An exceptional oddity occurs in Africa, Australia, and South America during dry seasons: an oval-shaped, cocoon-like structure that is found under the ground which when gently broken open produces a long and curled live fish like something out of a sci-fi movie! One can continue to dig the surrounding area and find hundreds more of these fish peacefully resting under the ground.

This fish, bestowed with life in a cocoon of mud it fashions under the ground, is called the “lungfish.” It has been discovered that lungfish can survive thanks to their wonderful features for several years in cocoon-like pits under extremely severe and arid conditions. The secrets to this amazing phenomenon lie in the fish’s exclusive respiratory system.

While lungs are the respiratory organs for vertebrates that live on land, the respiratory organs known as gills have been granted to most aquatic animals. Lungfish actually breathe through both gills and lungs. This is why they are also known as dipnoid, a special type of “double breathing” species which have one or two lungs next to their gills. These are not actually lungs but are instead air sacs surrounded by capillaries. They function as lungs when the fish need to utilize them. In particular, these sacs are activated when the water in the fish’s environment dries up. Lungfish are able to overcome drought periods that may last many years by remaining buried in mud and breathing through these God-gifted air sacs.

There are six lungfish species known to be living in Africa, South America, and Australia. The fish resembles the eel due to their prominently long and cylindrical body structure. Studies have shown that the African species tend to be the largest and can reach up to two meters in length, while its Australian and South American counterparts can grow up to 1.25 meters. Fossil prints indicate that African lungfish emerged roughly 400 million years ago and are thus often called “living fossils.”

Just as everything is created and equipped in accordance with their exact needs, so is the lungfish. Lungfish do not have dorsal fins. Their chest and abdominal fins have features that make it easier for the fish to crawl on the ground. The fins are long, adhesive, and highly mobile, and their tips have a very delicate sense of touch. Moreover, the fish’s olfactory and taste receptor cells, and its lateral lines that detect pressure and turbulence, have been created to be extremely sensitive. These structures function as senses that support the fish’s weak sense of vision. Additionally, there are electro-receptors on the fish’s nose that help it to easily perceive their surroundings and aid with their survival.

As the water recedes during the dry season, each lungfish first digs a tunnel for itself in the slime and settles in it. At the top of the tunnel is a porous cover that allows air to smoothly enter and exit. It is within this tunnel that the fish fashions a cocoon for itself made out of a mucous it spews which is designed to keep moisture and allows air in. After these meticulous preparations, the fish goes into a summer sleep that is similar to hibernation. Its physiology also changes during this period as its metabolic speed is lowered to 1/60 of the normal circumstances and its body functions are brought almost entirely to a halt. The fish spends this whole period in this way until the next rainy season arrives.

The lungfish, no doubt, also need to maintain their energy during this deep sleep. They can generate energy by dissolving a portion of their own muscle tissues as a sort of “fat reserve.” Consumption of muscle tissue as food leads them to lose about 3 centimeters in size during one season, and they also lose almost half of their weight during extensive droughts.

An incredible respiratory mechanism

Animals of the underwater world use their gills for breathing. The multi-functional gills are delicately structured to allow the dissolved oxygen in the water to be released into the bloodstream and have the carbon dioxide removed. The gills are also instrumental in several processes including gas exchange, osmoregulation, acid-base adjustment, and nitrogenous waste disposal. A fish normally only has oxygenated blood in its gills. In the fish classified as dipnoid, the extremely thin membrane covering the inner surface of the air sac connected to the circulation system is conducive for gas exchange, thus it helps respiration by acting like a lung.

Different from other species, the lungfish are equipped with a highly developed exclusive respiratory mechanism that enables them to live both in water and on land. While some fish species that can breathe air do so by using basic gas sacs, the system in lungfish is far more complex.

There is a main canal in their breathing organs that serve as a type of de facto lungs, and this canal is surrounded with numerous chambers that increase when expanded but decrease in size. Most chambers have a central space linked with a ventilation duct. The inner surfaces of these structures are lined with numerous honeycomb-like air sacs fed by fine capillaries. A gas exchange occurs in these small vesicles, thus maximizing the surface area on which this gas exchange takes place. Additionally, these fish also have a circulation dedicated to the air sac which functions as a separate lung that is the same as in land vertebrates.

Lungfish go up the surface to breathe and position their heads in a way so that the tip of their nose touches the water’s surface. Meanwhile, they open their mouths and draw air from just above the water. During this process, they usually make a characteristic sound that varies slightly across species. The lungfish in Australia are a little different from the others; they breathe air through their nasal openings while their mouths are closed. In addition, the lungfish in Australia breathe air in shorter periods and they use their lungs only in high activation periods in their natural environment. This is why their gills are very strong since they have only one lung. Due to intense use under severe climatic conditions, the African and South American lungfish have two lungs instead of one and their gills are much smaller than that of other lungfish.

With unique features bestowed to their respiratory system, lung and gill structures so they can survive under extreme conditions, lungfish are a treasure for us to think and marvel on the mysteries found in nature.

References

• Olga Carvalho, Carlos Gonçalves. “Comparative Physiology of the Respiratory System in the Animal Kingdom.” The Open Biology Journal, 2011, 4, 35–46.
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish
• www.britannica.com/animal/lungfish
• www.nationalgeographic.org/media/west-african-lungfish

His exalted name, “Light,” touches the darkness
and everywhere is filled with light.
The letters written from a brilliant world
are revealed to the hearts;
Then the Divine command,
“Read in the name of your Lord!”
descends and becomes our intentions.

We look around the Earth and believe that we start to sail into the dark upon reaching the depths of the skies, the land, and the oceans. But if we look with care, we may notice that the inhabitants of those places often inform us of the beauties they are created with.

The depths of the oceans, especially, are where what we see leave us amazed. From microscopic bacteria to giant squids, and from tiny lighted jellyfish to spiny skin, many creatures, from ascidians to some sharks and stingrays, turn on their lights, literally, illuminating the darkness of the deep sea. This biological light-producing process in the body of some animals is called bioluminescence. It is astounding that these creatures can emit biological light with no change in their body temperature. Normally, light is formed by emitting heat. This basic principle applies to some of the most common sources of light that we know of, such as campfires and electrical lightbulbs.

A mechanism that produces light without heat has been created in some insects living under the sea as well as those on land. The basis of biological light production is generally the oxidation of luciferin, i.e. its conversion to oxyluciferin. The enzyme necessary for this chemical reaction to occur is luciferase.

Most living creatures that can produce bioluminescence live in deep, dark areas of the world’s various seas and oceans. Some of the inhabitants of these depths emit strong blue (secondarily green) light at an average wavelength of 475 nm. An interesting note is that underwater life forms are often created with sensitivity to the wavelengths of blue-green lights mentioned above. In rare cases, there are also sea creatures that emit light in the yellow-red wavelength range.

Animals with the ability to emit light are also usually given excellent control mechanisms so that they can use their equipment as a weapon. They can turn their lights on and off in a flash and can utilize complex chemical and neurological mechanisms that provide functions such as adjusting the intensity, color, and direction of the light. Creatures that produce light underwater sometimes do not need to use the light in order to see where they are going. Instead, they tend to use these marvelous gifts in a variety of strategic ways. Some will try to attract the attention of their prey; others will attempt to ward off predators and aggressors; still others will use their lights to indicate that they are ready for reproduction. It is even possible for some creatures to utilize several of these functions at the same time.

Let us now examine some specific species and how they employ bioluminescence.

Light vomiting shrimp

One of the most interesting examples of bioluminescence in animals is the light-emitting deep-sea shrimp Acanthephyra purpurea. This shrimp will actually vomit light from its mouth as a last-ditch effort to deter predators. The intent is to disorient, confuse, and even temporarily blind other creatures, similar to the effect of a flashbang grenade, so that the shrimp can retreat into the dark. As a result of their research on the shrimps, marine biologist Edith Widder states that the chemical substances sprayed are not blue when they are in the body and that the blue light production occurs when the luciferin substance in the sprayed liquid comes into contact with the oxygen in water.

Loosejaw fish

There are at least 42 recorded families of bony fish that have bioluminescent properties. One of them is the Photostomias guernei, or the “loosejaw fish”. This fish has a remarkable organ that emits light on the sides of its eyes. These lights, which resemble the headlight lamps of our cars, are not constantly lit, in order to avoid waste. When hunting, the fish illuminates the way ahead with the light it produces, and it can turn these lights off when they are no longer needed. A wonderful feature of this organ is that, just like headlights, a highly reflective layer is created behind the main center of the light. The reason that the fish is able to turn the light off may be because its black velvety body is contrasted by the light color of the organ and would thus attract much unwanted attention.

Deep sea hatchetfish

Bioluminescent systems were also given to creatures in order to act as a means of camouflage. They work phenomenally for both hunting and survival in situations where blending in with the environment is paramount for catching prey or evading predators. In the depths of the underwater world, the silhouette of an animal bathing in light is an easily recognizable target. One of the best examples of this phenomenon is the deep-sea hatchetfish. The fish has been created with its eyes on top of its body and its mouth facing upwards, making it easier to hunt. It also emits bioluminescence from its abdomen to provide camouflage against more aggressive, larger fish that swim lower than itself. The color of the light emitted makes it difficult to recognize the fish from below as it perfectly matches the color intensity of the environment. In the meantime, if the sunlight that hits the sea is interrupted in any way, the fish will turn off its lights and the camouflage will continue.

Black dragonfish

Diversity in the light organs of the scaleless black dragonfish (Melanostomias bartonbeani)

This species of black dragonfish (Melanostomias bartonbeani) takes advantage of luminescence in a number of ways. An illuminated area next to the eyes is used to find prey and send signals to its mates. The black dragonfish’s chin also has an illuminated extension that dangles in the waves as bait for naive prey. In addition, a set of small organs of light arranged along its abdomen play a role in concealing its silhouette. Furthermore, light-emitting pocket-like structures surrounded by a gelatinous capsule embedded in the skin are used as alarm systems. The bioluminescent systems within this creature are immensely complex and beautiful, and when observed in detail reveal the dazzling splendor of the world that we live in.

Fish with 3 different types of illumination

The Northern Stoplight Loosejaw (Malacosteus niger) has three different types of light organs, the complex use of which cannot be possible without top engineering skills. The wide, drop-shaped, illuminated organ under its eyes emits a red light at a wavelength of 702 nm as if it knows the laws of optics under the sea. This red light is not visible to most deep-sea creatures, for it is quickly absorbed in water. Yet, with this red light this fish is able to have vision in a close proximity while remaining largely undetected. This is similar to infrared binoculars soldiers use for night vision without giving away their position. The loosejaw is thus a dangerous hunter that has an edge over its prey. There also exists a blue light-emitting oval section, behind the organ, that emits red light and is usually larger in males. A third light organ is round and smaller and is located between the eyes and the red-light organ.

Angler fish

The angler fish is one of the most iconic fish of the deep ocean due to its famous rod and bioluminescence. The angler fish does not actually produce its light on its own: the light is credited to bioluminescent symbiotic bacteria that inhabit the end of the rod on their forehead. This illuminated part, which resembles a worm-like bait, is very attractive to small fish. These fish are thus lured to the angler expecting a quick snack, but instead the angler swallows them whole with its massive mouth. While doing their task of helping the angler hunt small fish, the bacteria maintain a symbiotic relationship with the fish and also find an environment in which to proliferate. In this way, they form a good example of cooperation and solidarity. One may wonder: how can such a mutual agreement come into fruition between a fish and some bacteria which are deprived of a nervous system, mind, and consciousness?

One of the reasons that marine biologists are interested in light-emitting bacteria is the wide-lit regions called the “Milky Seas.” These can be observed in satellite images of Earth. Recently, satellites helped detect a bioluminescent area of roughly 5,946 sq. mi in the Indian Ocean; scientists wondered if some bioluminescent bacteria or Dinoflagellate-type flame-colored algae may be the cause of the phenomenon.

Alarming jellyfish

The luminescence of some marine life serves as an alarm or distress siren. A remarkable example of this is the Atolla jellyfish (Atolla wyvillei), an elegant inhabitant of deep waters. This jellyfish produces blue lights that are spread in circles in the water when it is attacked. Thanks to these lights, it tries to draw the attention of larger and stronger animals than the initial attacker in order to escape from harm’s way.

As can be observed in some species that we are familiar with, such as fireflies, the bioluminescence feature that is full of wisdom granted to some living beings is a thought-provoking biological miracle which does not only make us ponder where they got these abilities from but also reveals how so many intricate patterns are found in nature.

References

• Steven H.D. Haddock, Mark A. Moline and James F. Case. 2010. Bioluminescence in the Sea, Article in Annual Review of Marine Science, DOI:10.1146/annurev-marine-120308-081028 Source: PubMed.
• Edith A. Widder. 2001. Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Fort Pierce, Florida, Marine Bioluminescence, Bioscience Explained, vol 1, no 1, pp. 1-9.
• Edith A. Widder. 2010. “Bioluminescence in the Ocean: Origins of Biological, Chemical, and Ecological Diversity,” Science, vol. 328, pp. 704-708.
• www.wired.com/2012/01/glow-little-spewing-shrimp-glow/ March 28, 2018.
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malacosteus_niger / April 1, 2018.
• Harold, A. 2015. Malacosteus niger. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T190149A21909439. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T190149A21909439.en.
• https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/190149/21909439

Heart regeneration in mammals

Such heart regeneration holds the promise for the treatment of heart failure following heart attacks. But so far, the adult human heart is known not to show adequate regeneration or replacement of dead tissue with functional tissue such as beating cardiomyocytes (cardiac muscles) and arteries. When a patient has successive heart attacks and myocardial infarctions (death of cardiac muscle resulting from interruption of the blood supply), the number of dead cells increases due to the decreased level of oxygen reaching the heart tissue. That’s one of the reasons heart disease is so deadly.

The rates of cardiac regeneration, from fish to amphibians to mammals, demonstrates a decreasing trend — high in fish, moderate in amphibians, and limited in mammals. The regeneration mechanism is thought to occur via incorporating stem cells, using differentiation into cardiac muscle and other cell types, or via dedifferentiation of cardiomyocytes. It is known that the heart of an adult zebra fish can regenerate without scar formation, whereas adult rodents and humans respond with a fibrous scar, without obvious cardiomyocyte regeneration. This remarkable phenomenon had been demonstrated in other fish and amphibians, but never before in a mammal. Recently, researchers at UT Southwestern Medical Center showed that a newborn mouse’s heart can fully heal itself.

Sadek’s group at UT Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas showed that the mammalian heart demonstrates a temporary regeneration capacity in newborn mice. After slowing down the body functions by cooling the body of a mouse, they performed a very delicate heart surgery, removing about 15 percent of the apex of a 1-day-old newborn mouse heart. Within a short period (three weeks), they showed that heart had healed and the function of heart had returned to normal. But when mice are a week old, this remarkable ability of regeneration disappears, and damage to the heart results in the thinning of the heart wall at the site of injury, and the loss of the pumping capacity of heart, also known as heart failure. There seems to be a barrier to regeneration after 7 days. This 7-day window in mice could correspond to a few months after birth in humans. Several reports suggest that human heart may also have some ability to regenerate in infancy.

If newborn animals and infants are able to regenerate their hearts, there could be ways to remind the heart how do this or restart this ability in adulthood to allow regeneration in a broader window. Could there be means to induce regeneration by gene therapy, using small molecules, drugs or hormones? This new discovery brings new approaches to study heart disease and hopes that one day, heart disease — the number one killer in the world — could be treated. More studies are needed and a number of labs have already started to invest in this new model of heart regeneration.

Human heart cell turnover and regeneration

The heart is the least regenerative organ in our body. Once cardiomyocytes are damaged through heart attacks, the heart heals by scar formation instead of regeneration. This results in a loss of contractile function and often ends in heart failure. Lack of regeneration in an adult heart is associated with the complexity and inability of cardiomyocytes to divide, along with the absence of adequate muscle-producing cardiac stem cells in the heart.

Cardiomyocytes proliferate extensively during embryonic development but slow dramatically around birth. The growth of heart continues after birth through the increase in cardiomyocyte size, known as hypertropy. This allows DNA synthesis and nuclear division and results in binucleated cardiomyocytes.

Increasing evidence strongly suggests that the human heart shows a degree of cardiomyocyte repopulation (introduction of new cardiomyoctes). It is always challenging to study human heart cellular homeostasis, as it is limited in the availability of human samples and the means to work on it. Who knew nuclear testing during the Cold War would help to uncover dynamics of human cardiomyocyte turnover? Using a technique based on radiocarbon dating of DNA with carbon-14, released from nuclear tests, Bergmann and his colleagues from the Karolinska Institute in Sweden showed that the cardiomyocyte turnover rate is about 1 percent per year at age 20, with a decline to 0.4 percent per year at age 75. This is based on the idea that people born during nuclear tests following World War II until the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (1963), any cardiomyocyte repopulation should result in lower carbon-14 concentrations. These findings imply that around age 50, about half of the cardiomyocytes in the human heart are generated after birth. However, another study puts emphasis on the importance of cell deaths (apoptosis) for heart cell turnover, asserting that these rates could be much higher (7-40 percent per year). Those findings bring new hopes to heart disease. If the repopulation potential of heart could be therapeutically targeted, the rate of turnover could be extended to overcome the inability to recover cardiomyocyte loss and cardiac contractility after heart attacks.

The better regenerative capacity of fish and amphibians, compared to that of mammals, seems to stem from the presence of species-specific differences. It has been suggested that the limited regeneration potential of mammalian hearts following injury increases survival by prioritizing homeostasis and fibrosis (scar formation by excess connective tissue). Bleeding from the heart in a high-pressure circulation probably favors the more rapid fibrous healing, instead of regeneration, whereas small animals have a low-pressure circulatory system and oxygenation isn’t needed all the time. This phenomenon probably applies to the regeneration of the newborn mouse heart, which also made the removal of the apex of the newborn mouse heart possible.

Cardiac stem cells for regeneration

The heart is a mosaic of various cell types including valvular, arterial, smooth muscle, pacemaker, endothelial, autonomic ganglia, fibroblasts and cardiomyocytes. Those cells have essentially the same genetic makeup but they show a great diversity. Could there be a common cardiac stem cell that gives rise to all those cell types in the heart? There are a number of studies suggesting the presence of such stem cells, though why they fail to regenerate the heart following heart attacks remains unknown.

There have been a number of attempts to discover cardiac stem cells. Some stem cells have been studied in animals and even considered as possible therapies in human trials. Sources of those stem cells could be classifies as resident and non-resident (exogenous) cells of heart. Exogenous stem cell types include skeletal myoblasts, hematopoietic stem cells, mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow and circulating endothelial cells. Many approaches to identify resident cardiac stem cells are based on knowledge from hematopoietic stem cells. Using surface proteins on the cells known to enrich bone marrow stem cells, several types of resident stem cells are shown to exist in the heart. There are limited improvements in cardiac function using those cells, but the benefits of those cells are thought to be through other mechanisms instead of replacement of dead tissue in the damaged heart.

A study demonstrating the renewal of a newborn mice heart does not completely rule out resident cardiac stem cells as a source of new beating heart cells, but points out the likelihood of their originating from cardiomyocytes by dedifferentiation. Along with a number of attempts to treat heart failure by using stem cells, recent findings offer hope that researchers and doctors will one day able to cure heart disease. Knowing that “there is no disease that God has created, except that He also has created its treatment,” our duty is to study hard and to develop new technologies to find the prospective treatments for heart failure to serve humanity.

References

• Porrello et al. 2011. “Transient Regenerative Potential of the Neonatal Mouse Heart.” Science 25 February: 1078–1080.
• Bergmann et al. 2009. “Evidence for Cardiomyocyte Renewal in Humans.” Science, 3 April: 98–102.
• Charles E. Murry and Richard T. Lee. 2009. “Turnover after the fallout.” Science, V324.
• O.Bergmann et al. 2009. Science 324, 98.
• Simonetta Ausoni and Saverio Sartore. 2009. “From fish to amphibians to mammals: in search of novel strategies to optimize cardiac regeneration.” JBC. 184 (3).
• Martin-Puig et al. 2008. “Lives of a hear cell: Tracing the origins of cardiac progenitors.” Cell Stem Cell 2. April.
• Nevada Nuclear Testing Site: http://mason.gmu.edu/~kcherrix/atomichome.html
• Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 7, Book 71.

Conventional water and wind turbines cannot function properly in a whirling current; the working of turbines depends on the existence of a steady and regular flow. In order to be able to obtain energy from vortices, turbines would need to mimic the movements of fish, adjusting their position to the differing angles of flow. A mechanical device to be developed in this respect should perceive the angle of the current flow instantly and adjust itself accordingly.

Normally, wind turbines are set up in high and open places. However, in cities the eddies that are formed by winds moving around buildings and roofs prevent conventional turbines from working efficiently. In order to overcome this challenge, scientists are aiming to develop turbines that benefit from the dynamic principles apparent in the movement of fish, though without imitating the fish exactly. They hope that in this way it will be possible to produce energy from turbulent currents as well. The projects being devised aim to develop different types of turbines to work in air and water. The energy production of these turbines will naturally be relatively low in comparison to common wind turbines operating in strong winds. However, these new types will make it possible to produce energy from winds moving at less than 32 feet per hour, when conventional turbines do not function. So, the total annual energy they are expected to produce will be no less than the regular wind turbines. If scientists can successfully model the admirable engineering applied in the bodies of fish, they will be able to boost the efficiency of these devices dramatically.

Notes

1. For further information see Liao J. C. et al., “Fish exploiting vortices decrease muscle activity,” Science 302, 1566–1569, 2003.
2. Dabiri, J. O., “Renewable fluid dynamic energy derived from aquatic animal location,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics 2, L1-L3, 2007.

Dirac’s discovery

Dirac had the honor of being the first scientist in history to demonstrate the principle that all particles in the universe must exist in pairs, that for each particle there must exist a corresponding anti-particle of exactly the same mass but with an opposite electrical charge. For all matter in the universe, in other words, there must exist an equal amount of anti-matter. Thus the existence of a proton must imply the possible existence of an anti-proton; if a hydrogen atom exists, there must equally exist an atom of anti-hydrogen, perhaps in some distant corner of the universe.

Equal amounts of matter and anti-matter must have been produced in the first moments of the Big Bang. In our present universe, however, a particle will not be found co-existing peacefully side by side with its corresponding anti-particle. To understand this, we could recall the old European myth of the doppelganger, the perfect double of the unlucky hero. The message of the stories is always to avoid the doppelganger: if you meet your double you will be destroyed.

Just so, if matter and anti-matter meet they annihilate each other, their energy and momentum dissolving into heat and light. According to Dr. Abdus Salam of the International Centre for Theoretical Physics, “In Dirac’s language, anti-matter is ‘minus matter’; matter and anti-matter just cannot co-exist in the same part of the universe without the ever-impending catastrophe of annihilation; and indeed some astronomers do believe that just this type of annihilation of galaxies and anti-galaxies is taking place at the sites of powerful X-ray sources in the heavens” (See Abdus Salam 1966).

Dirac predicted the existence of anti-matter in 1934, and the discoveries of specific anti-particles in the following years confirmed his prediction.

The Fish Problem

According to an apocryphal story, the germ of Dirac’s breakthrough materialized from a mathematical brainteaser seemingly unrelated to theoretical physics. During a meeting of the Cambridge Undergraduate Mathematical Society, the Archimedians, the following problem was presented. Those who like a challenge can try working it out for themselves. The answer is provided below for those whose brains become tangled by figures.

After a long day, three fishermen have caught a good amount of fish. They are about to set sail for home when a storm suddenly builds up. Under raging skies, they decide to seek shelter on a nearby island. They unload their catch and set a fire before falling asleep. A few hours later, one fisherman wakes up to find that the weather has settled enough for a safe return to be possible. Not wanting to disturb his friends, he divides the haul into three equal parts. There is one fish remaining, and this the fisherman throws back into the sea. He then leaves with his share.

A little later, the second fisherman awakes, also with the desire to get back home. Unaware that one of his friends has already left, he too divides the catch into three equal parts. Again there is one fish remaining, and again this is thrown back into the sea. The fisherman rows off with his portion. Finally, the third fisherman arises and goes through the same process, dividing the remaining fish into three parts, finding one fish remaining, which he then throws back into the sea. He leaves the island with his portion.

And now for the problem: What is the minimum number of fish in the original catch? To put it another way, what is the smallest number which can be subdivided three times, leaving one fish outstanding each time?

Dirac’s answer

Dirac thought for a while before arriving at the answer: minus two. If you divide minus two fish three times, each third will contain minus one fish, with plus one fish outstanding. Each time a fisherman throws the plus one fish into the sea, and rows off with the minus one fish. Expressed in an equation, it looks like this: -2 = -1-1-1+1.

Minus one fish is obviously no use to anyone, and this is certainly a brainteaser. It is important only in that it gave birth to the notion of anti-particles in Dirac’s mind and can help us to understand the mathematical principle behind his discovery. It led him to the conclusion that all particles exist in opposing pairs and allowed him to see the symmetry of matter and anti-matter.

The Holy Qur’an and Dirac’s theory

As we have already noted, Dirac was the first man in the history of science to make this profound discovery. For this he must be congratulated, and so must the modern scientific methods which have brought us so much practical information about ourselves and the universe in which we live.

Many centuries before Dirac, however, a text was revealed to an unlettered man in the Arabian desert. Its primary message was of the existence of one Creator and of an Afterlife in which human beings would account for their conduct while on earth. But this was no ordinary religious book, for it continually exhorted its readers to examine the natural world around them for the signs of God, to develop logical and objective thinking, and to place a crucial emphasis on education. This Book broke down the artificial boundaries which divide material and spiritual study. In the Holy Qur’an, science and religion are entirely compatible. Indeed, they cannot be distinguished.

In the Qur’an, we find the following verses, which may be considered relevant to Dirac’s discoveries of the pairings and symmetries of the universe’s structure, and in fact much more:

Glory to God
Who created all things in pairs,
Those that the earth produces,
As well as their own (human) kind,
And things of which
They have no knowledge
(Ya Sin 36:36)

The line “Who created all things in pairs” clearly shows that the Qur’an is referring to a law of nature; all things on earth and in the heavens-animal, vegetable or mineral (and even sub-atomic)-have been created in pairs. (Modern science has evolved around the study of pairs, from the male/female pair which generates animal and plant life to the pairings of quarks and leptons which are the most basic building blocks of the universe.) The line “Things of which they have no knowledge” suggests that the theory of pairs is of universal scope. It applies equally at all points in time and space; even in worlds of which we have no knowledge.

Elsewhere in the Qur’an we find a statement which modern science has spent its history confirming:

Verily all things (without exception),
We have created,
In exact measures and proportions.
(Hadid 57:49)

The line “In exact measures and proportions” is most revealing from a scientific point of view. The Qur’an contains the unambiguous lesson that as well as having perfect symmetry, every force in the universe is definite, of exact measurement and proportion following precise laws:

And there is not a thing,
But its storehouse is with Us,
And We send them down,
But in definite ascertainable measures.
(Hijr 15:21)
God, the Absolute Singularity
The Holy Qur’an tells us of God:
He is the First,
And the Last,
He is the Outermost,
And the Innermost,
And He is the knower of all things.
(Hadid 57:3)

In this verse “the First” and “the Last” relate to the time domain, and “the Outermost” and “the Innermost” to the space domain. As such time and space are the first pair of nature. By extension all pairs are finally unified in the only Singularity in the universe-God. All pairs are aspects of the same reality, to which they all must return-the oneness of God.

But the Qur’an does not only give us information about the universe. It goes a step further, requiring us to use this information to develop our thinking. As always, the Qur’an demands the active participation of its reader:

And of everything,
We have created in pairs,
That you may reflect.
(Dhariyat 51:49)

The Qur’an asks us to think, offering both a mental challenge and a proof of God’s existence. If we reflect on the paired structure of the universe by using the methods of scientific reductionism, breaking a complex system down into its simplest units, we will finally come back to a single point of origin, an absolute singularity, the one source of time and space: God (See Mahmood 1987). As the Qur’an says,

And all that is in the heavens,
And all that is in the earth,
It is from God;
And (in the final analysis)
Everything will return to Him.
(Al Imran 3:109)

Guidance for the modern age

The Qur’an comments on many areas of interest to modern science, from medicine to geology. Many verses of the Qur’an have taken on added significance as new scientific discoveries have been made. In fact, it seems that science has been following the Qur’an’s lead for centuries.

Furthermore, in an age when progress in such fields as genetic engineering and chemical weaponry has raised complex ethical questions, the Qur’an teaches the salutary lesson that science should be the servant of humankind, not vice versa. It provides a model for all our endeavors in which symmetry is a prime value. Technological progress must be balanced by a symmetrical spiritual development. The new freedoms that we have won through our expanding knowledge must be balanced by an awareness of our new responsibilities. Otherwise our achievements will turn upon us, polluting our environment and increasing rather than diminishing our suffering. Without the guidance of Islam through the Qur’an, humankind with its scientific achievements will be like a child surrounded by dangerous toys.

This Book provided the light by which a great scientific culture once thrived. The Muslim world today, cursed as it is by illiteracy, intolerance and superstition, is a poor reflection of that former glory. This is the fault of human beings, not of the message of Islam, whose light continues to shine. Its light is every bit as available to a non-Muslim as it is to someone who has grown up in a Muslim environment. Once we move beyond our habitual beliefs and prejudices, all of us can profit from the message of the Qur’an. An independent and freethinking mind is all that is necessary to see its light. If we read, discuss and reflect upon the Qur’an, we can use that light to guide us now in our explorations of the universe and ourselves.

For this reason, we appeal to you to read the Qur’an. The example of the Qur’an’s truth presented in this paper is only one starting point. The Qur’an reveals further riches with each reading. The light of this Book, which spoke to seventh-century Arabs of things of which they had no knowledge, can teach modern humankind too.

Dr. Sultan Bashir Mahmood is the founder of the Holy Quran Research Foundation in Islamabad. Mr. Robin Yasin Qusab is a graduate of Cambridge University and a freelance journalist.

References

• The Holy Qur’an: with English translation and commentary by Yusuf Ali, Muhammad Asad, Maulana Darya Abadi, Ali Ünal.
• Maurice Bucaille. The Bible, the Qur’an and Science, New York: Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, Inc., 2003.
• Bashir-ud-Din Mahmood. Doomsday and Life After Death, Islamabad: Holy Qur’an Research Foundation, 1991.
• Bashir-ud-Din Mahmood, “Symmetry of the Universe and the Qur’an,” Science and Technology in the Islamic World, Vol. 5, No. 1, Jan. 1987. National Science Council of Pakistan.
• Abdus Salam. Symmetry Concepts in Modern Science, Lahore: Atomic Energy Centre, 1966.
• Sultan Bashir Mahmood
• Robin Yasin Qusab

The way scientific prediction generally tends to approach matters is as follows: “do this and you’ll see that”. The discovery of the planet Neptune in 1846, one of the early successes of physics, still remaining fresh even today, is a particularly nice example: In the nineteenth century, by observing the trajectories of the planetary motion of Uranus, the most remote planet in the Solar system at that time, astronomers discovered that its trajectory was not exactly the way it should have been. Taking into account the gravitational action of nearby planets did not help either. By that time, however, Newtonian mechanics had already gained enough authority so as not to be immediately abandoned. To circumvent the problem, instead of abandoning gravity altogether, scientists proposed that there must be a celestial body, hitherto unseen, that was disturbing the trajectory. After elaborate calculations were made, the astronomers were told to direct their telescopes at a specific time at a specific region of the sky and they would see a shiny dot. They did as instructed, and the dot was present exactly as calculated. Significantly, it does not matter who was actually sitting by the telescope. Under the same conditions, a famous scientist or a lay person should be able to see the same. This is an example of what is called “objective reality,” the shining star in this case. In general, objective reality may be defined as anything which exists independent of the observer, implying that if something objectively real is encountered by observer 1, then reproducing the conditions of the first experiment, observer 2 should see it as well.

“Objective reality” is the scope of science and the science is unbelievably successful when dealing with it. The agreement between theory and experiment in the case of the so-called “anomalous magnetic moment of the electron,” for instance, is to the order of 1 to 100,000,000,000. To give a sense of this truly mind-blowing degree of precision, one can say that it is like sending a rocket to the Moon and predicting its landing coordinates up to the nearest millimeter.

This shows us the might of science, but what makes science so effective also sets the limits for the range of its applicability. The key factor for the conventional scientific method is the reproducibility or the regularity of the event. Whatever does not fit this condition finds itself outside the circle of phenomena that are conventionally called “scientific.” For example, ghosts are not scientific, although there are many more people who claim to have seen them than there are those who routinely observe, for example, the fractional quantum Hall effect, which is absolutely real, despite its exoticism. The number does not matter in this case. There is a certain prescription of how the quantum Hall effect should be observed, whereas there is no such thing for spiritual contacts. One has to be careful to distinguish non-scientific phenomena from non-existent phenomena. The concept of reality and existence itself is a subtle question and has traditionally been a philosophical battlefield that is heavily dependent on definitions; in any case, whatever the truth is, the fact that there is no 100% guaranteed technique of, for instance, summoning the spirit of the long-deceased Genghis Khan does not present sufficient evidence to rule out its possibility.

To illustrate what has been said up to this point, and to look on the subject from a different perspective, the following story might be of some use.

The pond story

Imagine Mr. Smith is sitting by the pond. To study its content our researcher has a sieve that he can use to scoop the water and see what is left inside. After some time he is certain that there is ooze in the pond. Later that evening, by the fireplace, he tells his wife, Mrs. Smith, about what he’d seen during the day at the pond. On the next day, to make sure her husband had actually spent his day the way he said he had, she takes the sieve and goes to the pond. With the first scoop, she gets some ooze and on the evening of the second day the ooze is elevated to the level of an objective reality. It is unimportant who is scooping the water, Mr. or Mrs. Smith. From now on whenever they want to watch the ooze, they just scoop the water with the sieve, and they are guaranteed to get some. In addition to this important discovery, Mrs. Smith also tells Mr. Smith about some rapidly moving shiny longish objects that she saw from time to time in the muddy waters of the pond. However, none of these, unfortunately, have ever made their way into the colander. That evening Mr. Smith has trouble believing the confusing story of his wife, as she doesn’t have much evidence to support it. At the end of the day, the self-confident ooze pioneer has convinced the excessively susceptible scooper that she has had a hard day, and shiny objects won’t bother her anymore. And so they lived a long and happy life. Actually long after, Mr. and Mrs. Smith Jr. discovered that the silver objects also existed objectively, for that, however, a sieve had to be upgraded to a net. These are called fish. But that’s a whole other story.

The moral is obvious: the fish here symbolizes some phenomena that are unobservable with the available accessible technology, but which do actually exist in the pond, which represents the universe; it is solely the problem of the master of the colander, who is of course identified with a researcher, that his gear is not advanced enough. At this point, one should avoid falling into another extremity, that is, denying science altogether, for Mr. Smith was right to a certain extent. At that point the fish, or to be more precise, a fish dinner which would be the manifestation of the fish, was not real for him at all. And this being so there wasn’t much point in talking about it. He preferred to talk constructively of what he could do at anytime with, to some extent, guaranteed success, that is, of what was real for him. Though, again, one should keep in mind that they should not be so opinionated to deny the existence of anything they cannot trap or measure. These ideas should always be kept in mind when thinking about the compatibility of metaphysics with the conventional, quantifiable material world.

The fact that science is based on positive knowledge is very inconvenient for proving the absence of something as opposed to proving the existence of it. To perform the latter involves locating the object or giving a concrete example of it. On the contrary, to prove the absence of something, the whole range of possibilities must be exposed. The task grows ever more difficult as the generality of the statement grows, ultimately becoming impossible.

While thinking of the universe and the role of science which is so successful in understanding it, one should be aware of the fact that science deals with the idealized models of phenomena, describing them with a certain degree of success, not the phenomena themselves. A good model has a small error, poor ones have greater error. A nice example illustrating this matter is the electrical model of a mechanical oscillator. For those who are not familiar with electronics, we can say that the capacitor and the coil act as a spring and the mass, respectively. The charge is to be associated with the expansion of the spring, the electrical current with the velocity of the block.

In the first approximation everything goes well: if we want to determine what the position of the block of the oscillator would be after 3 seconds, instead of oscillating the whole system, we can build a model circuit with the capacitance and inductance adjusted properly, and measure the charge accumulated on the capacitor after 3 seconds. However, once we begin to demand higher precision, we begin to encounter one problem after another. The capacitor might be leaking, hence it no longer ideally represents the spring; the coil has resistance and so on. Even if we somehow get ideal electronics, the oscillator has some air drag, and the spring does not ideally follow Hook’s law) [Hook’s law states that the force the spring produces is directly proportional to the degree it was stretched or compressed to]. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible to determine what the oscillator would do exactly without letting it run. However, there is no reason to fall into despair: generally we don’t need to know what it does exactly; depending on the particular case, a fairly good approximation is fine for most of the applications we might ever encounter.

This is how science works. No one has ever observed the “free bodies” moving on a “straight line with constant velocity” that are mentioned in Newton’s first law, the so-called “law of inertia.” What we actually do encounter are the almost free bodies, moving on an almost straight line, with almost constant velocity. But that doesn’t mean, of course, that Newton was wrong: as long as we don’t force his laws into the subatomic region where quantum physics dominates or try to use them nearby the black holes where Einstein’s general relativity takes over, they work unbelievably fine. The rockets we send using these very laws make it quite well to the Moon.

There is an interesting aphorism which is ascribed to Sir Arthur Eddington, a prominent British astronomer: “The law of inertia is true as long as we believe in it.” Newtonian mechanics states that “An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an external and unbalanced force. An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external and unbalanced force.” However, since no one has ever seen bodies that are totally isolated from “an external and unbalanced force,” we just believe in this law. Now imagine that someone has nevertheless succeeded in shielding away all the external forces. Being given an initial velocity it is expected to maintain this; but what a disaster: the body doesn’t do so! What should be done in this case? One choice is to renounce Newton’s first law altogether, the other is to say “Hey, what if I did not eliminate the forces completely, what if there is some other force, unknown to me? Both ways are good, but in the latter one you save the ability to describe the world, whereas in the first you are left with nothing. We assume the law of inertia is true and the world becomes describable. Actually, this is what one has to do to understand anything. You have to begin somewhere. State an axiom and assume it is true. Infinite skepticism just doesn’t work. “Cogito ergo sum” was Descartes’ axiom which he had to accept to begin with.

This being so, modern science in the way it exists now does not provide the only model for the Universe; instead, it just realizes one of the possibilities. In the same way that one can use either electrical circuits or a special computer program to model a mechanical oscillator, there is more than one way to deal with the Universe. For example, how can we explain that the parameters of the planet Earth happened to meet the criteria needed to support organic life so ideally? One can say it just happened to be this way by coincidence and we are very lucky. We are very lucky, for instance, that the magnetic field of the Earth stops deadly solar winds, that the ozone layer stops destructive ultraviolet radiation, that the atmosphere is the most transparent for radiation in the yellow-green part of the spectrum, which just miraculously happens to coincide with the intensity peak of the Sun spectrum, which, in turn is the spectrum part plants use for photosynthesis and that to which the human eye is the most sensitive, etc, etc, etc. And though the probability is ridiculously low, low enough to rule it out in normal practice, it is still not impossible, although it is extremely improbable. Or one can say it was God Almighty who created the planet this way so that we can live here. And if it was God Who created the Sun, the Earth, the human eye and the plants then this set of coincidences does not seem so improbable any more. Is there a way to find out which approach is the truth? As long as both are self-consistent internally and do not contradict physical observations, the answer is no. There is no way to choose one version over the other using pure logic alone. However, there is an empirical rule usually called “Occam’s Razor” which states that in case there is more than one explanation for some phenomenon, the one which is the simplest is the true one. Well, the Universe with God in it is the simplest, isn’t it? 

Janibek Alpishev is PhD candidate at Stanford University.

Animals with “Anti-Freeze”

Although it is not clear whether human beings took the idea of anti-freeze, i.e., adding a substance to water to prevent it from freezing, from animals, some animals living in cold climates have a substance in their blood that prevents them from freezing. When the skin or the operculum of fish that live in cold seas comes into contact with ice, their blood starts to freeze, and the fish soon die. The reason for this is the rapid increase of ice crystals in their blood. However, there are many fish species that live in cold areas despite such unfavorable conditions. Some species in these areas retreat to the deep water where the water is -1.8°C to prevent freezing. However, in Antarctica there are fish living in areas that are much colder than this. These fish can protect themselves against freezing in the very cold temperatures of Antarctica thanks to chemical substances in their blood that work like anti-freeze in a car. Could it be possible that this technique of anti-freeze has been codified in the genetic programming of fish not by a conscious Creator but merely by coincidence? Such an idea would be logically difficult to accept. The substance called AFGP (Antarctic Fish Gliko-Protein) found in the blood of fish in Antarctica works as a natural anti-freeze and helps fish survive in icy water without freezing. Special proteins synthesized by genes that have been codified by special programming are linked to ice crystals, and they are thus able to prevent ice crystals from forming in the body of the fish.

Researchers have discovered some of the genes that codify AFGP during their study on some species of fish that belong to the Notothenioidei suborder, which live in Antarctic water without freezing; these fish are the Notothenia coriiceps and the Dissostichus mawsoni. The genes that were discovered codify a protein in a substance that prevents them from freezing. This protein is manufactured in the pancreas, but is not broken down in the intestines. Researchers are still trying to identify the gene that codifies the AFGP. Once this gene has been comprehensively understood, the protein which the gene codifies can be produced artificially and inexpensively. In this way, a small amount of anti-freeze protein injected into the blood to prevent freezing could save many lives. However, for the time being, it seems like a far-fetched possibility that this gene can be inserted into a human genome. All the genes in our body are interrelated with one another, and therefore a new program that would change the formation of the blood, preventing it from completely freezing, might cause many adverse side-effects.

The Miracle of Salt

Many fish have substances that cause the freezing point of their blood to fall below zero. Scientists have determined that the most common of these substances are the salts found in body liquids, in particular sodium chloride. These salts account for an 85% reduction in the freezing point. It is not possible for fish, which are unaware of the physiology of the body liquid and the complex relations of the metabolism with the process of freezing, to have developed such a protection mechanism through evolution.

Fish are not the only animals with anti-freeze. From the world of insects, Cryptopygus antarcticus (the Antarctic springtail) and Achorutes nivicola (the snow flea) are creatures that can survive in very low temperatures. Many animals become motionless or die when the temperature dips below freezing. But the Antarctic springtail can easily move and jump around at these temperatures. The biological reason for this vivacity is the anti-freeze system of this insect. Some of them can even live in glaciers unharmed for a period of up to three years.

Waterproof Fur

The otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) has a different type of protection against cold. The otter has been hunted for its soft, thick, velvet-like fur, bringing it to the brink of extinction. This animal’s fur is such a fabulous protection that otters can swim for days without even getting wet. The thick fur protects the otter from the cold. Unlike many sea animals, the fat layer under the otter’s skin is very thin, and is thus not very helpful against cold. Instead, the One whose Mercy is Endless has granted them a thick fur that protects them from the cold.

Polar Bear Dens

When the dens of polar bears are examined, many fascinating aspects are discovered. If a female polar bear living in Antarctica is pregnant or has just given birth, she makes a den under the snow; this is the only way that she can survive. The cubs are usually born during the middle of winter. When they are born, they are hairless, sightless and very tiny. These totally vulnerable and very needy babies are born in the middle of winter and they need proper dens in order to survive. A typical den consists of a two-meter hole and a round cave half a meter in diameter. It is only about half a meter high. However, this is no ordinary shelter constructed by a simple procedure. In a place where everywhere is covered by snow and ice, this den is dug very carefully under the snow drifts, and every detail necessary for the lives of the cubs is ensured. These dens usually consist of more than one room. Despite the fact that polar bears lack knowledge of thermo-dynamics, they dig out a smaller den above the entrance, ensuring that the warm air in these rooms cannot escape. Throughout winter, snow accumulates at the entrance and on top of the den. The polar bear leaves only a small, narrow channel through this snow drift to allow the air in. The thickness of the roof constructed by the mother bear is somewhere between 75 centimeters to two meters. This roof works as a good insulator, keeping the existing heat inside.

A researcher from Oslo University, Paul Watts, placed a gadget on the ceiling of one of these dens to carefully measure the heat. His findings were surprising: while the temperature outside fell below –30 degrees, the temperature inside never fell below 2 or 3 degrees. The scientists were also amazed to discover that the mother bear constructs her den like an expert physicist, building her nest with perfect insulation. In this warm and protective setting the mother bear does not die of cold because the fat reserves in her body are sufficient for her hibernation period. However, the period of hibernation is an even more interesting issue: the metabolic rate of the mother bear slows down to save energy, thus enabling the cubs to be better nourished. Thanks to these characteristics, granted by the One whose Mercy is Endless, the fat stored in the bodies of polar bears is turned into protein over a hibernation period of seven months, feeding the cubs. This is how the polar bear survives without eating any food for such a long time. Its heart rate decelerates from 70 beats per minute to 8, and the metabolism slows down in accordance with this. As the bear does not eat any food, it does not need to defecate or urinate.

Parenthood in a White World

It seems as if penguins (Aptenodytes forsteri) thumb their noses at the freezing cold. The mothers return back to cold seas shortly after laying eggs in order to feed. The mating pairs do not build nests, because there is nothing around them except snow and ice. Yet, they cannot leave their eggs on the ice, for the egg would be immediately frozen. So, while the mother is hunting for food, the father penguin takes care of the chicks over a period of three months. The fathers gather around in a group to carry, initially, the eggs, and then the chicks, holding them on their feet in order to protect them from freezing. The feet of penguins are covered with feathers, and are 80 °C warmer than the outside temperature, thus keeping the egg from freezing. The penguins form a circle with their backs facing out, and the chicks on the inside. Those fathers that happen to be located at the outer most part of the circle change places from time to time with the other penguins to protect themselves from freezing. This is necessary, because the temperature is around -50 °C.

Are such animals as we have discussed here capable of learning and thinking? Or are these abilities that are peculiar only to humans? Differentiating humans from animals along strict lines, Descartes (1596-1650), who said “cogito, ergo sum: I think, therefore, I am,” went so far as to claim that animals do not feel, let alone have an ability to think. Some biologist today argue that animals might not have the ability to think as we understand it, but they can still behave in some logical ways that are peculiar to them, and they can learn. Nevertheless, we cannot give animals credit for comprehending the need for anti-freeze in their blood, the protective characteristics of salt against freezing, how they should make their dens, or form circles to protect themselves against the cold. Rather, we could say that all these are manifestations of the most beautiful names of our Lord. One of the meanings of the 16th verse of the Surat al-Anbiya, It was not for nothing that We created the Heavens and the Earth and all that is between, is that we are to understand that there is a Divine Wisdom and Insight in the creation of each and every one of the creatures of the universe.

References 

• Scott, M., The Young Oxford Book of Ecology, p. 47.
• Manisali, M., Antifirizli Baliklar, S›z›nt›, May 2000.
• Bilyap Aquaristic web site, Fischverhalten beobachten und verstehen, Jorg Vierke.
• O’Toole,C., Stidworthy, J., Mammals: The Hunters, p. 86-89.
• http://www.populerbilgi.com/genel/Fedakarlik2.php – Guinness Books, Remarkable Animals: A Unique Encyclopedia of Wildlife Wonders, p. 21.

These tiny and mysterious creatures of the water are called Plankton; included in these are passively floating or weakly swimming animals and plants. The word plankton comes from the Greek word “planktos,” which means “to drift.” The plankton that drifts in the ocean currents are among the most abundant creatures of the planet. A bowl of water taken from an ocean consists of millions of these tiny organisms; they cannot be perceived by the naked eye. The only way to really become familiar with these creatures is to find them and observe them with the help of a video scope or a microscope. Many marine plants and animals go through a stage in their life cycle when they are plankton, but they ultimately outgrow this stage. These types of creatures are called meroplankton. Unlike meroplankton, holoplankton are tiny creatures which live their whole life as plankton.

Plankton are also classified as either plant plankton or animal plankton. Phytoplankton is the scientific name for plant plankton, whereas zooplankton is the term used for animal plankton. Phytoplankton are usually smaller than zooplankton and it is hard to observe them even under the microscope. Most of the food chains in the ocean begin with phytoplankton, which are eaten by tiny zooplankton. These tiny zooplankton in turn are eaten by larger animals living under the water, including sharks and blue whales.

Since plankton are at the bottom of most of the food chains in the ocean, anything that causes damage to their lives may effect many other organisms. Losing large numbers of plankton may affect the abundance of krill, which is the main diet of whales. Phytoplankton produce oxygen that people breathe; therefore a decrease in the number of phytoplankton may cause problems for human beings. Most plankton live near the surface of the oceans. Pollution, especially that caused by chemical pollutants, has a direct impact on the water at the surface. This is a great threat to plankton populations. Plankton are not only critical for their role in the food chain, but they are also important for their usage in the production of valuable minerals. Ancient deposits of plankton, which were buried under the seafloor and later mined, have become important sources of oil, shale, and many other valuable minerals.

Like land plants, phytoplankton fix carbon through photosynthesis, making it available for higher trophic levels.¹ The major environmental factors influencing phytoplankton growth are temperature, light, and availability of nutrients. Phytoplankton can undergo rapid population growth or “algal blooms” when water temperatures rise in the presence of excess nutrients. While increased phytoplankton populations provide more food to organisms at higher trophic levels, too much phytoplankton can harm the overall health of the oceans. During these blooms, most of the phytoplankton die and sink to the bottom, where they decompose. This process depletes the bottom waters of dissolved oxygen, which is necessary for the survival of other organisms, including fish and crabs.

Major groups of phytoplankton include: diatoms, golden-brown algae, green algae, blue-green algae, dinoflagellates and crypto monads. Phytoplankton are being used as indicators of environmental conditions within the oceans because their populations are especially sensitive to changes in nutrient levels and other water quality conditions.

Zooplankton are planktonic animals that range in size from microscopic rotifers to macroscopic jellyfish. Their distribution within the oceans is governed by salinity, temperature and food availability. The zooplankton community is composed of both primary consumers, which eat phytoplankton, and secondary consumers, which feed on other zooplankton. Zooplankton can be classified into three size classes: Microzooplankton-protozoans and rotifers, Mesozooplankton-including copepods and invertebrate larvae, and Macrozooplankton-including amphipods, shrimp, fish larvae, and jelly fish. Zooplankton, like phytoplankton, are excellent indicators of environmental conditions within the oceans, because they are sensitive to changes in water quality.

The most common animal in the plankton group is the copepod. There are more than 7,500 species of copepods. Copepods are small shrimp-like animals.

Copepods have appendages that are used like paddles for movement. They eat diatoms and other plankton and in turn are eaten by other, larger, drifters. A single copepod can eat an average of 200,000 diatoms a day.

Amphipods, which are the main diet of the gray whale, look like a cross between a shrimp and an isopod. The amphipod typically ranges in size from 2 to 50 mm, although a few may be larger. Amphipods are common in aquatic ecosystems throughout many parts of the world, inhabiting marine, brackish, and freshwater environments. A few species also live in terrestrial ecosystems.

One of the most interesting plankton species is the barnacle. It lives in the upper zone of the oceans where the water only comes at high tide. The appearance of a barnacle is rather deceptive. At first glance it looks like a mollusk, but when you observe the larva of the barnacle the truth becomes clear. Barnacles cause serious problems on the hulls of ships and buoys.

Jellyfish, which are basically nothing more than a large stomach with long tentacles, are also plankton. Their tentacles have stingers on them which they use to catch and paralyze food and then bring it to their stomachs. They move through the water by pumping their stomachs. For the most part they move up and down in the water, letting the currents carry them from side to side.

Copepods, amphipods, jellyfish, and barnacles are some of the most abundant and well-known examples of plankton. The oceans of the world contain a world of tiny organisms; most of them invisible to the human eye and yet these are the basis for nearly all the life in the sea. Our awareness of these tiny creatures will help enhance our appreciation of God’s uniqueness and greatness. The more we learn about the mysteries of the deep, the more we believe in the existence of God.

Footnote

1. Trophic levels: Producer, primary consumer, secondary consumer, tertiary consumer.

In the West, the theory of evolution continues to be promoted as if it were a proven fact or a secure, testable and tested law-something that no-one in their right minds questions any more. This presentation implies that there is no room, let alone any need, for discussion. The most common media cliché is that the evolutionary chain has been confirmed yet again by yet another discovery of the missing link proving human ancestry from apes. Faced with this kind of promotion and presentation, and the sheer pervasiveness of it, it is no surprise if non-specialists come to accept that the theory must be true, and that it must be accepted by all the specialists, the whole scientific community, with no serious doubters. However, that perception is far from the reality. In the first place, the theory lacks completeness on two major counts and there is no likelihood of these deficiencies ever being made up. In the second, there are major voices of dissent from within the scientific community, alongside alternative theoretical explanations which demonstrate a far superior conformity with observed or experimentally obtained data.

The origin of life

To have any enduring claim to viability the theory of evolution must explain the origin of life in its own terms. It must be able to answer the question, ‘How did life evolve from non-living forms?’ It needs also to explain how the notion of ‘selection for survival’ operates before life exists, to explain how ‘life’ is the best way for non-living forms to exist longer. Just as the theory tells us that, because rhinoceroses with the thickest skin did best in battles with other rhinoceroses, over aeons of time rhinoceroses evolved skins as thick as skins can possibly get while still functioning as skins-so too, it needs to tell us how life is an adaptation. If it is, what is it an adaptation to? Moreover, if life is an adaptation, why is it the same across the whole range of living forms (animal or plant or in-between)? We have innumerable varieties of living forms (adapted, we are told, to different conditions of climate and competition for food resources) but we do not have different varieties of being alive. Is that what we should expect? Should we not expect that the creatures who lived longest (and had offspring the least often) would have out-survived all competition, until eventually they lived so long it was for ever? Or, vice-versa that those who lived the shortest lives (and therefore had more offspring more often) eventually fell back, after aeons of trial and proof, into hardly being alive at all individually, but merely replicating themselves? In fact, of course, the same climate and conditions of competition for food resources support both relatively long- and relatively short-lived forms at every level of complexity and thoroughly intermingled within even the same individual life-form.

Life rests upon an infinitely precarious equilibrium among the proteins, the building blocks of life, found in the simplest to the most complex of living forms. Denying the existence of a conscious Creator, the theory of evolution cannot explain how this equilibrium was established and protected. The theory proposes chance and coincidence as the only scientific way to think about the question. But a scientific way of looking at a problem must have at least some likelihood of being true, if we are to expend energy fruitfully on verifying or falsifying it. In other words, a hypothesis must be reasonable to start with so that we can test and judge it. It must not be irrational: the appeal to chance and random coincidences is nothing if not an abandonment of reason. A protein is made up of the combination of on average 1000-1500 aminoacids in 20 different types in a certain sequence. Even a single error in that sequence renders the protein useless. There is zero probability of this happening by chance, not even if the universe is billions of light-years wide and long. One of the foremost advocates of evolution, the Russian scientist A.I. Oparin confesses this impossibility in his book The Origin of Life (pp.132-133). Even the simplest of these materials (proteins), consisting of thousands of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen atoms, each with a unique design presents highly sophisticated structure. For those who study the structure of the proteins, it is as hopeless for these proteins to have formed by chance as for the Aeneid (the long Latin epic by Virgil) to have been composed by random association of the letters of the Latin alphabet.

Another evolutionist scientist has offered a different analogy with the same conclusion. The probability of a chance formation of only one of the proteins required for life (Cytochrome-C) may be likened to the probability of a monkey writing out the history of humanity by randomly pushing the keys of a typewriter.

What evolution theory defends is exactly this nonsensical assertion. Yet, the examples above are only the probability calculations for the chance formation of a single protein. However, millions of similar impossible coincidences should have been realized consecutively in order for the evolution of life to be effected.

The probability of chance formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is a low as zero. If life requires that certain sequence, it is likely to be realized only once in the whole life-time and space of the universe. Now it could be proposed that some metaphysical power(s) beyond our definition consciously enabled its formation. But to entertain such a proposition is, apparently, not appropriate for the modern enterprise of science. Therefore we have to fall back on the first hypothesis as the best we have at present.

If, as it appears, the theory of evolution is not justified by the information we have, how does it survive? Has questioning it become, among the specialists, a taboo which they violate at the risk of their reputation and their careers? If so, why? We will return to this question.

The problem of transitional forms

Another of many difficulties with the theory of evolution is that the theory requires there to exist or have existed in the past transitional forms. For example, if the theory claims, as it does, that life originated in the sea and then sea creatures were driven (by some force, let us say, a climatic change like a fall in sea-level) to move on to dry land, the theory must produce evidence (or at least convincing argument) of the transitional forms between the sea-creatures and the land-creatures they evolved into. Our present experience of, for example, fish, is that if they come out of the water, they very quickly die. We have no reason to believe that fish were so radically different aeons ago from what they are now. If anything, the evidence is all the other way: that fish as fish were the same then as now. So how could enough of them have lived long enough in shallow-water or no-water to establish in their gene pool the skill to evolve gills into lungs? Nobody can say that maybe some of these fish happened to acquire a lung at the end of the four-millionth year while they were in the throes of death. It is entirely nonsensical. But this nonsense is exactly what the evolutionists assert. The same problem arises when we look for transitional forms between land-bound reptiles and flying birds.

Some allegedly extinct intermediate transitional forms have turned out to exemplify only the temptations of forgery and distortion in the service of falsehood into which some scientists have allowed themselves to fall. For instance, the fish Coelacanth (Rhipitistian Crossopterigian) presented by evolutionists as a transitional form between marine and land creatures, and supposedly extinct about 70 million years ago, was found alive and well in 1939 near Madagascar, and has been caught about 50 times since in the open seas. Furthermore, the organs that prompted the evolutionists to present the coelacanth as the transitional intermediate form (inner ear alcoves, head typed backbone and swimming bag), do not have these properties at all. The same is true for other fossils presented as transitional intermediate forms. The well-known nature scientist A.H. Clark acknowledges that, since we have no single evidence indicating a transition between fossils and living groups, we must accept that such transitional forms never existed.

A well-known genetic and evolutionist, Richard B. Goldschimdt admits that there is no such a thing as the transitional intermediate form. He explains the differences in species by sudden leaps. Now to say that a species originated all of a sudden is tantamount to saying that it was consciously originated or ‘created’. Although the evolutionists are embarrassed on scientific platforms, they do not have a hard time deceiving the ordinary person in the street, because the theory is so well-packaged. You draw an imaginary schema representing transition from water from land, you invent Latin words for the animal in water, and for its descendant on land, and you draw sketches of both (both wholly imaginary constructs), and the package is completed or, as we should rather say, fabricated. ‘Eusthenopteron transformed into first Rhipitistian Crossoptergian, then lchthyostega in a long evolution process.’ If you put these words in the mouth of a scientist with thick glasses and a white apron, you are half way to convincing most people. For the great many people who see reality through the media packaging of it, this kind of presentation is good enough to be truth: it is easy to believe, it makes no demand on consciousness, or reason, or conscience: we are all here by chance, we are not here by the will of a Creator to Whom we are answerable.

The most common package is, inevitably, the one that relates to

human beings. A central feature is the string of related sketches (all imaginary constructions) of an all-ape, three-quarters-ape, half-ape/half-man figure, gradually ending in a drawing that looks more or less like a European male of average build and features. This is offered as our story, our beginning long ago, our present being now. This string of sketches will be found on virtually every classroom wall, from primary schools to secondary schools and in every popular textbook or encyclopaedia which touches upon the subject, and in the form of stuffed exhibits in every science museum in the West.

In these drawings, half-ape half-human creatures are seen as a family. Having a hairy body, a slightly bent walking posture, and a face in between a man and an ape, these creatures are supposedly drawn from the fossils found by the evolutionist scientists. But the fossils found give information only about the bone structure and skeleton, and examination of the teeth will reveal information about the probable range of diet.

The fossils tell us nothing at all about how hairy the body was that hung upon those bones, nor what kind of nose, ears, lips or hair would once have rested upon the particular skull. But the evolutionists’ sketches picture do, almost always, show the organs like nose, lips and ears, and these are drawn (to fit the theory) and do indeed show something half-man, half-ape. This is not science, it is fiction or, more precisely, it is myth. Another support for this fiction, and another proof that it is fiction, is that the same bundle of bones can give be made to give rise to quite different re-constructions, depending upon the particular theorist’s preference: for example, the three totally unlike re-constructions of the fossil called Australoplthecus Robustus (Zinjanthropus). There is certainly a power behind these presentations of the theory, but it is not the power of reason disciplined by facts and evidence, but the power of myth-making imagination inspired by a particular ideology.

The ideological background to the theory

In order to understand why the evolution theory is promoted and defended so insistently, we need to look to the historical background behind it. Until the modern period, the intellectual life of Europe was basically subject to the authority of the Church. Starting from the 16th century, the order justified and underpinned by the authority of religious beliefs and principles started to conflict with the interests of certain social groups. Acquiring great wealth through commerce but having no political power, these groups began a long struggle to limit the authority of the Church. They did so not only on the political and social fronts but also on the philosophical front: religious beliefs and the authority of religion had to be weakened before the social-political system underpinned by religion could be radically reformed. Almost all the 18th century ‘enlightenment’ intellectuals and 19th century positivists came from these secularising groups and were funded and supported by them. (The French Revolution was the biggest single social transformation realized by their machinations.)

The space opened by the weakening or elimination of religious beliefs was filled by new ideologies generated by the same social groups. The first ideology was liberalism, followed by socialism which developed as a reaction to it. Later came fascism meddled with racism. Despite containing some opposing ideas, these ideologies were all by-products of the new secular system and stood on the same anti-religionist ground. None of them spoke of the man’s responsibility before his Creator or the obligation to organize personal and collective life according to His guidance. Conversely, the principles that necessitated belief in religion were harmful to the new ideologies. One of the most important of these principles is that man was created, as the Church had always held (following the same belief in Judaism), by God in His own image, for the purpose of doing His will and worshipping Him.

It was very noteworthy that communism, the most radical and outspokenly anti-religious of the modern ideologies, showed a particular zeal for the theory of evolution. Karl Marx wrote of Darwin’s Origin of Species in a letter to his comrade Friedrich Engels (dated December 18, 1860) that this book presented the natural-historical basis for their critique of capitalism (Marx and Engels’ Letters, vol.2, p.426).

Darwinism laid the basis for fascism which is one of the by-products of the new secular order. Holding some human races superior to the others, this notion proposed that some races were in advance of others in the evolutionary process. This trend called Social Darwinism inspired many racists from Arthur de Gobineau to Adolf Hitler. Darwin himself prepared the ground for racism by proposing that the white man was more advanced in evolutionary terms.

Besides communism and fascism, the capitalist ideology dominant in the Western world and now in nearly the whole world, needs people to believe in evolution. To undermine people’s commitment to religion and moral principles, to reduce their aspirations and relationships to merely economic ones, it was necessary to convince them that man was not created by God as a morally responsible being. It is very noteworthy that major capitalist dynasties like Rockefeller and Carnegie come first among those who have granted funds and other support to the flourishing of Darwinism in the U.S.A. Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson, in their book The Hidden History of the Human Race, explain how the Carnegie Institution was virtually aiming for the victory of the scientific cosmological vision over the old religious cosmologies. The Rockefeller Foundation supports the same materialist cosmology and serves the mission of ‘modern civilization’, aiming to confine the concepts of God and spirit to the mythology museum. The evolution propaganda promoted in the distinguished media organs of the West, and reputable science journals is a consequence of this ideological requirement.

Conclusion

No ideological program, whatever the illusions of its supporters, and whatever their means of promoting and packaging their untruths, can survive for ever. Precisely because man is God’s creature, made for nobility of being and action, he must and will seek truth, albeit temporarily deviated.

All the information revealed by modern biology shows that the origin of life, especially the molecular structure of living creatures, cannot be explained by coincidence in any way. The transcendent consciousness ruling over the whole universe is the ultimate evidence of God’s existence. As a matter of fact, some eminent names in microbiology have come to the point where they cannot defend evolution any longer. Instead, another theory has begun to get a long overdue hearing among these scientists: the theory of conscious design. The scientists defending it remark that it is very evident that life has been created by a conscious designer.

Biological systematics classifies animals according to its own standards. So far about two million animal species have been distinguished. Each species has distinguishing characteristics and study of a few members of a species gives us general information about the whole of that species. For example, study of a pigeon gives us general information about all birds from nightingales to eagles, from grebes to albatrosses.

Systematic study of a species reveals that the assertions of being more or less developed are of relative nature. Also, study of the general control mechanisms in animal bodies shows a relative complexity in their metabolic and, especially, hormonal and nervous systems from one-celled organisms to mammals. It is difficult to attribute this complexity to chance or coincidences. Determining an entity of such complexity and adaptive effectiveness requires an absolute knowledge, will and power.

The standards by which to determine the degrees of development for animals vary from species to species. For example, with respect to the sense of smelling, sharks, according to our present knowledge, are relatively the most developed among vertebrates. Compared with a shark which can smell a drop of blood in the sea from a distance of about 25,000 feet, man is very much less developed. If we judge the degree of development according to the sense of smell, in place of men or monkeys, sharks will be the first. Whereas, with respect to the sense of seeing, eagles are much more developed than sharks, as well as than men and monkeys. An eagle can see a rabbit on the ground from a height of about 6.000 feet. Also, a bat which catches its prey in the dark with its ultrasonic equipment and a rattlesnake which catches rats with its infra-red eyes are far more developed than human beings in their respective areas of specialization.

Supposing a man was to enter the world of flies, what would flies say about him? ‘How simple and undeveloped that being is! He does not know how to fly. Even with the planes he made, he cannot fly as perfectly as we do. We turn somersaults, alight wherever we wish and take off very easily. Even one-tenth of the subtleties of art in our wings is not to be found in his most elaborate devices. Despite his abilities, skills and knowledge, he is completely unable to make one wing such as ours!

Would it not be true for a honey-bee to say of us:

‘Those clumsy ones can draw with tools and only after calculations the hexagons that I can make so easily and exactly identical to one another. They cannot make so sweet and healing a substance as honey that I produce in great amounts.’ Again, should a microbe or virus not consider itself as more powerful or developed that man seeing that it can cause him to die? With respect to their ability to swim and live in water, are not fish more perfect or developed than us? But then animals living on land are surely more developed than fish in respect of the mechanisms enabling them to live on land.

When we consider the world of insects, we are amazed at the degree of social organization they have achieved: the solidarity in the social life of bees, ants and termites, the communication among them, the absolute obedience of the individual to the commands of the collectivity, and the fulfilment by each individual of its duties to the community- compels us to wonder whether insects or human beings are more developed in this respect. It is for this reason that some socio-biologists tend to think of a society of insects as if it were an individual organism, operated by a single brain, the individuals in the community functioning like separate cells within the larger single organism.

Those who classify creatures according to the complexity of their brain structure and faculties assert that the more complex a brain is, the more developed the animal. However, even though the weight of the brain or the ratio of brain weight to general body weight sometimes appears to confirm this assertion, it usually leads on to wrong conclusions. Those who argue that the mammals whose brains are smaller than the human brain are simpler than human beings, forget that the main difference between human beings and mammals lies in man’s memory and capacity of thinking and speaking, and that there are great differences among the intellectual capacities of human beings. Also, every human being is different from others in many ways-in character, ambitions, attitudes, etc. 

It is function which determines the form and type. That is, an architect does not determine the function of a building after he has built it. On the contrary, he builds the building according to the function it will serve. In the same way, the structural perfection of the human brain corresponds to its functional perfection. That is, man did not become man after he had acquired his brain capacity or complexity. Rather, he was given a brain according to his functions with respect to other creatures and to the duties he was expected to perform. Thinking, as evolutionists do, that brains in animals grew more complex and their ‘intellectual capacity’ increased in parallel with the line of evolution, means attributing all the intellectual faculties and activities like thinking, reasoning, imagination, speaking and so on, to the brain as a physical entity. This is the crudest sort of materialism and reduces man’s existence entirely to matter, rejecting the existence of the spirit and spiritual dimension of man. Also, it is not possible by this hypothesis to explain the differences among human beings in their intellectual capacities, desires, ambitions, and character. If it were possible to increase or strengthen man’s intellectual capacities by making him a bigger and heavier brain, rather than educating him, would it not be more reasonable to try to find ways of enlarging his brain or, as some assert, enabling him to use a greater part of his brain?

How can we regard it as simpler or ‘less evolved’ that in the cytoplasm of one-celled organisms many vital activities like digestion and excretion are carried out? As a small watch is usually more intricate and requires more artistry in its production than a big clock, it may well be said that one-celled animals are more complex or difficult to come about than large, multi-celled ones. Again, although it seems at first sight that the more the number of cells increases, the more complex the creature grows, no one can say that an elephant is more developed than a mouse. Both being classed as mammals, with respect to their bodily activities, one cannot be considered more developed or simpler or requiring more artistry than the other. This leads us to reflect on the following Qur’anic verses:

God does not disdain to coin even a gnat as a parable, or a larger creature. As for those who believe, they know that is the truth from their Lord. But those who unbeliever say, ‘What does God wish to teach by such a parable?’ He leads astray many thereby, and guides many. He leads astray only the corrupt. (al-Baqara, 2.26)

O mankind! A parable is set forth, so listen to it: Surely, those whom you invoke, apart from God, will never create a fly even if they combine together for the purpose. And if the fly took something from them they could not rescue it from it. Hence, weak are both the seeker and the sought! (al-Hajj, 22.73)

It is foolish to regard the bony scales of fish as simple while regarding the pituitary glands on the skin of frogs as developed and the scales of lizards as more developed and the feathers of birds as much more developed and the hair of mammals as the most developed. It is no more than a speculative assertion that those protective parts of the bodies of the animals mentioned evolved each from a simpler one by chance. Is it not more reasonable to accept that each species of animals was given a particular body with its particular parts and systems according to the function it would serve among creatures and the environmental conditions to which it would be best adapted and adaptable?