What is happening to this tree?

What is happening to this tree?

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

I was walking down to my mailbox when I saw this tree:

And by the looks of the branches, the tree seems to be dying because it has no leaves. What is happening to the tree?

The tree is dying. From what you say, it has no leaves wduring a time it should, it has saprophitic growth along the trunk; it looks like there's a crack in the bark on the right, and there are shoots coming up from the base of the trunk, the last hurrah from the tree to try to regenerate.

Trees send up suckers as a reaction to stress (like slowly dying). If you cut the trunk in such a way as to discourage rot, it will likely be replaced by this shrubby growth if the roots are sound. Some loggers use this as a way to quick-start new lumber trees.

Talking Trees—Secrets of Plant Communication

Forests are nurseries of health and well-being. New discoveries are showing that this doesn’t happen by accident. The trees are working together.

Come with me on an imaginary journey through a woodland wonderland. As we wind down the shaded path, damp moss on the forest floor brushes our bare feet. The scent of white cedar tickles our noses, while filtered morning light enchants our eyes. A gray squirrel chatters overhead in the ancient oaks, and nearby a white-breasted nuthatch chitters to its mate.

What a special place to retreat from our hectic, dysfunctional world and experience peace and tranquility! But there’s more to the forest than meets our eyes (and noses, ears, and feet).

The psalmist declared, “ Let the field be joyful, and all that is in it. Then all the trees of the woods will rejoice before the Lord ” ( Psalm 96:12 ). It’s poetry, certainly, emphasizing that God’s creation yearns for the Lord to return and restore peace on earth.

Stresses constantly threaten to destroy the forest’s surface harmony, and yet modern scientific research is revealing how marvelously the Creator has equipped His woodlands to respond to these stresses, keeping alive these reminders of harmony that once existed and will be restored someday through Christ.

Researchers are discovering that trees form communities that “talk” to each other, sharing their needs and providing mutual assistance. Yes, you heard me correctly. It’s mindboggling, even for someone like me who has spent his life studying nature’s wonders (forest ecology in particular).

Now, it’s important to remember that forests aren’t human or alive in any sense like animals (they lack the “breath” of life, or nephesh, according to God ’s Word). Unfortunately, some current researchers blur the line, imbuing plants with animal or human attributes, such as feelings and consciousness, which they don’t have. The science itself is fascinating, without any need to make trees sound human-like.

When the Bible proclaims that “the trees of the woods” give glory to God , this metaphor may be a reality in unexpected ways.

Trees can’t run from danger or visit their neighbors to ask for a cup of sugar like we can. To sidestep peril and meet their changing needs in a fallen world, cursed because of man’s rebellion against God, their Creator imbued trees with unique abilities. They can communicate with other trees and with other creatures, seeking help. Why would this be necessary, if the Lord made plants to provide food and shelter for animals and people (see Genesis 1:29–30 )? Well, for one thing, they need to survive—no matter what abuses they suffer at the hands of heedless clearcutters or unrestrained insects in our fallen world—to meet the needs of future generations.

One of their defenses against being overeaten is producing chemicals that make them taste bad. At the same time, other chemicals warn nearby trees that a swarm of voracious beetles or other animals have invaded. These chemicals are specifically tailored for this purpose.

In addition to chemical warnings, some oak and beech leaves and spruce needles will produce electrical signals when an insect predator eats them. Electrical impulses generate messages to the rest of the tree so that, within an hour, the tree will hopefully taste so bad that the insects flee.

Experiments in the African savannah suggest that when a giraffe arrives and starts ingesting acacia leaves, plants will soon be inedible but will also warn nearby trees. Leaves send out the warning gas ethylene, and other trees in the vicinity detect the scent and start producing their own defense chemicals before the giraffe arrives. How do plants “smell” the gas and then mount their own defense before the giraffe begins eating them? More research is needed.

To avoid being overeaten when giraffes begin munching on them, acacia trees can change the flavor of their leaves and also warn other trees to do the same.

As hungry insects salivate on elms and pines, the trees can chemically analyze the insects’ saliva, reproduce it in mass quantities, and broadcast the chemical to the forest community. This cry for help alerts predators who like to eat the insects. They promptly come flying to the location, eliminating the insects that are attacking the tree.

It’s easy to imagine why God originally designed systems to produce chemicals with many different smells—to bless other creatures in the forest. Many woodland scents are still just as pleasant to animals as they are to us. In fact, the trees that produce flowers and fruit purposefully send out sweet-scented messages in a wide variety of colors, patterns, and perfumes to invite animals to come, explore, and partake.

Communication is happening below our feet as it is above. If we could carefully remove the loam at the base of a forest tree, we’d see a root system that spreads out twice as far as the canopy above our heads. This root system reaches depths of 1–5 feet (0.3–1.5 m), depending on the location. More astonishingly, roots may connect directly with the roots of other trees. Trees can distinguish members of their own kind and establish connections with them.

This reality contradicts the old view that woodland trees simply competed in a life-and-death struggle for limited light and nutrients. Though plants do compete in forests, current research suggests that more often, trees may be cooperating and assisting each other. When one tree is sick, nearby trees may share nutrients through their roots to help it get well again. If a lodgepole pine sapling springs up in the shade of a thick forest, older trees somehow sense that it doesn’t get enough sunlight to make food for itself, so they may share their bounty. They even change their root structure to open space for saplings.

How do plants talk in the soil? They may have several options. For example, researchers have found evidence that plants are communicating by sound. Though this sounds crazy, vibrations emanating from seedlings in laboratory settings have been detected by special instruments and measured at 220 hertz. In experiments, roots direct other roots to grow toward this low frequency. Much more research must be done, but these experiments suggest one intriguing possibility for the way plants communicate.

Trees also communicate with chemical messages, but they aren’t just talking to each other. They talk to their other soil neighbors, too. Microorganisms, such as bacteria and fungi, gather water and nutrients that the trees need. So roots produce nutritious substances, such as sugars and proteins, to attract these organisms. One researcher described this chemical advertisement as trees producing “cakes” and “cookies” to attract microbes to come and enjoy.

Special fungi recognize these chemical messages and not only partake, but also interact with roots to form partnerships. Fungi, for example, will inform the tree when they need to enter a root, and the tree will respond by softening a place in its root wall where the fungus can enter.

Fungal microbes receive all the food (sugar) they need to build their bodies, and in return they help trees obtain water and minerals, protect them from drought, absorb toxic heavy metals, and help undernourished and young trees. Trees couldn’t build their tall trunks without a steady supply of minerals from microbes that mine the soil and transport them to the tree.

This underground network of root/fungus communication acts in many ways like an underground internet. These special fungi called mycorrhizae (“fungus root”) spread a tangled highway of long microscopic tubes, called fungal hyphae, through the soil from tree root to tree root. Literally miles of tiny tubes are found within a single cubic foot of soil between two tree roots.

Trees communicate so intensely via these networks that it has been called the “underground internet” and the “wood wide web.” Electrical impulses pass through nerve-like cells from root tip to root tip, and these signals may be broadcasting news about drought conditions, predator attack, and heavy metal contamination.

Working together by means of complex communication tools such as sound, chemicals, and electricity, every member in the forest benefits. These complex relationships help maintain a healthy forest system, as the trees moderate temperature extremes, store groundwater and carbon more efficiently, produce plenty of oxygen, and provide a healthy habitat for other forest denizens.

I have not met anyone who wasn’t amazed by these findings. No matter what their religious or political view, people around the world are recognizing forests as places that promote emotional, spiritual, and physical health. Trees filter dust, pollen, pollutants, bacteria, and viruses from the air. Taking a deep breath in a virgin forest is literally a healthy experience. Research is confirming that, when stressed and driven people visit the forest, they find not only rest but lower blood pressure and an increased sense of peace.

There is no question that these phenomena have been overstated at times and greatly anthropomorphized (described in human-like terms). So how should followers of Christ make sense of these findings?

When we study the forest, we find mutually beneficial relationships, lavish provision, and steady communication. Are these not attributes of the Creator? Are they not evidence that God wants to display some of these wonderful attributes, even in nonthinking organisms?

Romans 1:20 proclaims, “ Since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. ” The Bible highlights many of God’s attributes, including the fact that He is relational ( Genesis 2 1 Corinthians 12 ) and is a communicator ( John 1:1 Hebrews 1 ). In His creation we can see visible and finite hints of His invisible and infinite characteristics, if we have eyes to see.

All forest ecologists see the amazing relationships and interconnections within the forest. As a result, some have called the forest-and-earth biosphere a living organism. But we know from Scripture that a loving Creator is behind them. Christ the Word has filled His creation with organisms that communicate with chemicals, sounds, and electrical impulses. The recipient is designed to listen and respond in kind. What an amazing reminder that God desires to communicate with us, and He expects us to respond to His Word and help one another, too.

Yet we live in a broken world full of sickness and unhealthy relationships. Even the forest suffers from genetic defects, blight, and wanton destruction. The potential harmony of the forest reminds us about what once was, before man’s rebellion against the Creator brought corruption into the world. But the Creator, Jesus Christ the Son of God, came to earth as a man to restore all things, and He will complete this restoration when He comes again ( John 1:1–14 Revelation 21:1–7 ).

Spending time in the forest is a wonderful way to meditate on God and get our life priorities back in line. Scripture proclaims, “ Seek the Lord while He may be found. . . . For you shall go out with joy, and be led out with peace the mountains and the hills shall break forth into singing before you, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands ” ( Isaiah 55:6, 12 ).

Source: The Hidden Life of Trees: What They Feel, How They Communicate by Peter Wohlleben. (This book often overstates the human-like qualities of trees, so use biblical discernment when reading it.)

What is the Three-Domain System? (with pictures)

The three-domain system is a method for classifying cellular life which was initially proposed by Carl Woese in 1990. While the three-domain system met with some initial opposition, it has since become widely accepted, thanks to scientific discoveries which have supported Woese's proposal. Under the three-domain system, all cellular life can be divided into three domains: Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryota, and each domain can be further divided into kingdoms, phyla, classes, and so forth.

This classification system distinguishes between eukaryotic organisms, organisms which have cells which include a nucleus, and two types of prokaryotic organisms, organisms with cells which lack a nucleus. Initially, Archaea and Bacteria were both lumped together as prokaryotes, although each group had its own kingdom. Woese argued that Archaea and Bacteria were so distinct that they actually belonged in separate domains, not just separate kingdoms.

The differences between Archaea and Bacteria primarily have to do with complex genetics. When Woese first published his proposal, genetic research seemed to suggest that the two kingdoms were descended from a common ancestor, and that they were similar enough that they did not require separate domains. As a result, the three-domain system was initially viewed with skepticism.

However, further research indicated that Woese was actually right, and that these organisms were so genetically distinct that they needed their own domains. Archaea and Bacteria are both prokaryotic, but their cellular structures are markedly different, and they have very distinct ribosomal RNA, indicating that these domains diverged a very long time ago, and are largely unrelated. The three-domain system for classifying organisms seems to be more accurate than previous systems now that evidence to support it has been discovered.

Within Archaea, there is only one kingdom, also called Archaea. The Bacteria domain also hosts only one kingdom, known as Bacteria. Eukaryota can be divided into four kingdoms: Animals, Plants, Fungi, and Protists. Within each domain, there is a huge diversity of life, ranging from extremophilic Archaea which thrive in environments which would kill most other life on Earth to fragile tropical orchids in the Plant kingdom.

This system is especially important to people who study prokaryotic organisms, since the three-domain system underscores the difference between Bacteria and Archaea. Researchers typically specialize in one or the other, using genetic research to learn more about the organisms they study. Some people still use the two-empire system, which divides cellular life into Prokaryota and Eukaryota, and then into respective kingdoms, but this is becoming increasingly rare.

Ever since she began contributing to the site several years ago, Mary has embraced the exciting challenge of being a InfoBloom researcher and writer. Mary has a liberal arts degree from Goddard College and spends her free time reading, cooking, and exploring the great outdoors.

Ever since she began contributing to the site several years ago, Mary has embraced the exciting challenge of being a InfoBloom researcher and writer. Mary has a liberal arts degree from Goddard College and spends her free time reading, cooking, and exploring the great outdoors.

Tree rings may hold clues to impacts of distant supernovas on Earth

Massive explosions of energy happening thousands of light-years from Earth may have left traces in our planet's biology and geology, according to new research by University of Colorado Boulder geoscientist Robert Brakenridge.

The study, published this month in the International Journal of Astrobiology, probes the impacts of supernovas, some of the most violent events in the known universe. In the span of just a few months, a single one of these eruptions can release as much energy as the sun will during its entire lifetime. They're also bright -- really bright.

"We see supernovas in other galaxies all the time," said Brakenridge, a senior research associate at the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR) at CU Boulder. "Through a telescope, a galaxy is a little misty spot. Then, all of a sudden, a star appears and may be as bright as the rest of the galaxy."

A very nearby supernova could be capable of wiping human civilization off the face of the Earth. But even from farther away, these explosions may still take a toll, Brakenridge said, bathing our planet in dangerous radiation and damaging its protective ozone layer.

To study those possible impacts, Brakenridge searched through the planet's tree ring records for the fingerprints of these distant, cosmic explosions. His findings suggest that relatively close supernovas could theoretically have triggered at least four disruptions to Earth's climate over the last 40,000 years.

The results are far from conclusive, but they offer tantalizing hints that, when it comes to the stability of life on Earth, what happens in space doesn't always stay in space.

"These are extreme events, and their potential effects seem to match tree ring records," Brakenridge said.

Radiocarbon spikes

His research hinges on the case of a curious atom. Brakenridge explained that carbon-14, also known as radiocarbon, is a carbon isotope that occurs only in tiny amounts on Earth. It's not from around here, either. Radiocarbon is formed when cosmic rays from space bombard our planet's atmosphere on an almost constant basis.

"There's generally a steady amount year after year," Brakenridge said. "Trees pick up carbon dioxide and some of that carbon will be radiocarbon."

Sometimes, however, the amount of radiocarbon that trees pick up isn't steady. Scientists have discovered a handful of cases in which the concentration of this isotope inside tree rings spikes -- suddenly and for no apparent earthly reason. Many scientists have hypothesized that these several-year-long spikes could be due to solar flares or huge ejections of energy from the surface of the sun.

Brakenridge and a handful of other researchers have had their eye on events much farther from home.

"We're seeing terrestrial events that are begging for an explanation," Brakenridge said. "There are really only two possibilities: A solar flare or a supernova. I think the supernova hypothesis has been dismissed too quickly."

Beware Betelgeuse

He noted that scientists have recorded supernovas in other galaxies that have produced a stupendous amount of gamma radiation -- the same kind of radiation that can trigger the formation of radiocarbon atoms on Earth. While these isotopes aren't dangerous on their own, a spike in their levels could indicate that energy from a distant supernova has traveled hundreds to thousands of light-years to our planet.

To test the hypothesis, Brakenridge turned to the past. He assembled a list of supernovas that occurred relatively close to Earth over the last 40,000 years. Scientists can study these events by observing the nebulas they left behind. He then compared the estimated ages of those galactic fireworks to the tree ring record on the ground.

He found that of the eight closest supernovas studied, all seemed to be associated with unexplained spikes in the radiocarbon record on Earth. He considers four of these to be especially promising candidates. Take the case of a former star in the Vela constellation. This celestial body, which once sat about 815 lightyears from Earth, went supernova roughly 13,000 years ago. Not long after that, radiocarbon levels jumped up by nearly 3% on Earth -- a staggering increase.

The findings aren't anywhere close to a smoking gun, or star, in this case. Scientists still have trouble dating past supernovas, making the timing of the Vela explosion uncertain with a possible error of as much as 1,500 years. It's also not clear what the impacts of such a disruption might have been for plants and animals on Earth at the time. But Brakenridge believes that the question is worth a lot more research.

"What keeps me going is when I look at the terrestrial record and I say, 'My God, the predicted and modeled effects do appear to be there.'"

He hopes that humanity won't have to see those effects for itself anytime soon. Some astronomers think they've picked up signs that Betelgeuse, a red giant star in the constellation Orion, might be on the verge of collapsing and going supernova. And it's only 642.5 light-years from Earth, much closer than Vela.

"We can hope that's not what's about to happen because Betelgeuse is really close," he said.

Earth Day History 101

To really understand Earth Day and why it came about you need to understand what was happening in the 1960s, because it was this decade that spawned what we have today.

What was happening in the 1960s?

During the 1960s the United States was in a war overseas (Vietnam). It was also having countless environmental disasters that started to outrage the public.

At the time, Americans and much of the world, were slurping leaded gas through massive eight cylinder automobiles. Large plants pumped out pollution with little fear of legal consequences or bad press. Air pollution was commonly accepted as the smell of prosperity. “Environment” was a word that appeared more often in spelling bees than on the evening news.

Although mainstream America largely remained oblivious to environmental concerns, the stage had been set for change by the publication of Rachel Carson’s New York Times bestseller Silent Spring in 1962. The book represented a watershed moment, selling more than 500,000 copies in 24 countries, and beginning to raise public awareness and concern for living organisms, the environment and links between pollution and public health.

The “Father of Earth Day”

Then, Senator Gaylord Nelson, noticed a disconnect between the environmental policy that local people wanted and what the politicians in the government were willing to make into law. He wanted that to change. The Earth Day we celebrate now was first championed by him as an environmental teach-in on April 22, 1970.

How Can Your Epigenetics Change?

Your epigenetics change as you age, both as part of normal development and aging and in response to your behaviors and environment.

  1. Epigenetics and Development
    Epigenetic changes begin before you are born. All your cells have the same genes but look and act differently. As you grow and develop, epigenetics helps determine which function a cell will have, for example, whether it will become a heart cell, nerve cell, or skin cell.

Your muscle cells and nerve cells have the same DNA but work differently. A nerve cell transports information to other cells in your body. A muscle cell has a structure that aids in your body&rsquos ability to move. Epigenetics allows the muscle cell to turn &ldquoon&rdquo genes to make proteins important for its job and turn &ldquooff&rdquo genes important for a nerve cell&rsquos job.

  1. Epigenetics and Age
    Your epigenetics change throughout your life. Your epigenetics at birth is not the same as your epigenetics during childhood or adulthood.

DNA methylation at millions of sites were measured in a newborn, 26-year-old, and 103-year-old. The level of DNA methylation decreases with age. A newborn had the highest DNA methylation, the 103-year-old had the lowest DNA methylation, and the 26-year-old had a DNA methylation level between the newborn and 103-year-old (1).

  1. Epigenetics and Reversibility
    Not all epigenetic changes are permanent. Some epigenetic changes can be added or removed in response to changes in behavior or environment.

Smoking can result in epigenetic changes. For example, at certain parts of the AHRR gene, smokers tend to have less DNA methylation than non-smokers. The difference is greater for heavy smokers and long-term smokers. After quitting smoking, former smokers can begin to have increased DNA methylation at this gene. Eventually, they can reach levels similar to those of non-smokers. In some cases, this can happen in under a year, but the length of time depends on how long and how much someone smoked before quitting (2).

What is Pleaching?

What is pleaching? Pleaching is a very specific garden term. It refers to a way of interlacing young tree branches along a framework to produce a screen or hedge. The pleaching technique is a style of growing trees in a line with their branches tied together to form a plane above the trunk. Generally, the branches are tied onto a support to create tiers. Occasionally, they grow together as if they were grafted.

Pleaching was one of the defining aspects of 17th and 18th-century French garden design. It was used to mark “grand allées” or to protect intimate spaces from public view. It has come back into fashion in modern gardening.

Bootstrap Test of Phylogeny

One of the most commonly used tests of the reliability of an inferred tree is Felsenstein's (1985) bootstrap test, which is evaluated using Efron's (1982) bootstrap resampling technique. If there are m sequences, each with n nucleotides (or codons or amino acids), a phylogenetic tree can be reconstructed using some tree building method. From each sequence, n nucleotides are randomly chosen with replacements, giving rise to m rows of n columns each. These now constitute a new set of sequences. A tree is then reconstructed with these new sequences using the same tree building method as before. Next the topology of this tree is compared to that of the original tree. Each interior branch of the original tree that is different from the bootstrap tree the sequence it partitions is given a score of 0 all other interior branches are given the value 1. This procedure of resampling the sites and the subsequent tree reconstruction is repeated several hundred times, and the percentage of times each interior branch is given a value of 1 is noted. This is known as the bootstrap value. As a general rule, if the bootstrap value for a given interior branch is 95% or higher, then the topology at that branch is considered "correct". See Nei and Kumar (2000) (chapter 9) for further details.

This test is available for four different methods: Neighbor Joining , Minimum Evolution , Maximum Parsimony , and UPGMA .

Writing Reviews in Biology

To understand Reviews as a kind of scientific publication, it helps to compare them to Research Reports,the type of publication with which we are most familiar.

Reviews Reports
Evaluate current trends across Contribute original experimental
a specific area of research evidence to a specific question

Introduction Introduction
Review Topic 1 Method
Review Topic 2 Results
Review Topic 3 (etc.) Discussion
Conclusion (Conclusion, in some fields)

A research report explains the investigation and results of a single research question (or small set of highly-related questions). Research Reports are published in a format we are very familiar with, the IMRD, that plays nicely with an idealized version of the scientific method:

Research Reports Use IMRD to Manage Real Estate, Following an Idealized Scientific Method

A review paper is a different beast altogether. Where research reports do include the expert literature, a Review paper looks at solely published reports to explain what is happening in an area of research as a whole. Review Articles make a different sort of contribution to science (McMillan, 2001, 3, emphasis added):

In contrast to research papers, conference presentations, and proposals, a review paper is a journal article that synthesizes work by many independent researchers on a particular subject or scientific problem. By bringing together the most pertinent findings of a large number of studies, a review paper serves as a valuable summary of research. Although it does not present the writer’s new discoveries, it does reflect his or her painstaking review of the literature in a defined field. Moreover, a good review not only summarizes information but also provides interpretative analysis and sometimes a historical perspective. Reviews may vary in aims, scope, length, and format, but they all include a relatively lengthy reference section. Journal editors sometimes invite prominent experts to write reviews of their particular fields, since the ability to give an audience an authoritative overview of a subject usually develops with experience. Whether solicited or unsolicited, review papers still must conform to journal specifications, and their author receive feedback from editors and reviewers before final publication.

So, the Review Article has very different features from a research report. The task of the writer is to take a step back and look at what is going on across many individual research projects with the purpose of giving direction to the field. It’s one of those “forest and tree” situations: in a research report, the scientists are examining a tree in a review paper, the scientist is looking at the forest. In science, the review writer tries to understand what is happening across an area research, to discover patterns among the individual pieces of research that experimental researchers may or may not be aware of. Reviewers provide two very important and practical contributions to science. First, they do the hard work of all the reading required so that research results are regularly gathered in one place. Second, reviewers evaluate current research trends and make recommendations for where research and/or applications of research should be focused.

Reviews are as recognizable by their organization as research reports are the body is organized according to topical subheadings that clue readers to content. Introductions tends to be concise conclusions are downright brief.

Review outlines provide lots of information about content (screenshot of pdf page)

Dr. Monty White Articles

Surely, evolution is about the origin and development of life-forms on earth — what has this got to do with religion? Evolution is science, isn’t it?

Evolution is taken as fact by both unbelievers and some Christians. Monty White demonstrates that evolution has never been proven.

There are hundreds of stories and legends about a worldwide flood. Why do diverse cultures share a strikingly similar story?

The gap theory is simply compromise. It is an attempt to harmonise the facts of Scripture with the ideas of fallen men.

Creationists are often asked, “How is it possible for the earth’s population to reach 6.5 billion people if the world is only about 6,000 years old and if there were just two humans in the beginning?”

It is said that a British newspaper headline once announced “Fog Over Channel—Continent Isolated.” The headline aptly and amusingly sums up Britain’s ambivalent relationship with its neighbors.

In the UK there is a strange paradox—while people are enormously apathetic toward the Christian faith, at the same time they enthusiastically deride it.

Prior to joining AiG, the authors’ letters to newspapers and TV stations would be ignored whenever we would respond to various articles or programmes that dealt with the origins issue.

According to Lord Bertram Russell if human beings do not kill each other through wars, they will probably die of starvation or disease.

It’s not often that a creation conference attracts people from 21 countries. But that’s what happened recently with the largest major in-depth creation conference ever held in the UK.

In the last few years, another compromise of biblical truth has emerged, actually from within what might be termed the ‘Young Earth Creation’ movement. This compromise is the 'Recolonisation Theory.'

In spite of repeated attack on evangelical Christianity in the UK, apparently only 48% of the British public actually believe evolution.

Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland recently published their study book, "The Gift of Scripture." Does the book presume authority to be based on the Bible, or something else?

Stories like these are the latest in a series of insults to the Christian faith in the UK.

Steve Chalke may not be so well known outside the UK, but he is a well-known British evangelical personality who appears regularly on the TV.

A friend of Answers in Genesis wants to use the hype about The Matrix films to direct attention to the reality behind the all-prevailing myth of our day.

Since joining Answers in Genesis, I’ve been giving my own version of this message, titled, “The Origin of the so-called Races,” across the UK.

“Britain’s Greatest Hoax” is the title of the Timewatch investigation of the Piltdown Man fraud, shown on BBC2 television recently.

A country of contrasts is how Bulgaria could be described. It is a very beautiful country but has dilapidated buildings everywhere.

Dr Monty White, head of AiG–UK, was asked to record a three-minute talk for BBC World Update (Radio) on ‘why am I a creationist.’

When Vet author James Herriot wrote about life in Yorkshire last centrury, he probably had no idea that this area of England held a fascinating key to unlocking one of the myths of evolution's long-ag

Recently, there have been reports of two fossils that are not all they appear to be!

Newspapers across the United States carried headlines similar to that of The Cincinnati Post: “Key Ingredients for Life Found in Universe,” with the byline “Chemistry Happens Around Distant Stars.”

During this time I began to realize that the idea of evolution was at best a hypothesis and that it had not been proven. There is not a shred of evidence for the evolution of life on earth.

Watch the video: What is happening to the tree? #Shorts (November 2022).