Tiny Beauties: Life’s Smallest Wonders As Seen Through a Microscope

Marking its 10th anniversary, the BioScapes Digital Imaging Competition attracts the works of microscopy lovers worldwide

  • Share
  • Read Later

The universe’s wonders are all around us — you just have to look close enough.

Every year, the Olympus BioScapes Digital Imaging Competition asks microscope-wielding photographers the world over to send their most magnificent imagery of the magnified world. The result? Beautiful colors, unusual textures and unique patterns visible only under scientific instruments.

This year, more than 2,100 still images and movies were submitted from artists in 71 different countries—the largest field of competing countries  in the contest’s 10-year history. The images collected in the above gallery represent the 10 winners, plus 10 more honorable mentions.

More Photography from Time

5 comments
steveb123art
steveb123art

Can't you see how horrible 'life' is? It's just a big mouth full of razor-sharp teeth that tears and rends weaker life, then replicates to create fresh eating machines. Billions of living things die each day on earth, a horrible, painful, nightmarish death in the maw of some lion or spider or giant millipede or OUR mouths. Life eats Life. It kills it, then it eats it. Whether it's evolution or "Intelligent" design, it's ...IT'S HORRIFYING!!!

AndreasCY
AndreasCY

 It looks beautiful, but what is it?

BabuG.Ranganathan
BabuG.Ranganathan

NOT MADE BY NATURE! Just because something exists in nature doesn't mean it was invented or made by Nature. If all the chemicals necessary to make a cell were left to themselves, "Mother Nature" would have no ability to organize them into a cell. It takes an already existing cell to bring about another cell. The cell exists and reproduces in nature but Nature didn't invent or design it! Nature didn't originate the cell or any form of life.

Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about an airplane or a cell. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic program and biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how could the cell have originated naturally when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? All of the founders of modern science believed in God. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from sea sponge to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Survival of the fittest would actually have prevented evolution across kinds! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! (2nd Edition). I discuss: Punctuated Equilibria, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.

Natural selection doesn't produce biological traits or variations. It can only "select" from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. The real issue is what biological variations are possible, not natural selection. Only limited evolution, variations of already existing genes and traits are possible. Nature is mindless and has no ability to design and program entirely new genes for entirely new traits.

What about genetic and biological similarities between species? Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot happen by chance, so it is more logical to believe that genetic and biological similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (i.e. when, where, and how genes are expressed). Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

Read my popular Internet article, HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?

Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION

Sincerely,
Babu G. Ranganathan*
(B.A. theology/biology)

Author of popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS

* I have had the privilege of being recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who In The East" for my writings on religion and science, and I have given successful lectures (with question and answer time afterwards) defending creation from science before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities

Lon-Dubh
Lon-Dubh

@BabuG.Ranganathan

@BabuG.Ranganathan You are correct that natural selection only selects from biological variations. However, you are deeply incorrect to assert that only variations of already existing genes are possible. The genes themselves do not have to drastically change, and this is evidenced by the deep conservation of multiple developmental or "toolkit" genes including signaling molecules (Wnt, BMP, FGF, Hedgehog, etc) and transcription factors (Hox genes, Gap genes, etc). Evidence suggests that even small changes in cis-regulatory elements such as enhancers (which you mention above as "junk DNA") may have driven evolutionary change. Nature does not program these changes, whether within coding sequences or in other DNA sequences. Duplication and divergence and other mutations provide the change that natural selection operates on. The vast majority of mutations cause no difference. Some are disadvantageous, and so are unlikely to be passed to offspring. And some, occasionally, provide a phenotypic advantage that natural selection can operate on.

As to your assertion that only evolution within kinds is possible ("How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving?"), this is nonsensical. If, as you admit, organisms can evolve within kinds (in which their tissues, organs, and reproductive systems are still developing), why should they not be able to evolve across kinds? Accumulation of small changes in an isolated population over a vast period of time will eventually accumulate enough difference that the species is different from its ancestor.

If you admit to change within species, how can you not understand that millions of years of such change will eventually lead to new species?

You state that  "no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature." Certainly there is no consciousness to nature. But of course there are directing codes and mechanisms. There are laws that all things obey, laying down the basis of physics and chemistry. A directing mechanism of nature is survival. If something has the traits to live and thrive in an environment, it will. If it doesn't, it won't. This drives selective survival, even though nature is intending to create something

Further, your assertion that genetic information cannot happen by chance is false. Chance mutations occur within organisms all of the time. Further, if we believe that the genetic similarities between organisms don't occur by chance, it does not follow that there must have been a designer. It is much more logical to assume that the information evolved once, and is shared across species due to common ancestry. Further, let me point out that you are asserting that lack of explanation of something must mean that a god did it. This is a logical fallacy, a "God of the Gaps" argument. Lack of explanation of something occurring in nature does not mean a god did it, whether we are discussing natural disasters viewed as supernatural events by ancient people or modern-day uncertainty about the exact origin of life.