{"id":4509,"date":"2025-03-02T23:17:27","date_gmt":"2025-03-02T23:17:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/parquediscovery.pt\/de\/?p=4509"},"modified":"2026-05-02T18:31:08","modified_gmt":"2026-05-02T17:31:08","slug":"mammal-plan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/parquediscovery.pt\/en\/mammal-plan","title":{"rendered":"Exploring Animals – Blueprint"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In the Bible, God presents himself as the unfathomably wise Creator and \u00abtechnites kai demiourgos<\/em>\u00bb: \u00ab\u2026 whose architect and builder is God\u00bb (Heb 11:10). In Greek, \u00abtechnites<\/em>\u00bb referred to artists with special expertise (the German word \u00abTechnik\u00bb is derived from it), and \u00abdemiourgos<\/em>\u00bb describes a publicly employed craftsman (from demos<\/em> + ergon<\/em> = people + work = working for the people).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

God is not only the great Designer who possesses the know-how and the necessary \u00abtechnology\u00bb, but also carries out his brilliant plan himself and brings forth the works of creation of the visible and invisible world: \u00abDo you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable\u00bb (Isa 40:28).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since human beings were created in the image of God and received their intellect from God, it is legitimate and natural, with regard to \u00abintellectual achievements\u00bb such as creative and planning action, to infer from the creature to the Creator. In fact, across the diversity of life-forms, breathtaking engineering concepts can be recognized, and it is impressive to study how a comprehensive blueprint \u2013 for example, that of the class of mammals \u2013 has been executed in astonishingly different variants. A comparison of the \u00abbest in class\u00bb shows that the Creator has fully pushed the physical limits of what is possible, on the large scale and the small:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The tiny Etruscan shrew (Suncus etruscus<\/em>), which also occurs in Israel, and Kitti\u2019s hog-nosed bat (Craseonycteris thonglongyai<\/em>) are only a few centimeters long and share the miniature record among mammals. Weighing less than three grams, they are lighter than a 2-cent coin. This is a size range in which warm-blooded animals must sustain an enormous energy turnover to maintain their body temperature and not cool down. With up to 900 breaths per minute they pump oxygen into their small bodies, in which a racing heart beats 1,500 times in the same time and drives a blood volume of three to four drops through a network of the finest capillaries. Despite their minuteness, their entire anatomy \u2013 from blood vessels, organs, nerves, muscles, and skeletal structures, down to the three auditory ossicles, the smallest bones of all \u2013 corresponds to the basic pattern of all mammals. Because of the high metabolic intensity, these \u00abmini-mice\u00bb are constantly searching for food and have no regular resting phases. If they cannot find enough to eat, they drastically lower their body temperature and fall into a starvation torpor. Related shrew species that cannot do this starve as soon as they go two hours without food.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
The Etruscan shrew (Suncus etruscus<\/em>) stands at the lower end of the size scale at which the basic blueprint \u00abmammal\u00bb is realizable.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

After a 27-day gestation, a shrew mother gives birth to two to six young, each weighing about 0.3 grams. One can calculate that she is noticeably \u00abrelieved\u00bb afterward. The bat possesses a highly sensitive echolocation system that enables nighttime orientation and hunting. The emitted sounds lie in the ultrasound range (high frequencies up to 200 kilohertz), which fortunately is not audible to us humans, because these tiny creatures generate an astonishing sound pressure of 110 decibels \u2013 comparable to the noise of a revved-up chainsaw. The natural life expectancy has not been precisely researched for either the Etruscan shrew or Kitti\u2019s hog-nosed bat, but it is presumably under twelve months.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the other end of the spectrum swims the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), the largest living animal and the largest animal that has ever existed. With a weight of 200 tons and a body length of up to 33 meters (both record values), this giant is almost 100 million times heavier than the two mini-mammals. Everything about it is gigantic. Its heart can weigh up to 1,000 kilograms, is the size of a car, and beats at most 20 times per minute. On its migrations it surfaces about every two minutes to take a breath, but underwater it can easily hold its breath for up to 20 minutes. About 7,000 liters of blood flow through its body; the main artery has the diameter of a sewer pipe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
In a familiar environment and in comparison with humans, the gigantic dimensions of this marine mammal become truly clear. Shown here is a blue whale model at the American Museum of Natural History, Los Angeles.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

It spends much of the day swallowing tiny crustaceans (krill) at a moderate depth of 100 meters. It swims right into a swarm, sucks the enormous volume of 80,000 liters of seawater into its expandable jaw, filters out the wriggling little crustaceans with its long baleen plates, and presses the catch with its tongue into its throat. One such \u00abgulp\u00bb from a dense swarm provides it with an energy amount of 2 million kilojoules, equivalent to 85 kilograms of chocolate \u2013 a mega-praline! A typical daily ration consists of about 40 million of these animals, a menu of 3,000 kilograms of \u00abseafood\u00bb. In extreme cases, however, the blue whale can also live off its reserves and fast for 10 months \u2013 no other mammal can do that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Despite its immense dimensions, one would not expect the blue whale to be able to take in 80,000 liters of seawater without knowing its brilliant anatomical construction. This allows it to fold its lower jaw down to almost a right angle and to expand the throat cavity into a huge throat pouch with the help of a considerable \u00abreserve of skin\u00bb, which otherwise is folded together in deep \u00abthroat grooves\u00bb.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The mother carries for about 11 months and nurses her calf underwater. The extraordinarily fatty and nutritious milk \u2013 of which a cow whale produces up to 600 liters per day \u2013 is sprayed into the calf\u2019s mouth under great pressure, so that in the early period it gains up to 120 kilograms in weight per day. The nasal opening, the so-called blowhole, sits on top of the head at the highest point of the body, which makes breathing at the surface easier. With tones in the infrasound range (low frequencies around 17 hertz), whales can orient themselves in the darkness of the deep, locate their prey, and communicate underwater over a distance of several hundred kilometers. A globally lamented media star was \u00abHertz-Pain-52\u00bb, the \u00abloneliest whale in the world\u00bb, which for now 30 years has been roaming the seas alone and, when discovered, was initially thought to be an enemy submarine. It got its name because it sings at 52 instead of 17 hertz and is therefore avoided by its conspecifics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The sound pressure produced by singing whales reaches 180 decibels. Thus, they exceed the noise level produced by a jet aircraft at take-off. These \u00absongs\u00bb have been registered at 800 km (!). Some other whale species make use of this acoustic energy for hunting: they \u00abscream\u00bb at their prey, such as schools of fish, at full volume and thereby paralyze them. Blue whales demonstrably live up to 110 years. In individual cases they can probably grow far older. For a bowhead whale harpooned in 2007, the age could be calculated at 211 years (perhaps it would still be alive today if it had not been killed). Thus, whales are also the longest-lived mammals. After the peaceful blue-whale colossi were nearly exterminated a few decades ago by intensive whaling, 10,000\u201325,000 individuals now again roam the oceans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to evolutionary theory, blue whale, shrew, and bat are supposed to have developed from a common ancestor. This is imagined as a land-dwelling, insect-eating primitive mammal about the size of a rat. The entire development is supposed to have taken place over the last 60\u201380 million years. All three mammal forms are perfectly adapted to their different habitats and, despite a similar basic blueprint, could hardly be more different \u2013 as this brief comparison shows. These variants of the basic blueprint cannot be explained as the result of \u00abmicroevolution<\/em>\u00bb. While small adaptation processes can indeed be observed, they only optimize existing constructions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Once upon a time\u2026 Over the last 60\u201380 million years, such different forms as blue whale and bat are supposed to have developed from the \u00abprimitive mammal\u00bb. If a frog turns into a prince in an instant, everyone recognizes that it is a fairy tale. If one gives the transformation process a few million years, the process is generally regarded as a scientific theory \u2013 even though, by today\u2019s state of knowledge, the details of the transformation appear no less mystical.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In the development of marine mammals such as whales and aerial artists such as bats from a common rodent-like ancestor, many genetic, behavioral, and bodily constructions would have had not only to be adapted but to have arisen entirely anew. That would be macroevolution<\/em>. Macro- and microevolution do not differ quantitatively, as if everything were merely a question of time, but qualitatively. They are fundamentally different principles. For new constructions, as macroevolution would have to produce, an input of information is required (planning intelligence). There are strong arguments that information cannot arise in random processes, and beyond that there is no compelling evidence that macroevolution has ever taken place in any organism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From the comparison of whale, shrew, and bat it becomes clear: each is perfectly tailored to its habitat and its requirements. At the same time, however, the more closely one examines them, the more astonishing similarities become apparent. Whether this similarity relates to external form (morphology), the internal structure of organs (anatomy) or tissues (cytology), function (physiology), material composition (biochemistry), the genetic information contained (genetics), or developmental processes (embryology) \u2013 it meets us everywhere in graduated form and invites us to classify living beings systematically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Whether leg, flipper, wing, or grasping hand \u2013 the purpose is very different, but the anatomical structure is astonishingly similar.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In evolutionary theory, the similarities of organisms are regarded as the strongest indication of a common starting point of development and descent. This assumption, however, rests on an argument by analogy: we can observe descent within species today and transfer that to the past.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
The bold curve of the body lines, large eyes, rear engine \u2013 Beetle and Porsche cannot deny their common origin, even though they were developed for very different groups of buyers. Both models were extremely successful and at the time \u00abbest in class\u00bb. The similarities they share not only with each other but with all automobile designs are, of course, largely based on technical construction requirements.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

An equally legitimate argument by analogy is to see in the similarities the \u00absignature\u00bb of the same author \u2013 which likewise, in fact even more strongly, corresponds to our experience. Similar constructions can ultimately be traced back to the same planner, builder, designer, originator, architect, and so on. Experts are able to verify the authenticity of paintings by old masters by the brushwork. Not only the stroke, but also the way the paint is applied and mixed, are such typical hallmarks of an artist. In the same way, characteristic identifying features can be found for the style of architects, designers, composers, poets, and authors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some animals display so many unusual features that classification is difficult. One such unique specimen is, for example, the platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus). It combines typical features of different orders within itself. It lays eggs, has a cloaca (a common exit opening for digestive tract and egg-laying), and is rather ectothermic (its average body temperature of 32\u00b0C is less regulated), like a reptile. But it also has hair and mammary glands (with which it nurses its young) like a mammal, and a horny bill and some genes similar to a bird. In addition, it has a thick paddle tail comparable to a beaver\u2019s, webbed feet like waterfowl, electroreceptors for tracking down its prey similar to sharks (!) \u2013 and, to top it all off, males have a venom spur on the hind foot. The venom it contains resembles that of a snake (viper). Also remarkable are its ten sex chromosomes, as opposed to two as in mammals and birds. The platypus is an extreme example, but the occurrence of features across class boundaries in different organisms is not the exception but the rule.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
The platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus<\/em>) does not fit into any taxonomic drawer (and therefore gets one of its own).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Thus, on the one hand it is possible to establish at least a rough taxonomic system and to classify living beings within it; on the other hand, this system is not suitable for drawing reliable conclusions about relationships of descent, since individual traits are distributed in an unsystematic way. It is exciting to see how genetics, molecular biology, and morphology in many cases arrive at completely opposite and irreconcilable reconstructions of family trees. We have now reached the point where publications appear in which the question may be raised quite openly whether a common \u00abtree of life\u00bb is perhaps only a \u00abmodern myth\u00bb \u2013 which unfortunately is hardly communicated publicly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Often the traits seem to be assembled as in a modular system, which incidentally also applies to the organization of the genome. Such a system is well interpreted within the framework of the creation model. The Creator is free to combine his constructive solutions in any way he wishes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This combinatorial creativity seems to be an essential characteristic of God, which reveals itself both in the natural and in the spiritual. In Hebrews 11:10 it is said that God, as \u00abarchitect and builder\u00bb, builds the assembly (congregation, church). In it he joins people together as \u00abliving stones\u00bb (1Pet 2:5) into an organism that is more diverse, complex, and astonishing than any other work of creation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
This postage stamp was issued in 2003 to celebrate the completion of the \u00abHuman Genome Project\u00bb, the deciphering of the human DNA sequence of approximately 3.4 billion base pairs. The euphoria of some scientists, who now saw themselves \u00abvery close to solving all (biological) questions\u00bb, is pointedly satirized by the caricature.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\u00abFor what can be known about God is evident among them, for God has made it evident to them \u2013 for his invisible attributes, both his eternal power and his divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what has been made\u00bb (Rom 1:19\u201320). These verses from the Epistle to the Romans have in recent times frequently been cited as the biblical justification for an approach that is gaining increasing significance: Intelligent Design<\/em>. That creation reflects the greatness and power of the Creator seems self-evident and has always been affirmed by all who believe in Him. How is it, then, that a debate has arisen around this matter which has repeatedly made headlines in recent years?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The newly awakened interest in the \u00absignature of the Creator\u00bb relates to American jurisprudence. By appealing to the separation of church and state enshrined in the Constitution, proponents of naturalistic evolutionary theory were able, in several court cases, to secure rulings stipulating that the biblical account of creation has no place in science education. In response, the religiously and ideologically diverse ID movement emerged in the USA. Its aim is to point out features in nature that indicate intelligent planning, intention, and purposefulness on the part of an originator, so-called \u00abdesign signals\u00bb. Anyone who accepts these signals as evidence for a Creator thereby concedes that chance and natural laws do not provide a sufficient explanation for their origin. This opens the door to the search for the originator. The question \u00abWho is the designer?\u00bb is, however, deliberately left unanswered to maintain a strict separation between science and faith.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

IIn the Epistle to the Romans, Paul states that the existence, divinity, and eternal power of the Creator can be perceived in creation, but he does not elaborate on what he is referring to specifically. Since the issue is not personal perception but objective determination, scientific, verifiable criteria were sought at this point. The English theologian William Paley (1743\u20131805), regarded as the father of the modern design argument, chose the following technical analogy to make the point: \u00abIf I find a pocket watch out in a field, I do not spend a second wondering whether it might have come into being by itself. Even if I have not the faintest idea of the art of the watchmaker, I immediately recognize from its complicated structure that it is the product of intelligent planning and skilful craftsmanship.\u00bb At first glance, this comparison seems plausible. Humans, animals, plants, indeed even each of their individual cells, are orders of magnitude more complex in structure and function than a pocket watch. One particularly well-studied detail is, for example, the rotary motor of the coliform bacterium (Escherichia coli<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
In his book \u00abThe Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design\u00bb, the English evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins takes up Paley\u2019s watchmaker analogy. In it, he expresses the conviction that biological evolution, a \u00abblind\u00bb, that is, unguided and random process, can, over very long periods of time, produce constructions far more complex than a pocket watch.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

While no one claims to know a process by which pocket watches could develop by themselves, the random development of living organisms and their organs and cellular structures, which are orders of magnitude more complex, is considered possible and is taught as an example of evolution. Intuitively, such a process appears utterly absurd as soon as we consider the details that must all fit together. Nor does the evolutionary biologists\u2019 reference to the availability of many millions of years help \u2013 as if time itself could make impossible things possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a leading thinker of the ID movement, the biochemist Michael Behe made the concept of irreducible complexity<\/em> widely known. Systems are termed irreducible when they consist of several interdependent parts that only together form a functioning whole. Such systems cannot be simplified without losing their original functionality (\u00abirreducible\u00bb), which makes their evolutionary emergence from simpler precursors hardly conceivable. In principle, this criterion already applies to very simple constructions \u2013 a frequently cited example is a five-part mousetrap \u2013 and all the more so to biological constructions. This irreducible complexity is currently at the center of the discussion. There are, however, additional types of design signals. Another founder of the ID movement, the mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William Dembski, emphasizes the importance of \u00abspecified complexity\u00bb: \u00abA single letter of the alphabet is specific (clearly defined) but not complex. A long string of randomly assembled letters is complex but not specific. A poem by Shakespeare is both, complex and specific.\u00bb A combination of specified elements into complex systems is not to be expected from random events and is therefore a design signal. This principle can be applied particularly well to genetic information (DNA). For this reason, this criterion is usually referred to as \u00abcomplex specified information\u00bb (CSI).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
The rotor of the bacterial motor of Escherichia coli (shown here as a model from Brandeis University produced with a 3D printer) not only bears an external resemblance to the rotor of a gas turbine, but also fulfills the same function; however, it is driven not by gas or steam, but by an ion current.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Less popular is the design signal of extravagant complexity. In creation one often finds constructions that appear extravagant because they are implemented in a more complicated way than their function requires. Also less frequently discussed is \u00abpotential complexity\u00bb, the diversity of genetic programs that unfold only under certain conditions and enable organisms to adapt to a changed ecological framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In physics and cosmology, the argument of the fine-tuned universe (FTU) is significant. No one doubts that a universe in which life in the form known to us is possible could not exist if the natural constants were even slightly different. To assume a random coincidence of these boundary conditions does not appear plausible. This argument, however, is increasingly countered with a multiverse model. If one assumes the existence of countless universes, then perhaps only in ours does something like life exist, and the impression of randomness would arise only in the astonished observer. Yet this leads to an even greater problem: how did an even more complex multiverse come into being? Instead of explaining an incredibly ingenious universe, the problem only becomes larger: the emergence of an infinitely more complex \u2013 and not even remotely empirically verifiable \u2013 multiverse would now have to be explained naturalistically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At this point, the scientific criticism of the ID concept and its rebuttal cannot be described in detail. It can, however, be stated that the ID approach allows for a very concrete presentation of facts that contradict random evolution. The more knowledge about the structure and function of living organisms increases, the stronger the ID position becomes. For Darwin, the living cell was still a \u00abblack box\u00bb (this is both the image and the title of Michael Behe\u2019s seminal book on ID); he had not the faintest idea of what goes on inside it \u2013 in his time, the cell was considered a fairly simple structure. Today, the diversity of biochemical processes proves to be so complex that, with increasing detailed knowledge, it also appears ever more hopeless to comprehend, describe, or simulate them in their entirety. Evolutionary theory must be defended by its proponents against a completely new background of facts. The more clearly the contradictions come to light, the more strained the atmosphere of the debate becomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
This colorful tangle of lines is a highly simplified representation of (human) cellular metabolism. Each point represents a specific reaction partner and each line a biochemical conversion process. Detailed knowledge is growing exponentially, and the description of these processes already fills entire libraries today.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

As much as the ID movement puts proponents of naturalistic evolution on the defensive, we should be aware that this line of argument, strictly speaking, does not \u00abprove\u00bb the Creator either. Anyone who reads on in the Epistle to the Romans learns that people, \u00abalthough they knew God, did not glorify him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish heart was darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools\u00bb (Rom 1:21\u201322). The (historical) development described here can still be observed today in people who are able to recognize God but do not acknowledge Him (even though this usually does not manifest itself today in the worship of material idols, but in much subtler ways). It is good that the ID concept offers a way to prompt people to think and to point to the Creator. Yet even the best scientific arguments do not nullify Heb 11:3: \u00abBy faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made from things that are visible.\u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00abGod gives so much light
that those who wish to believe can believe \u2013
and God leaves so much in the dark
that those who do not wish to believe need not believe.\u00bb<\/p>Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)<\/cite><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

What matters is to accept God in faith as one\u2019s personal Lord. Graciously, however, Jesus also responds to the unbelieving Thomas, who cannot believe in Jesus\u2019 resurrection: \u00abThen he says to Thomas: Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing! Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord and my God! Jesus says to him: Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed\u00bb (Joh 20:27\u201329).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, science always exceeds its scope somewhere when investigating the question of origins. Even if the inference to a designer could be drawn flawlessly, the question would still arise as to who this designer is and how He relates to us as human beings. One danger therefore lies in stopping at the general acknowledgment of a designer without asking about His identity. Mere recognition that God exists does not yet save: \u00abYou believe that God is one \u2026 even the demons believe \u2013 and shudder\u00bb (Jas 2:19).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In scientific debate and in public education, it is appropriate to point to the clear indications of a Creator. In personal conversation, however, the goal should be to take a decisive step further: to point to Jesus Christ, who is not only the Creator but also the Redeemer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

Sources<\/strong><\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bartels, H; Bartels, R; Baumann, R: Blood oxygen transport and organ weights of two shrew species (S. etruscus and C. russula)<\/em>. APS – American Journal of Physiology 1979; 236:221-224<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fretwell, PT; Staniland, IJ; Forcada, J: Whales from space: Counting Southern Right Whales by satellite<\/em>. PLoS ONE 2014; e88655; doi: 10.1371\/journal.pone.0088655<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Goldbogen, JA; Calambokidis, J; Oleson, E: Mechanics, hydrodynamics and energetics of blue whale lunge feeding: efficiency dependence on krill density<\/em>. Journal of Experimental Biology 2011; 214:131-146; doi: 10.1242\/jeb.048157 344<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Imming, P; Bertsch, E: Zufall und Notwendigkeit\u00ab erkl\u00e4ren den Ursprung des Lebens nicht<\/em>. Studium Integrale Journal 2007; 14:55-65; http:\/\/www.wort-und-wissen.de\/index2.php?artikel=sij\/sij142\/sij142-1.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jochheim, T; Ninh, P: Der einsamste Wal der Welt<\/em>. RP online 2015; http:\/\/www.rp-online.de\/panorama\/wissen\/der-einsamste-wal der-welt-aid-1.4903275<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

J\u00fcrgens, KD; Bartels, H; Bartels, R: Blood oxygen transport and organ weights of small bats and small non-flying mammals<\/em>. Respiration Physiology 1981; 45:243-260; doi: 10.1016\/0034- 5687(81)90009-8<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lippsett, L: A lone voice crying in the watery wilderness<\/em>. Oceanus 2005; 44:5; http:\/\/www.whoi.edu\/oceanus\/viewArticle.do?id=4721&archives=true&sortBy=printed<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oyston, JW; Wilkinson, M; Ruta, M: Molecular phylogenies map to biogeography better than morphological ones<\/em>. Communications Biology 2022; 5:521; doi: 10.1038\/s42003-022-03482-x<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Schmidtgall, B: Die Intoleranz des Naturalismus<\/em>. Studiengemeinschaft Wort und Wissen 2018; W+W-Disk.-Beitr. 2\/18; https:\/\/www.wort-und-wissen.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/d18-2.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tr\u00fcb, P: Der bewohnbare Kosmos. Die Feinabstimmung der Naturgesetze als Hinweis auf einen Sch\u00f6pfer-Gott<\/em>. http:\/\/www.wort-und-wissen.de\/artikel\/a20\/a20.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sudhaus, W: Die Notwendigkeit morphologischer Analysen zur Rekonstruktion der Stammesgeschichte<\/em>. Species, Phylogeny and Evolution 2007; 1(1):17-32<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vaughan, TA; Ryan, JM; Czaplewski, NJ: Mammalogy<\/em>. Burlington (Jones & Bartlett Publishers) 2013<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Volstad, NL; Boks, C: Biomimicry \u2013 a useful tool for the industrial designer?<\/em> Proceedings of Nord Design 2008; Section: Industrial Design:275-284; https:\/\/www.designsociety.org\/publication\/27376<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Watkins, WA; Daher, MA; George, JE: Twelve years of tracking 52 Hz whale calls from a unique source in the North Pacific<\/em>. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers 2004; 51:1889-1901; doi: 10.1016\/j.dsr.2004.08.006<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Widenmeyer, M; Junker, R: Der Kern des Design-Arguments in der Biologie und warum die Kritiker daran scheitern<\/em>. www.wort-und-wissen.de\/artikel\/a22\/a22.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

Image Credits<\/strong>:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wikipedia: Etruscan shrew \/ Lies Van Rompaey \/\/ Blue whale model \/ InSapphoWeTrust \/\/ Platypus portrait \/ Dr. Philip Bethge<\/p>\n\n\n\n

other licenses: Title \u2013 Book with fairy dust \/ shutterstock ID_308599190 \/ PHOTOCREO Michal Bednarek \/\/ Diagram of mammalian evolution \/ S\u00e4ugerevolution.jpg \/ Cornelius vom Stein \/\/ Postage stamp for the Human Genome Project \/ 20151120_Gbgenome.jpg \/ Royal Mail<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the Bible, God presents himself as the unfathomably wise Creator and \u00abtechnites kai demiourgos\u00bb: \u00ab\u2026 whose architect and builder is God\u00bb (Heb 11:10).
In[\u2026]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":4510,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"remove_blocks_before_content":false,"remove_blocks_after_content":false,"disable_reading_progress_bar":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,65],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4509","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-prehistory","category-animals-of-the-field"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/parquediscovery.pt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4509","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/parquediscovery.pt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/parquediscovery.pt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/parquediscovery.pt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/parquediscovery.pt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4509"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/parquediscovery.pt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4509\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5521,"href":"https:\/\/parquediscovery.pt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4509\/revisions\/5521"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/parquediscovery.pt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4510"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/parquediscovery.pt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4509"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/parquediscovery.pt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4509"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/parquediscovery.pt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4509"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}