volume provides plasticity in this situation.

Camels can lose up to 25% of their bodily fluids without showing signs of dehydration. This provides an extra durability against long-term water shortage. For comparison, most mammals can only withstand about 3-4% dehydration; further water loss might lead to cardiac failure due to thickened blood. Another protective property given to camels that allows decreased water loss is that they drop feces that are so dry they can be used as a fuel. For comparison, a dromedary camel loses 2.5 liters of water daily through feces (about just 40-60% water) while cattle lose 20-40 liters.

Camels also regulate sweating in a unique way. Their body temperature does not need to be constant; it can move between 34 and 41 degrees centigrade. They don’t sweat until it is over 40 degrees. These regulations allow them to preserve approximately 5 liters of water per day. A camel’s kidney function is also tightly regulated according to the availability of water. If they don’t drink water for days, urine production is limited to approximately 500g. On the other hand, if water is abundant it could go up to 7 liters. This urine is unusually thick, too – it resembles syrup. Remarkably, camels never run, which would increase transpiration; instead they just amble quickly.

However, dehydration can be still an issue, which will negatively affect the flow of red blood cells. Remarkably, camels have oval red blood cells, which better resist clumping when compared to round, human red blood cells. There are no other mammals with oval red blood cells.

Food is another problem for animals living in the desert, especially for big ones like camels. Interestingly, camels have split lips, which allow them to graze easily. They can eat thorny twigs without any injury. Eating green plants also provide the moisture that they need.

Sand is often a problem, especially during sand storms. Remarkably, camels are equipped with systems that allow them to close theirs nostrils to get protection against wind and sand. In addition, camels have two layers of thick eyelashes, which provide additional protection from the dust. The specific shape of their nostrils allows them to preserve vapor and allows returning it to the body.

Traveling over sand is difficult. Camels are created in a way that allows their four legs to kick in all directions. Remarkably, Camels are equipped with paddy hoofs and two toes to protect them from sinking in the sand and burning of the hot sand. In addition, they have long legs, which keep them further from the hot ground.

Though the modern world seems to have replaced them as a major mode of transportation, they are still widely used in areas such as North Africa.

It seems likely many more remarkable discoveries about camels are on the horizon. Medical researchers are studying how camels function – because these amazing animals might contain a secret which could save human lives.

Link between excess body fat and cancer

It is obvious that camels undergo a rapid cycle of fat storage and destruction. They store large amounts of fat – up to 15 kg. The correlation between excess body fat and various cancers in humans has long been known. For instance, a WCRF report recommended maintaining a BMI of 20-25%, and claimed it as one of the key factors can prevent cancer. However, a connection between obesity and cancer at the molecular level remains largely unknown. Intriguingly, a recent study performed at UT Southwestern Medical Center by Dr. Scherer and his colleagues shows how fat cells induce cancer cells to thrive in the breast, or fatty livers.

They showed that fat cells allow the growth of tumors via the secretion of a variety of extracellular factors. One of the fat cells derived extracellular factor, which is found abundantly in unhealthy fat tissue, is endotrophin. What endotrophin does is cause induction of blood vessels, which feeds tumors; as we gain weight, this increases the chance of getting cancer. The inhibition of endotrophin by antibodies in mice with breast cancer had a remarkable reduction on tumor growth and prevented metastasis to other tissues.

Well, if fat is bad and could increase the chance of cancer, and camels store and destroy fat as a survival mechanism, then how do camels manage the increased risk of cancer? Do they also have another remarkable property that lies on the horizon to be discovered? It’s probable there is a mechanism in camels that protects them from such adverse effects of excess fat. If so, how can we benefit from it to solve one of the biggest hurdles to human health? Some researchers might be close to answering these questions.

Antineoplastons

An interesting study, started back in 1967 by Dr. Burzynski and colleagues, examined the peptides in the urine samples of healthy and cancerous patients. They have found that cancer patients lacked a significant content of peptides in their urine. This finding led to the hypothesis that there might be a protective mechanism against the formation of cancer in the body through peptides. They identified a specific group of peptides found in the urine, later named Antineoplastons that show anti-cancer properties. A treatment scheme was developed through balancing the antineoplaston deficiency in cancer patients to control the abnormal cellular growth. They have tested both in laboratory and on the various cancer patients, and demonstrated some degree of response, albeit with excessive criticism from the scientific community. The mechanism of action of antineoplaston is proposed as functioning as a molecular switch; this activates tumor suppressors and inactivates oncogenes (drivers of cancer formation). Dr. Burzynski, in his clinic at Houston, TX, is still providing treatments to cancer patients with late stages of cancer using Antineoplastons, and claiming that there are survivals with his approach.

The use of compounds identified in the urine could be considered as a kind of urine therapy, which is used as an alternative treatment to cancer that has been historically practiced for different purposes. This reminds me of the prescription of some Bedouins, who got sick when they came to city. They suggested drinking the milk and urine of freely grazing camels at the city’s outskirts. It has been said that they drank this concoction and grew healthy again. This incidence and historical use of urine therapy suggests that camel’s milk and urine could have unique substances that might be effective in the treatment of diseases, maybe even of cancer. An interesting point here is that the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, specifically ordered to drink from animals that are freely gazing, which is also mentioned in the Qur’an, such as in the miracle of the Prophet Salih with the she-camel about which his community was tried: “[S]o leave her to feed in God’s earth” (11:64). This points to not only the consumption of products from freely grazing animals, which is known to affect their nutrition levels and taste, but also to their increased therapeutic potential.

The Holy Qur’an calls for reflection on the camel specifically. I am little bit disappointed that the Houston Zoo does not have such a monumental animal. Contemplation on the camel provides various lessons on the understanding the Maker and Owner of the worlds and living beings, and the superior techniques used in the makeup of animals that live in the harsh conditions of deserts.

References

• 10 Amazing Facts About Camels. Retrieved from http://news.softpedia.com/news/10-Amazing-Facts-About-Camels-68843.shtml on April, 14, 2013.

• 20 Amazing Facts About Camels. Retrieved from http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/news-expressive-faces-camels?image=1#mzJyLiKcQPMoM1tD.99 on April, 14, 2013.

• Facts About Camels. Retrieved from http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com/lounge/facts-about-camels-1654.html on April, 14, 2013.

• Camel. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel on April, 14, 2013.

• Excess Body Fat Causes Cancer. • The WCRF report, 2007. Retrieved from http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/87350.php on April, 21, 2013.

• Finding – and fighting – the fat that fuels cancer. Retrieved from http://www.utsouthwestern.edu/newsroom/news-releases/year-2013/feb/endotrophin-scherer.html on April, 21, 2013.

• Jiyoung Park and Philipp E. Scherer. Adipocyte-derived endotrophin promotes malignant tumor progression. J Clin Invest. 2012;122(11):4243–4256. doi:10.1172/JCI63930.

• Stanislaw R. Burzynski. The present state of antineoplaston research. Integr Cancer Ther. 2004 Mar;3(1):47-58.

• Urine Therapy. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine_therapy on April 22, 2013.

• Ravi: Enes. Tirmizi, Tibb 6, (2043)

“How long have you been lost?” I asked her. “For three nights” (Maryam 19:10) was her Qur’anic rejoinder. I offered her food. She replied with, “Observe the Fast until night sets in” (Baqarah 2:187). “Yes, but we are not in the month of Ramadan,” said I. “Whoever does a good work voluntarily, surely God is All-Responsive to thankfulness, All-Knowing” (Baqarah 2:158) was her response. “It is permissible to break fast on a journey,” I informed her. “Yet better it is for him who volunteers greater good, and that you should fast (when you are able to) is better for you, if you but knew (the worth of fasting)” (Baqarah 2:184) she responded.

I asked her why she did not converse in the way I conversed. “Not a word does he/she utter but there is a watcher by him/her, ever-present,” (Qaf 50:18) recited she. I put a question to her: “Where do you belong?” “Do not follow that of which you have no knowledge, and refrain from groundless assertions and conjectures. Surely the hearing, the sight, and the heart – each of these is subject to questioning about it” (Isra’ 17:35) was her Qur’anic response. “I sinned; please forgive me,” I pleaded. “No reproach this day shall be on you. May God forgive you; indeed, He is the Most Merciful of the merciful” (Yusuf 12:92) said she. I offered to let her ride on my camel so as to deliver her swiftly to her convoy. “Whatever good you do, surely God has full knowledge of it” (Baqarah 2:215) she thanked me. I brought my camel and as she was about to mount on the animal, she said, “Tell the believing men that they should restrain their gaze” (Nur 24:30). I cast my eyes down. Just as she was about to climb on the camel, the animal shied and moved forward, and her clothing was torn a little. “Whatever affliction befalls you, it is because of what your hands have earned,” (Shura 42:30) she murmured. “Be patient, let me hold the camel!” said I. Reciting the verse, “We made Solomon understand the case more clearly. We granted each of them sound, wise judgment and knowledge” (Anbiya 21:79) she said, implying that I was more successful at controlling the camel. She mounted the camel and recited the verses, “So that you sit secure on their backs, (and), then remember and reflect on the favor of your Lord when you settle securely on them, and say: All-Glorified is He Who has subjugated this to our use. We were never capable (of accomplishing this by ourselves). And surely, to our Lord we are indeed bound to return’” (Zukhruf 13–14). “Come on!” said I, so as to urge the camel on. “Be modest in your bearing, and subdue your voice. For certain, the most repugnant of voices is the braying of donkeys,” (Luqman 31:19) she warned me. While walking, I began to recite poetry. “Recite from the Qur’an what is easy for you!” (Muzzammil 73:20) was her advice. “But reciting poetry is not forbidden in Islam!” I protested. “He grants the Wisdom to whomever He wills, and whoever is granted the Wisdom has indeed been granted much good. Yet none except people of discernment reflect and are mindful” (Baqarah; 269) was her reply.

We travelled for a long while; later I asked her whether she was married. “O you who believe! Do not ask about things which, if made manifest to you, would give you trouble” (Maidah 5:101) she snapped back. Soon, we caught up with her convoy, and I asked her, “Do you know anybody in the caravan?” “Wealth and children are an adornment of the present, worldly life!” (Kahf 18:46) said she, and I realized that she had children. I asked her their names. “God accepted Ibrahim as a friend; spoke to Musa; O Yahya! Hold fast to the Book!” (Nisa 4:125, 164; Maryam 19:12) was the answer. I called towards the caravan, “O Ibrahim, O Musa, O Yahya!” Three saintly-faced youths quickly appeared. She gave them money, reciting the verse, “Send one of you to the city with this coin of yours: let him see what food is most pure there (and so lawful), and bring a supply from it. But let him behave with utmost care and guarded courtesy,” (Kahf 18:19). When her children brought the food, she recited the verse, “Eat and drink to your hearts’ content for all that you sent ahead in advance in days past” (Haqqah 69:24).

I told her children that if they would not tell me the reason why their mother talked in that way, I would not touch even the smallest part of the food. ‘Our mother,’ they said, ‘for fear that she might blurt out some foul words that would call down God’s wrath, has been speaking through the Holy Qur’an for the last forty years.’”

Abdullah bin Mubarak (d. 797 AH) was an important figure from the second generation after the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

Suat Erguvan is the Academic Coordinator of the Rumi Forum, Islamabad.

For any observed phenomenon, there can be many possible explanations. A chance-based mechanism could be one explanation. We usually associate chance as being indifferent to purpose, and intelligent design as being with a purpose. When a mechanism appears to be unconcerned with or incognizant of any possible outcome, we term it a chance-based, or random mechanism. In other words, chance is invoked when there appears to be no preference for one particular outcome over another.

While a chance-based mechanism can be one of the possible explanations for a phenomenon, we only consider it seriously when the probability of the proposed mechanism is significant. When the probability is insignificant, we must eliminate this possibility and consider other options. Otherwise, we may fall into what the mathema-tician/philosopher Dembski calls the ‘chance-of-the-gaps’ fallacy:

‘Statistical reasoning must be capable of eliminating chance when the probability of events gets too small. If not, chance can be invoked to explain anything. Scientists rightly resist invoking the supernatural in scientific explanations for fear of committing a god-of-the-gaps fallacy (the fallacy of using God as a stop-gap for ignorance). Yet, without some restriction on the use of chance, scientists are in danger of committing a logically equivalent fallacy’one we may call the ‘chance-of-the-gaps fallacy’. Chance, like God, can become a stop-gap for ignorance.’ [Demski, 98]

To illustrate this principle let us consider three examples. The first is from a movie, related by the same author. The event related concerns the supposed spontaneous combustion of a person.

‘In the movie ‘This is Spinal Tap’, the lead singer remarks that a former drummer in the band died by spontaneously combusting. Any one of us could this instant spontaneously combust if all the most rapidly moving air molecules in our vicinity suddenly converged on us. Such an event, however, is highly improbable, and we don’t give it a second thought.’ [Dembski, 98]

Let us consider two other examples: footprints in the desert and a novel placed next to a typewriter.

Footprints in the Desert

When a bedouin sees camel footprints in the desert, he does not attribute these to chance. He does not think that the wind, by chance, formed those patterns on the sand. Instead, he interprets them as signs that a camel has recently walked along this way. The probability of the chance-based scenario is simply too small. Having seen the patterns characteristic of the wind, the bedouin can be almost sure that the camel explanation is the correct one, even if he has not seen the camel itself.

Novel Placed Next to a Typewriter

Imagine you find a novel left next to a typewriter, next to which sits a monkey. One explanation for who might have written the novel could be that the monkey typed the novel, making words and sentences that make sense, solely by chance. We can view this as a chance-based explanation; up to now we have not witnessed any monkey that can appreciate human literature. To make this explanation more plausible, let us assume that when the monkey completes a page, a human checks the page and if it does not make any sense the page is thrown away. If there were an unlimited supply of paper and ink, and if the monkey were replaced by another monkey when it died, you might expect to see a few lines of meaningful literary work after thousands of generations. In the process you would expect to see mountains of thrown-out pages, containing meaningless sequences of letters. If you knew that the monkey could not live long enough to produce a novel, if you knew that it did not have access to enough paper, or if you could not find any thrown-out pages, you would simply have to eliminate the monkey hypothesis. You would consider other explanations, such as that there was a person who was capable of producing literary work, and this person typed the novel and left it next to the typewriter. The idea that a monkey could produce a novel by typing randomly, without regard to content (i.e. by chance) is simply too small a probability. It is not worthy of serious consideration.

These examples illustrate a general principle; highly improbable and ‘preferred’ (independently specified) patterns cannot be generated by chance-based mechanisms. The footprints in the first example illustrate highly improbable events, and shows us how one arrives at a conclusion by preference or purpose. Since Darwinian evolution relies on chance, there is only one way it can produce the diversity of life found on earth. This can be done by exhausting a significant proportion of the possibilities, producing useless organisms in the process, leaving the remains of the unsuccessful organisms on the way and by eventually producing a useful organism after using up a considerable amount of time, matter and space.

Blind or Not Blind?

Some evolutionists argue that evolutionary algorithms are not the same as a blind search, because they include a fitness function which favors certain outcomes over others. In a way, this imagined ‘fitness function’ evaluates which organisms are the most promising in each generation. To understand the concept of a fitness function, consider the selective breeding of animals. The breeders select the members that have the most desirable properties and continue to breed them. They might breed from only the most fertile chickens or the woolliest sheep and succeed in altering the characteristics of these animals. So, the selection criteria of the breeders can be regarded as a fitness function. However, in the case of selective breeding, the human breeder is the one who defines and applies this function. In the case of Darwinian evolution, there is no room for an intelligent being. So, the imagined fitness function must be a result of the physical laws of the universe. It must be a result of the conditions on earth

What the evolutionary algorithms do is to exploit the information already encoded in the fitness function. So, evolutionary algorithms simply ‘shift’ the problem into a different space. If we assume that this fitness function is a result of the conditions on earth, we have to remember that the conditions on earth are highly improbable and specified. So, if this fitness function is assumed to be capable of design, one must explain how it came to be in the first place. Secondly, this function is ill-defined. Even evolu- tionists themselves have difficulty defining what this function is or how it operates. Various attempts to define this function by evolutionists amount to a tautology in order to justify it. ‘In this formulation, the theory predicts that the fittest organisms will produce the most offspring, and it defines the fittest organisms as the ones which produce the most offspring.’ [Johnson, 91]. Noting this trend, the famous philosopher of science Karl Popper once wrote, ‘some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring.’ Since the fitness function is not well defined, it is also not possible to demonstrate how this function is capable of producing this diversity of life, neither scientifically nor mathematically. In experiments where evolutionary mechanisms were tested, they tend to favor simplicity, whereas in life we see increasing complexity. Limits of the Universe The famous physicist Carl Sagan once said, in reference to evolutionary processes, given enough time, chance will work miracles. While this statement can be true theoretically, one should also consider that chance, given enough time, will produce a disproportionately high ratio of useless outcomes before coming up with a miracle. Furthermore, the universe, as we have observed, has a limited age and a limited amount of matter. So the amount of time that we can assume chance has is limited. The amount of material to be used by the chance-based pro- cesses is also limited. So the next question is, given the age of the universe, the amount of matter in the universe and all the possible sequences of changes that can take place, what is the likelihood of chance producing a single living cell? The answer to this question is important because it will determine whether the chance hypothesis is worthy of our attention. Dembski explains that within the observed universe any probability below a universal probability bound remains improbable, even if it is assumed that all the resources available were exhausted in order to try out all the possibilities. He calculates this number as 10-150, that is 1 over 10 to the 150th power. The details of this calculation and what it means are explained by him as follows:

“It would take at least 1067 times the current lifetime of the universe for the universe to manage to make all possible proteins of length 200 at least once.”

In the observable universe, probabilistic resources come in very limited supplies. Within the known physical universe there are estimated to be around 1080 elementary particles. Moreover, the properties of matter are such that transitions from one physical state to another cannot occur at a rate faster than 1045 times per second. This frequency corresponds to Planck time, which constitutes the smallest physically meaningful unit of time. Finally, the universe itself is about a billion times younger than 1025 seconds (assuming the universe is between ten and twenty billion years old). If we now assume that any specification of an event within the known physical universe requires at least one elementary particle to specify it and cannot be generated any faster than the Planck time, then these cosmological constraints imply that the total number of specified events throughout cosmic history cannot exceed 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150. It follows that any specified event of probability less than 1 in 10150 will remain improbable even after all conceivable probabilistic resources from the observable universe have been factored in. A probability of 1 in 10150 is therefore a universal probability bound. Implicit in a universal probability bound such as 10-150 is that the universe is too small a place to generate specified complexity by sheer exhaustion of possibilities. Stuart Kauffman develops this theme at length in his book Investigations. In one of his examples (and there are many like it throughout the book), he considers the number of possible proteins of length 200 (i.e., 20200 or approximately 10260) and the maximum number of pairwise collisions of particles throughout the history of the universe (he estimates 10193 total collisions supposing the reaction rate for collisions can be measured in femto seconds). Kauffman concludes: The known universe has not had time since the big bang to create all possible proteins of length 200 [even] once. To emphasize this point, he notes: It would take at least 1067 times the current lifetime of the universe for the universe to manage to make all possible proteins of length 200 at least once. [Dembski, 98] It should be noted that the precise value of this universal probability bound is not critical. Even an approximate value is enough to judge a proposed chance-based explanation for an observed phenomenon. Carl Sagan himself estimated the probability of humans evolving from a single living cell as one chance in 102,000,000,000, [Sagan]. Combining this estimate with the universal probability bound discussed above and using common sense, one can easily dismiss the chance hypothesis for the origin of life or for the diversity of life on earth. The Fossil Record Problem Associated with the chance hypothesis, there is also the problem of fossil record which we have not discussed in detail yet in this article. If the chance hypothesis is correct, the failed attempts of the blind processes should vastly outnumber those that are successful. This would imply that in the fossil record we should have found vast numbers of fossils of dysfunctional species compared with a tiny minority of successful species. Just as failed attempts would vastly outnumber successful ones, the fossils of such attempts should reflect the same ratio. While there are signs of extinct species in the fossil record, we do not find a huge record of the fossils of the kind of wild variation we would expect from blind mutations. While the reasons for the extinction of species like dinosaurs are debated, there is agreement that they were successful living organisms during their lifetimes. Conclusion To summarize, when a mathematician calculates the probability of chance producing life on earth, he or she can easily dismiss this explanation because of the aforementioned problems. Life is too complex and intricate. The lifetime of the universe and the amount of matter in it are insufficient to blindly exhaust all possibilities and arrive at the diverse life forms we see on earth. The fossil record does not reflect the ratio of unsuccessful attempts to successful ones we would expect from chance hypothesis. When presented with the chance-based theory of evolution, an objective mathematician would thus feel obliged to say, Either you have to shut off my intellect or I cannot accept this hypothesis. Life must be the product of an intelligent Designer who is All-Wise, Omniscient, Omnipotent and cognizant of what He is doing. The mathematician would thus come to the same conclusion as an unlettered bedouin, who is nevertheless a careful observer and a solid thinker: Camel droppings point to the existence of a camel. Footprints on the sand tell of a traveler. The heaven with its stars, the earth with its mountains and valleys, and the sea with its waves – do they not all point to the Maker, All-Powerful, Knowing, Wise and Caring?

References

• [Darwin, 93] Charles Darwin, The Correspondence of Charles Darwin 8, 1860 Cambridge University Press, 1993.
• [Dembski, 98] William A. Dembski, The Design Inference, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1998.
• [Dembski, 99] William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design, InterVarsity, Downers Grove, Ill., 1999.
• [Johnson, 91] Philip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, Regnery Gateway, Washington DC, 1991.
• [Khan] Khan, M., trans. Sahih Al-Bukhari: The Translation of the Meanings. Darussalam Publishers: 1997.
• [Sagan] Carl Sagan, F. H. C. Crick, L. M. Muchin in Carl Sagan, ed., Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CETI) (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 45-46.
• [Siddiqui] Siddiqi, A. H., trans. Sahih Muslim. Kitab Bhavan: 2000.
• [Harf] Harf Information Technology. Hadith Encyclopedia. Egypt: 1996. [Words] Nursi, S. The Words. The Light, Inc.: 1997.