Thursday 20 April 2023

On balance ,I.D is the better explanation?

Balance: Bipeds Need It; Where Did It Come From?

As upright walkers, human beings are subject to damage from falls. Our center of gravity, near the navel, is much higher than that of a dog or rat that is balanced on four feet. Howard Glicksman and Steve Laufmann note in Your designed Body that you have only a half second from losing your balance to hitting the ground.

Many of us know loved ones who have fallen and incurred major injuries to the head, hips, spine, or other body parts. The commercial line “Help! I’ve fallen and I can’t get up!” reminds us of the danger of falls for the elderly who have lost their youthful balance and reaction time. The young would be at the same risk were it not for intricately designed mechanisms for rapid correction from loss of balance. Before there were ambulances and emergency rooms, this would have likely ended the human race, because in Darwinian thinking, individuals must reach reproductive age to achieve the mystical property called “fitness.” How many falls would it take for the young to each earn a “Darwin award” for eliminating themselves from the gene pool?

“We All Fall Down”

Without a suite of protective systems for preventing serious injuries from falls, would any human ancestors survive to puberty? Babies fall, as parents know, but they live closer to the ground and retain a good deal of cushioning body fat till they master the art of walking on two legs. Pre-pubertal adolescents are already at risk of falling; plus, they tend to be foolhardier and more energetic. The simplistic just-so story of apes descending from the trees and learning to walk upright on the ground (the Savannah hypothesis) should end with the nursery rhyme, “We all fall down.”

Fortunately, we have such a suite of protective equipment. Glicksman discusses one fine-tuning specialization, the myelin sheath encasing many neurons in the central nervous system. Myelin speeds up neural transmission by a factor of a hundred, giving us time to respond to a loss of balance. Another remarkable specialization is found in the middle ear: the vestibular apparatus, consisting of the utricle, saccule, and semicircular canals. These balance organs inform the brain rapidly, giving us precious fractions of a second to try to catch ourselves. With that extra time, we can move our feet, knees, arms, and hands to avoid hitting the ground, grab onto something with our hands, or if we cannot stop, we can roll onto our side to absorb the shock. The success of these protections can be seen in gymnasts, teens on skateboards, specialists in parkour, or experts in any high-velocity sport who make rapid adjustments in moves that would otherwise be debilitating or fatal.

Fastest Signals in the Body

Physiologists have marveled at the rapidity of the neurons in the vestibular organs — the fastest in the body — but did not understand how they work. A new paper in Current Biology notes that these neurons are arranged by “birthdate” in an orderly manner, giving them a “previously hidden functional topography.” This means that “directional selectivity to body tilts followed soma position and birthdate.”

Taken together, we find that development reveals organization within the vestibular brainstem, its peripheral inputs, and its motor outputs (Figure 7). We propose that time plays a causal role in fate determination, topographic organization, and, by extension, vestibular circuit formation. Our data suggest mechanisms for projection neuron fate specification. More broadly, our findings offer insights into how time shapes vertebrate sensorimotor circuits.

A team of researchers from Rice, Yale, and the University of Chicago, publishing in PNAS, looked further at the synapses in vestibular neurons and found them to be uniquely designed for rapid response. Most neurons transfer electrical signals across synapses with neurotransmitters in what’s called “quantal transmission” (QT). QT has an inherent delay as the information crosses a synaptic gap. Vestibular neurons, by contrast, operate with “a mysterious form of electrical transmission that does not involve gap junctions, termed nonquantal transmission (NQT")

The ability of the vestibular system to drive the fastest reflexes in the nervous system depends on rapid transmission of mechanosensory signals at vestibular hair cell synapses. In mammals and other amniotes, afferent neurons form unusually large calyx terminals on certain hair cells, and communication at these synapses includes nonquantal transmission (NQT), which avoids the synaptic delay of quantal transmission. We present a quantitative model that shows how NQT depends on the extent of the calyx covering the hair cell and attributes the short latency of NQT to changes in synaptic cleft electrical potential caused by current flowing through open potassium channels in the hair cell. This mechanism of electrical transmission between cells may act at other synapses.

Hair cells perform mechanotransduction — the transfer of mechanical energy to electrical energy. When the tiny hairs are deflected, they trigger the flow of ions from the surrounding fluid, called endolymph, into the adjacent cell, triggering an ionic train that travels down the neurons. The hair cells in the cochlea perform mechanotransduction for hearing. The hair cells in the utricle “drive neural circuits controlling gaze, balance, and orientation.”

What’s unique about a vestibular hair cell is the large goblet-shaped calyx surrounding its base. This is where the rapid “nonquantal” mechanotransduction was understood to occur, but the mechanism was unknown.

How it Works

Unlike normal synapses between neurons, vestibular hair cells do not need to traverse a gap junction, where the electrical energy must be converted to chemical energy and back again. In a synapse, signal “quanta” are packetized by exocytosis of vesicles containing neurotransmitters. Each packet must cross the synapse and be re-absorbed by endocytosis into the neuron. In vestibular hair cells, by contrast, the calyx structure has a very narrow “synaptic cleft” between the hair cell body and the neuron that “involves neither exocytosis of packets (vesicles or quanta) of neurotransmitter nor gap junctions.” This reduces the latency of gap junctions and speeds the electrical impulse on its way to the brain.

A deflection of only 1 micrometer (one millionth of a meter) in the hair cell is sufficient to trigger a response. Because the synaptic cleft is lined with potassium and sodium channels, multiple channels in the cup-shaped calyx can respond simultaneously to the change in electrical potential.

The synaptic cleft is a dynamic system where electric potentials, ion concentrations, and ionic currents interact. The changes in cleft electrical potential and ion concentrations shown in Fig. 2 are driven by currents through voltage-sensitive ion channels … on the hair cell basolateral membrane and on the calyx inner face, and in turn modulate these currents (Fig. 3). NQT is bidirectional: we first describe the roles of key channels during anterograde (hair cell to calyx) NQT and later discuss retrograde (calyx to hair cell) NQT.

The description gets correspondingly “hairy” at this part of the paper. The authors discuss signal gain, frequency response, electrical potentials, voltage, resistance, capacitance, and other terms that make the paper seem like it belongs under electrical engineering instead of biology. Suffice it to say that a great deal happens quickly, with forward and backward feedback.

These results indicate that fast retrograde events seen in electrophysiological recordings of the hair cell and calyx are caused by changes in electrical potential in the synaptic cleft. It has been suggested that the bidirectional nature of NQT, which our VHCC model captures, could be used to modulate the sensitivity of both the calyx and the hair cell.

A key point is that NQT depends on the morphology of the calyx. One other thing to keep in mind is that the “large number” of ion channels that line the synaptic cleft in the calyx are wonderfully complex in themselves: K+ channels, Na+channels, and Ca2+ channels. Each type includes a selectivity filter that can discriminate the nanoscopic ions allowed through. Their placement in both number and orientation along the synaptic cleft, furthermore, are additional functional requirements to achieve the rapid response, so that the organism doesn’t break its skull when suddenly shifted off balance. The rapidity of the system can be appreciated by watching an ice skater breaking a dizzying spin or sticking the landing of a triple lutz.

A Question of Origins

It is true that all amniotes, including fish, amphibians, and mammals, contain the calyx structure in their vestibular organs. It is not unique to bipeds like humans. An evolutionist would have to consider this a “pre-design” for the bipeds and figure skaters to come hundreds of millions of years later. Rob Raphael, the lead author at Rice for the paper, speculated that the calyx

is an example of how evolution drives morphological specialization. A compelling argument can be made that once animals emerged from the sea and began to move on land, swing in trees and fly, there were increased demands on the vestibular system to rapidly inform the brain about the position of the head in space. And at this point the calyx appeared.

“The calyx appeared”! A more magical explanation could hardly be fabricated. The argument may be compelling to Dr. Raphael, but can it be believed that needs create solutions on their own? Fish are not at risk of falling, so where was the selective pressure to evolve NQT? Did an amphibian summon cosmic rays to hit its germ cells just right to start the evolution of nonquantal transmission in its offspring? Human engineers can observe needs and build solutions, but to expect a multi-part, irreducibly complex piece of supremely efficient electrical engineering to “evolve” by sheer dumb luck simply because an animal might benefit from it stretches credulity. If anything, what the authors describe represents over-design — a concept foreign to Darwinism, which lacks foresight.

The common implementation of calyx NQT among different animals is not evidence of common ancestry. Each animal could, instead, enjoy the shared design tailored to its particular lifestyle. The authors note that larger calyces reduce delay and observe that “calyces vary in their shape in different regions of amniote vestibular epithelia.” Not every animal needs the human specification. ID advocates might want to investigate the tailoring of calyces to lifestyle.

For those of us not beholden to evolutionary explanations, NQT is another lifesaving wonder that most of us probably never heard of before. Glicksman says that neural reflexes travel at 200 miles per hour in the spine, allowing us to react in 0.01 seconds — 50 times faster than a fall. Awareness of a loss of balance begins with nonquantal transmission in the utricle.

Our vestibular organs are tiny marvels inside our heads that keep us on balance and oriented in 3-D space and time. They work flawlessly most of the time for up to a century or more. How many times have you put your vestibular organs to the test: swimming, riding roller coasters, leaping, rock-hopping across a stream, doing handstands, or engaging in sports? One episode of vertigo accompanied by a painful fall is enough to shudder at what would be the norm without these tiny organs working properly. The astonishing thing is not that these systems begin to slow down in old age, but that they ever worked in the first place.

Need for speed: reality edition.

Wednesday 19 April 2023

Ideology vs. reality?

Yet another rant against the brain eating idiocy of the trinity dogma.

Galatians ch.3:20NIV"A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one."

Just as no man can mediate between himself and (the) God so to (the) God cannot be his own mediator

The dictionary definition of mediate is:to settle (disputes, strikes, etc.) as an intermediary between parties; reconcile.

So as always to embrace Christendom's absurdities we must throw away our dictionaries. We choose to hold on to our dictionaries(and our capacity for clear thinking) and instead cast aside Christendom's stupidity.

Serendipity squared?

The DNA Code and Evolution

Cornelius G Hunter

The DNA code is used in cells to translate a sequence of nucleotides into a sequence of amino acids, which then make up a protein. In the past fifty years we have learned four important things about the code:

1. The DNA code is universal. There are minor variations scattered about, but the same canonical code is found across the species.

2. The DNA code is special. The DNA is not just some random, off the shelf, code. It has unique properties, for example that make the translation process more robust to mutations. The code has been called “one in a million,” but it probably is even more special than that. For instance, one study found that the code optimizes “a combination of several different functions simultaneously.”

3. Some of the special properties of the DNA code only rarely confer benefit. Many of the code’s special properties deal with rare mutation events. If such properties could arise via random mutation in an individual organism, their benefit would not be common.

4. The DNA code’s fitness landscape has dependencies on the DNA coding sequences and so favors stasis. Changes in the DNA code may well wreak havoc as the DNA coding sequences are suddenly not interpreted correctly. So the fitness landscape, at any given location in the code design space, is not only rugged but often is a local minimum, thus freezing evolution at that code.

Observation #1 above, according to evolutionary theory, means that the code is the ultimate homology and must have been present in the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). There was essentially zero evolution of the code allowed over the course of billions of years.

This code stasis can be understood, from an evolutionary perspective, using Observation #4. Given the many dependencies on the DNA coding sequences, the code can be understood to be at a local minimum and so impossible to evolve.

Hence Francis Crick’s characterization, and subsequent promotion by later evolutionists, of the code as a “frozen accident.” Somehow the code arose, but was then strongly maintained and unevolvable.

But then there is Observation #2.

The code has been found not to be mundane, but special. This falsified the “frozen accident” characterization, as the code is clearly not an accident. It also caused a monumental problem. While evolutionists could understand Observation #1, the universality of the code, as a consequence of the code being at a fitness local minimum, Observation #2 tells us that the code would not have just luckily been constructed at its present design.

If evolution somehow created a code to begin with, it would be at some random starting point. Evolution would have no a priori knowledge of the fitness landscape. There is a large number of possible codes, so it would be incredibly lucky for evolution’s starting point to be anywhere near the special, canonical code we observe today. There would be an enormous evolutionary distance to travel between an initial random starting point, and the code we observe.

And yet there is not even so much as a trace of such a monumental evolutionary process. This would be an incredible convergence. In biology, when we see convergence, we usually also see variety. The mammalian and cephalopod eyes are considered to be convergent, but they also have fundamental differences. And in other species, there are all kinds of different vision systems. The idea that the universal DNA code is the result of convergence would be very suspect. Why are there no other canonical codes found? Why are there not more variants of the code? To have that much evolutionary distance covered, and converge with that level of precision would very strange.

And of course, in addition to this strange absence of any evidence of such a monumental evolutionary process, there is the problem described above with evolving the code to begin with. The code’s fitness landscape is rugged and loaded with many local minima. Making much progress at all in evolving the code would be difficult.

But then there is Observation #3.

Not only do we not see traces of the required monumental process of evolving the code across a great distance, and not only would this process be almost immediately halted by the many local minima in the fitness landscape, but what fitness improvements could actually be realized would not likely be selected for because said improvements rarely actually confer there benefit.

While these problems obviously are daunting, we have so far taken yet another tremendous problem for granted: the creation of the initial code, as a starting point.

We have discussed above the many problems with evolving today’s canonical code from some starting point, all the while allowing for such a starting point simply to magically appear. But that, alone, is a big problem for evolution. The evolution of any code, even a simple code, from no code, is a tremendous problem.

Finally, a possible explanation for these several and significant problems to the evolution of the DNA code is the hypothesis that the code did not actually evolve so much as construct. Just as the right sequence of amino acids will inevitably fold into a functional protein, so too perhaps the DNA code simply is the consequence of biochemical interactions and reactions. In this sense the code would not evolve from random mutations, but rather would be inevitable. In that case, there would be no lengthy evolutionary pathway to traverse.

Now I don’t want to give the impression that this hypothesis is mature or fleshed out. It is extremely speculative.

But there is another, more significant, problem with this hypothesis: It is not evolution.

If true this hypothesis would confirm design. In other words, a chemically determined pathway, which as such is written into the very fabric of matter and nature’s laws, would not only be profound but teleological. The DNA code would be built into biochemistry.

And given Observation #2, it is a very special, unique, detailed, code that would be built into biochemistry. It would not merely be a mundane code that happened to be enabled or determined by biochemistry, but essentially an optimized code.

Long live Aristotle.

The problem is there simply is no free lunch. Evolutionists can try to avoid the science, but there it is.

Atheism is not a thing.

Sworn in on a Copy of…a Carl Sagan Book?

Rob Sheldon

From The__Byte:

If you look closely at the photo that accompanies NASA’s press release about the new director of the Goddard Space Flight Center, you’ll see something both curious and delightful — that she’s taking her oath not on the Bible, or any other conventional holy book, but on a copy of Carl Sagan’s 1994 “Pale Blue Dot.”

Indeed, as NASA Watch‘s Keith Cowing spotted following Dr. Makenzie Lystrup’s swearing in last Friday, the first woman ever to lead the Maryland space center marked the occasion with a nod to that other star enthusiast, the late Sagan.

“Normally I just pass on these staged pics,” Cowing wrote. “But people have noticed something unusual about this photo.”

In the good old days when I was young, people viewed oaths as particularly dangerous. If you violated an oath, you didn’t just come under the wrath of the State, you came under the wrath of God. Therefore taking an oath of office involved a Bible to give it extra binding power. It reassured the public that even if you violated your oath, God would even the score. Apparently, even atheists fear the wrath of God, and do not want to use a Bible, which they say they don’t believe in. Of course no one “believes in Carl Sagan,” but that is exactly the point — the oath has no teeth. I don’t know Makenzie Lystrup’s personal beliefs, but it’s astonishing how many atheists reveal they believe in God by the things they avoid

Ps. I beg to differ with Mr. Sheldon Scientism has become a religion for many "atheists" and adherents of this faith regard the likes of Mr. Sagan as Prophets/saints/avatars, so I would actually like to commend ms.Lystrup at least(unlike many "theists") she is open about her Scientism.

Proverbs ch.8 Rotherham's Emphasised Bible.

8.1Doth not wisdom cry aloud? And understanding send forth her voice?

2 At the top of the high places above the way, At the place where paths meet she taketh her stand:

3 Beside the gates at the entrance of the city,—At the going in of the openings she shouteth:—

4 Unto you O men I call, And my voice is unto the sons of men;

5 Understand, ye simple ones, shrewdness, And ye dullards understand sense;

6 Hear for princely things will I speak, And the opening of my lips shall be of equity;

7 For faithfulness shall my mouth softly utter, But the abomination of my lips shall be lawlessness;

8 In righteousness shall be all the sayings of my mouth, Nothing therein shall be crafty or perverse;

9 All of them shall be plain to them who would understand, And just to such as would gain knowledge.

10 Receive my correction and not silver, And knowledge rather than choicest gold.

11 For better is wisdom than ornaments of coral, And no delightful things can equal her.

12 I wisdom inhabit shrewdness,—And the knowledge of sagacious things I gain.

13 The reverence of Yahweh is to hate wickedness: Pride, arrogance and the way of wickedness; And a mouth ofRiches and honour are with me, Lordly wealth, and righteousness;

14 Mine are counsel and effective working, I am understanding, mine is valour:

15 By me kings reign, And dignitaries decree righteousness;

16 By me rulers govern, And nobles—all the righteous judges:

17 I love them who love me, And they who diligently seek me find me:

18 Riches and honour are with me, Lordly wealth, and righteousness;

19 Better is my fruit than gold—yea fine gold, And mine increase than choice silver;

20 In the way of righteousness I march along, In the middle of the paths of justice:

21 That I may cause them who love me to inherit substance, And their treasuries I may fill.

22 Yahweh had constituted me the beginning of his way, Before his works At the commencement of that time;

23 At the outset of the ages had I been established, In advance of the antiquities of the earth;

24 When there was no resounding deep I had been brought forth, When there were no fountains abounding with water;

25 Ere yet the mountains had been settled, Before the hills had I been brought forth;

26 Or ever he had made the land and the wastes, Or the top of the dry parts of the world:

27 When he prepared the heavens there was I! When he decreed a vault upon the face of the resounding deep;

28 When he made firm the skies above, When the fountains of the resounding deep waxed strong;

29 When he fixed for the sea its bound That the waters should not go beyond his bidding, When he decreed the foundations of the earth:—

30 Then became I beside him a firm and sure worker, Then became I filled with delight day by day, Exulting before him on every occasion;

31 Exulting in the fruitful land of his earth, Yea my fulness of delight was with the sons of men. perverse things do I hate.

32 Now therefore ye sons hearken to me, For how happy are they who to my ways pay regard!

33 Hear ye correction and be wise, And do not neglect.

34 How happy the man that doth hearken to me,—Keeping guard at my doors day by day, Watching at the posts of my gates;

35 For he that findeth me findeth life, And hath obtained favour from Yahweh;

36 But he that misseth me wrongeth his own soul, All who hate me love death.

Tuesday 18 April 2023

A clash of ultra- titans. II

It's not just non trinitarian Christians who find Sharp's rule rather dull

probably the most telling blow against this 200-year-old controversial rule is the rejection of it by so many of the most respected trinitarian Bible language experts! Even Wallace himself (who desperately tries for some kind of “absolute” scriptural proof for a trinity idea) complains that

“so many grammarians and exegetes objected to the validity of Granville Sharp’s Rule with reference to texts dealing with the Deity of Christ”!

He specifically mentions “the great Greek grammarian,” G. B. Winer (trinitarian) and “one of the greatest grammarians of this [nineteenth/twentieth] century,” J. H. Moulton (trinitarian) as rejecting this “rule”!

I have also seen that the Roman Catholic scholar Karl Rahner rejects this rule as do C. F. D. Moule and Henry Alford. Even famed trinitarian scholar Dr. James Moffatt (“probably the greatest biblical scholar of our day”) showed his rejection of the “absoluteness” of this rule by his rendering of Titus 2:13.

In fact, even very trinitarian Daniel B. Wallace complains that the common translation of Titus 2:13 as found in the KJV (“the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”) treats “‘God’ and ‘Savior’ separately”! - Compare 2 Peter 1:1, 2 KJV). The same separation can be seen in the ASV (Titus 2:13), the Douay Version, and the NEB (footnote). In vol. 5, p. 257 the respected The Expositor's Greek Testament says: "In the present case [Jude 1:4], however, the second noun (kupiov) belongs to the class of words which may stand without the article .... A similar doubtful case is found in Tit. ii. 13.... Other examples of the same kind are Eph. v. 5 ... 2 Thess. i: 12 ... 1 Tim. v. 21 (cf. 2 Tim. iv. 1) ... 2 Peter i. 1." [Except for kupiov, emphasis has been added by me.]

It is no secret to NT Grammarians that when you have more than one noun connected by "and" (kai in NT Greek) and the first noun has the article, the following nouns may or may not have the article but they can still be understood to have the article.

Moulton's Grammar of New Testament Greek says:

"(f) Repetition of Article with several nouns connected by kai

"The art. may be carried over from the first noun to the other(s)" - p. 181, Vol. 3, 1963.

We might compare Matt. 22:32 (all nouns with article) with Mark 12:26 (first article understood with following nouns).

So compare the KJV rendering of Titus 2:13 (which “treats ‘God’ and ‘Savior’ separately”) with that of 2 Peter 1:1, KJV.

(KJV) 2 Peter 1:1 "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"

Also compare:

(ASV) 2 Peter 1:1 "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ."

(Weymouth NT) 2 Peter 1:1 "Simon Peter, a bondservant and Apostle of Jesus Christ: To those to whom there has been allotted the same precious faith as that which is ours through the righteousness of our God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ."

Even clearer are the renderings by the trinitarian scholars who translated The New American Bible, 1970 ed. (2 Thess. 1:12; Titus 2:13); NAB, 1991 ed. (Titus 2:13); New American Standard Bible (1 Tim. 5:21); Revised Standard Version (1 Tim. 5:21); NRSV (1 Tim. 5:21); The Jerusalem Bible (1 Tim. 5:21); NJB (1 Tim. 5:21); Today’s English Version (1 Tim. 5:21); New English Bible (1 Tim. 5:21); The Living Bible (2 Thess. 1:12); Phillips (Titus 2:13); Modern Language Bible (2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 5:21); Douay Version (2 Thess. 1:12); King James II Version (2 Thess. 1:12); Good News Bible (2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 5:21); The Amplified Bible (1 Tim. 5:21); Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, 1975 (2 Thess. 1:12); Riverside NT (Titus 2:13; 2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 5:21 ); New Life Version (2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 5:21); Easy-to-Read Version(1 Tim. 5:21).

We can find numerous translations of Titus 2:13 (probably the most-used scripture for this “proof”) which render it as referring to two persons.

Titus 2:13

Bible translations old and new:

13 lokynge for that blessed hope and appearynge of the glory of ye greate God and of oure Sauioure Iesu Christ - Coverdale

13 lokynge for þe blessed hope & appearinge of the glory of the greate God, & of oure sauioure Iesu Christ, - The Great Bible

13 Looking for that blessed hope, and appearing of that glorie of that mightie God, and of our Sauiour Iesus Christ, - Geneva

13 abidinge the blessid hope and the comyng of the glorie of the greet God, and of oure sauyour Jhesu Crist; - Wycliffe

13 lokinge for that blessed hope and glorious apperenge of ye myghty god and of oure savioure Iesu Christ - Tyndale

13 in expectation of that desirable happiness, the glorious appearance of the supreme God, and of our saviour Jesus Christ, - Mace

13 awaiting the blessed hope of the appearance of the Glory of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus, - Moffatt

13 expecting the blessed hope; namely, the appearing of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ; - The Living Oracles

13 looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ; - Noyes

13 waiting for the blessed hope, the glorious appearing of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus, - Riverside

13 looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, - Sawyer

(KJV) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

(New American Bible - 1970) as we await our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus

(New American Bible - 1991) as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ

(New American Bible - 2010) as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ

(A New Translation in Plain English - Charles K. Williams) while we wait for the blessed thing we hope for, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ

And while we live this life we hope and wait for the glorious denouement of the Great God and of Jesus Christ our saviour. - Phillips

We are to be looking for the great hope and the coming of our great God and the One Who saves, Christ Jesus. - NLV

13 Looking for that blessed hope, and appearing of that glory of that mighty God, and of our Savior Jesus Christ. - GNV

"looking for that blessed hope and glorious appearing of the mighty God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ," - NMB

According to An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek, by C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge, England, 1971, p. 109, at Titus 2:13, the sense "of the Great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ ... is possible in [New Testament] Greek even without the repetition [of the definite article before the second noun]."

Noted British NT scholar and trinitarian clergyman Henry Alford wrote: "I would submit that [a translation which clearly differentiates God from Christ at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s [Paul’s] way of writing: and I have therefore preferred it." - The Greek Testament, p. 421, Vol. 3.

Elijah Daniels

Yet more propaganda re: the genetic code?

Fake News From PBS on the DNA Code

Cornelius G Hunter

Evolution, according to the highly produced PBS Evolution Project, “determines who lives, who dies, and who passes traits on to the next generation. The process plays a critical role in our daily lives, yet it is one of the most overlooked -- and misunderstood -- concepts ever described. … The Evolution series' goals are to heighten public understanding of evolution and how it works, to dispel common misunderstandings about the process, and to illuminate why it is relevant to all of us.” In other words, the PBS Evolution Project would clear away the ignorance and bring the real news of evolution. And with a long list of evolution luminaries advising the project (including Rodger Bybee, Gerald Carr, John Endler, Paul Ewald, Larry Flammer, Douglas Futuyma, Anne Houde, Les Kaufman, Joseph Levine, David Maddison, Anne Magurran, Justin Marshall, Kenneth Miller, Martin Nickels, Kevin Padian, Diane Paul, David Reznick, Helen Rodd, Chris Schneider, Judy Scotchmoor, Daniel Simberloff, Neil Shubin, Meredith Small, David Wake, and Peter Ward), we would expect nothing less. Here is what they had to say about the DNA code

Biologically and chemically, there is no reason why this particular genetic code, rather than any of millions or billions of others, should exist, scientists assert. Yet every species on Earth carries a genetic code that is, for all intents and purposes, identical and universal. The only scientific explanation for this situation is that the genetic code was the result of a single historic accident. That is, this code was the one carried by the single ancestor of life and all of its descendants, including us.

There was only one problem: that was fake news. The DNA, or genetic, code was and is, in fact, very Special. This was known at the time of the PBS Evolution Project, and since then it has only gotten worse for the evolutionists.

It is the exact opposite of how the evolutionists informed their viewers. They could not have misrepresented the science any more than they did. Because when evolutionists seek to “heighten public understanding,” and “dispel common misunderstandings,” it doesn’t mean teaching science. It means promoting evolution, in spite of the science.

Think you're a law abiding citizen? Time to think again

Yet more on why the trinity dogma is poor philosophy.

Revelation4:11NWT2013Edition:"You are worthy, JEHOVAH our God,to receive the glory and the honor and the power,because you created all things ,and because of your will they came into existence and were created."

Jehovah God alone is worthy of absolute worship because he alone is both necessary and sufficient as a cause and preserver of the cosmos. Obviously there cannot be anyone else who is both necessary and sufficient. To take the emotion out of the equation let us consider another trinity. Food,water and air. Let's call these three the trinity of life. Given a moderate climate an abundant supply of these three elements would be sufficient for a prolonged life. Of course no single element of these three would be sufficient to sustain a prolonged life though it would be absolutely necessary. But lets say we discovered that we could survive on just water. Then water alone would be both necessary and sufficient. The other two elements would become merely optional. What if we found that any of the three elements (i.e food/water/air) could sustain our lives by itself. Then all three would be come optional none of them would in/or of themselves be necessary. Thus we see that the three can either be all necessary or all optional but not both. The problem with Christendom's trinity is that each of the three elements are being presented as being both necessary and sufficient in and of themselves. Which of course is as we have demonstrated an absurdity. Another issue is that JEHOVAH is supreme. According to the dictionary this implies that he is peerless. A thing that cannot be stated of any of the constituents of Christendom's Trinity.

Ps. Webster's definition of supreme:

Definition of supreme

1: highest in rank or authority

The supreme commander

On the bible's identitarian theology.

Deuteronomy4:24ASV"For JEHOVAH thy God is a devouring fire, a jealous(Demanding exclusive Devotion) God."

The entire focus of the bible is the clear and incontrovertible identification of this single person entitled to our exclusive Devotion . Hence the importance of His personal name .

Exodus3:15ASV"And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, JEHOVAH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial(How I am to be remembered) unto all generations. "

Malachi1:11ASV"For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name'shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense'shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name'shall be great among the Gentiles, saith JEHOVAH of hosts"

Psalm ch.8:1ASV"O JEHOVAH, our Lord, How excellent is thy name in all the earth, Who hast set thy glory upon the heavens!"

Those who belittle the sacred name are doing Satan's bidding. The Lord JEHOVAH placed his name 7000+ (i.e more than the next five most common names mentioned in the bible combined) times in the holy text for the sake of his agenda(i.e the publishing and exalting of said name) ,any attempt to hinder that agenda is doomed to frustration . The category to which the person bearing this name of names belongs is an exclusive one,

so exclusive in fact that the God and Father of Jesus is its only member. Hence he is described in ways that exclude every other person or thing from his ontological vicinity . It's not merely that he has no peers ,he has no approximates.

Psalm83;18ASV"That they may know that thou(Second person singular) alone, whose name is JEHOVAH, Art the Most High over all the earth."

This single person named JEHOVAH is superlative (as defined by the dictionary)re:every attribute that would make one worthy of being considered a deity. This excludes the possibility of there being any other coequal person with whom he shares a mystical union which union is required to exhaust the category of supreme deity. No, God the Father i.e JEHOVAH exhausts the category of supreme divinity singlehandedly according to scripture.

1Kings8:27ASV"But will God in very deed dwell on the earth?(It's a rhetorical question not a puzzle) behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot (note,the hard negative)contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded!'

There is an impassable gulf between the uncreated and the created. Just as JEHOVAH cannot cause the created to possess the nature of the uncreated. He likewise cannot cause the uncreated to possess the nature of the created.

Hosea11:9ASV"9I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee; and I will not come in wrath."

Numbers ch.23:19ASV"God is not a man, that he should lie, Neither the son of man, that he should repent: Hath he said, and will he not do it? Or hath he spoken, and will he not make it good?"

To maintain that JEHOVAH'S exclusion from his creation is not an immutable(as defined by the dictionary) fact is to reduce the above quotations to meaningless word salads. Those words were not propounded merely for the comfort of JEHOVAH'S servants at that time and place but for his people ever after, in every time and place. The limits of the created can NEVER apply to the uncreated.

JEHOVAH alone is absolutely necessary for the origin and sustenance of the creation including his heavenly and earthly children. JEHOVAH alone is the ultimate source of ALL the information and energy manifest in creation.

Isaiah45:18ASV"For thus saith JEHOVAH that created the heavens, the God that formed the earth and made it, that established it and created it not a waste, that formed it to be inhabited: I am JEHOVAH; And there is NONE else."

Thus even though JEHOVAH routinely uses prior creations as raw materials or instrumentalities in producing later creations he can still legitimately take full credit for their existence.

e.g Genesis6:7ASV,"And JEHOVAH said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the ground; both man, and beast, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; for it repenteth me that I have made them.'"

Of course JEHOVAH did not miraculously produce any of the people and animals living at that time, they came to be as result of natural processes set in motion by the creator ,yet as the ultimate source of ALL the information and energy that made said processes possible the Lord JEHOVAH could take full credit for their existence. This would certainly not be case if he did not unilaterally exhaust the category of supreme (as defined by the dictionary) divinity. Thus redundancy is not a Characteristic of the Lord JEHOVAH. Thus to sumarise the biblical JEHOVAH is superlative(as defined by the dictionary)

The biblical JEHOVAH is absolutely immutable(as defined by the dictionary)

The biblical JEHOVAH is absolutely essential (as defined by the dictionary)to the origin and sustenance of the both the physical and superphysical creation.

Monday 17 April 2023

Anti-Darwinism in plants?

Do Plant Galls Falsify Darwinism?

Evolution news

On a new episode of ID The Future, host Casey Luskin welcomes Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig to discuss the phenomenon of plant galls and what they mean for the validity of the selection/mutation mechanism. Dr. Lönnig is a retired geneticist who studied mutations for 25 years as a research scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Köln, Germany. Call him old-school, but Dr. Lönnig believes evidence matters when it comes to questions of biological origins. He has offered a number of examples from the plant world that defy gradualist explanations. Most recently, he has pointed to plant galls, growths of various colors, shapes, and sizes that can occur on plants. These atypical, highly specialized structures are induced by the activity of an insect or other parasite. Galls appear to exclusively benefit the intruding organism and confer no advantage to the plants. Most galls are tolerated by the plant, though some can prove lethal to it.

Charles Darwin was profoundly interested in plant galls, and Darwin himself proposed the challenge these and other forms may pose to his ideas: “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” In his conversation with Dr. Luskin, Dr. Lönnig explains why plant galls challenge Darwin’s theory. Download the podcast or listen to it here.

China 2.0?

Whither the Christian nation? II

Land of the free?

On the language of life.

The DNA Code and Evolution

Cornelius G Hunter

1. The DNA code is universal. There are minor variations scattered about, but the same canonical code is found across the species.

But then there is Observation #2.

But then there is Observation #3.

While these problems obviously are daunting, we have so far taken yet another tremendous problem for granted: the creation of the initial code, as a starting point.

Now I don’t want to give the impression that this hypothesis is mature or fleshed out. It is extremely speculative.

But there is another, more significant, problem with this hypothesis: It is not evolution.

Long live Aristotle.

File under "well said" XCV

"It takes considerable knowledge Just to realise the extent of your own ignorance."

Thomas Sowell

Sunday 16 April 2023

How the peppered moth became a witness for the prosecution.

How the Peppered Moth Backfired

Cornelius G Hunter

It has been called one of the best examples of evolution observed in the wild—light colored peppered moths (Biston betularia) became dark colored in response to 19th century industrial pollution darkening the birch trees in their environment. Evolving a darker color helped camouflage the moths, and keep them hidden from predatory birds. And more recently, air pollution reductions lightened the environment and with it, the moths also began to revert to their lighter color. Proof of evolution, case closed, right? From popular presentations and museum exhibits, to textbooks and scientific papers, evolutionists have relentlessly pounded home the peppered moth as an undeniable confirmation of Darwin’s theory in action. There’s only one problem: All of this ignores the science.

There are two main problems with peppered moths story. First, changing colors is hardly a pathway leading to the kinds of massive biological change evolution requires. It is not as though a change in the peppered moth coloration is any kind of evidence for how the moths evolved, or how any other species, for that matter, could have evolved.

In fact changing the color of a moth not only fails to show how species could evolve, it also fails to show how any biological design could evolve. The peppered moth case doesn’t show how metabolism, the central nervous system, bones, red blood cells, or any other biological wonder could have arisen by evolution’s random mutations coupled with natural selection.

The moths were already there. Their wings were already there. Different colors were already there. The changing of color in moth populations, while certainly a good thing for the moths, is hardly an example of evolution.

Second, research strongly suggests that the cause of the darkening, at the molecular level, is an enormous genetic insertion. In other words, rather than a nucleotide, in a gene, mutating to one of the other three nucleotides, as you learned in your high school biology class, instead what has been found is an insertion of a stretch of more than 20,000 nucleotides. That long inserted segment consists of a shorter segment (about 9,000 nucleotides) repeated about two and one-third times.

Also, the insertion point is not in a DNA coding sequence, but in an intervening region (intron), which have been considered to be “junk DNA” in the past.

This observed mutation (the insertion of a long sequence of DNA into an intron), is much more complicated than a single point mutation. First, there is no change in the gene’s protein product. The mutating of the protein sequence was the whole idea behind evolution: DNA mutations which lead to changes in a protein can lead to a phenotype change with fitness improvement, and there would be subject to natural selection.

That is not what we are seeing in the much celebrated peppered moth example. The DNA mutation is much more complicated (~20,000 nucleotides inserted), and the fact it was inserted into an intron suggests that additional molecular and cellular mechanisms are required for the coloration change to occur.

None of this fits evolutionary theory.

For example, evolutionary theory requires that the needed random DNA mutational change is reasonably likely to occur. Given the moth’s effective population size, the moth’s generation time period, and the complexity of the mutation, the needed mutation is not likely to occur. Evolution would have to be inserting segments of DNA with (i) different sequences, at (ii) different locations, within the moth genome. This is an enormous space of mutational possibilities to search through.

It doesn’t add up. Evolution does not have the resources in terms of time and effective population size to come anywhere close to searching this astronomical mutational space. It’s not going to happen.

A much more likely explanation, and one that has been found to be true in so many other cases of adaptation (in spite of evolutionary pushback), is that the peppered moth coloration change was directed. The environmental change and challenge somehow caused the peppered moth to modify its color. This suggests there are preprogrammed, directed adaptation mechanisms, already in place that are ready to respond to future, potential, environmental changes, which might never occur.

Far from an evidence for evolution, this is evidence against evolution.

So there are at least two major problems with what is celebrated as a key evidence for evolution in action. First, it comes nowhere close to the type of change evolution needs, and the details of the change demonstrate that it is not evolutionary to begin with.

Yet another look at why the thumb print of JEHOVAH remains the logical conclusion.

Saturday 15 April 2023

The scientific case for the design inference?

From JEHOVAH'S thumb print as hypothesis to JEHOVAH'S thumb print as axiom?

Is a New Design-Based Paradigm of Biology Emerging?

Evolution News

On a new episode of ID The Future, host Dr. Casey Luskin sits down with Dr. Brian Miller to begin a thought-provoking conversation about design in biology. Miller is Research Coordinator at the Center for Science & Culture at Discovery Institute. He contributed a chapter to the recently published book Science and Faith in Dialogue titled “Engineering Principles Explain Biological Systems Better Than Evolutionary Theory.” Miller describes several lines of evidence in biology that collectively suggest that teleology, or purpose, is central to life. He also reports that optimality is becoming a powerful tool of prediction in biology, with more biologists returning to the use of design-based assumptions, tools, models, and language to study the natural world. This is Part 1 of an interview. Download the podcast or listen to it Here

Friday 14 April 2023

Saving civil discourse?

Darwinism imperilled by yet another explosion?

Fossil Friday: The Abrupt Origin of Butterflies

Gunter Bechly

This Fossil Friday features a wonderful fossil of the nymphalid butterfly Prodryas persephone from the famous Eocene fossil locality of Florissant in Colorado. Even though the insect order Lepidoptera is represented by small caddisfly-like and moth-like taxa in Mesozoic sediments, there is no Mesozoic fossil record of real butterflies or any other “macrolepidopterans” (Sohn et al. 2012, 2015). They appear abruptly with modern families like Hesperiidae (Jong 2016), Pieridae, Papillionidae, and Nymphalidae in the Eocene, without any evidence for a gradual evolution of these modern butterfly families and totally contrary to evolutionist estimates, which placed their diversification in the Early Cretaceous (Wahlberg 2006, Heikkilä et al. 2012, Jong 2017). This phenomenon could rightfully be called a Tertiary Butterfly Explosion analogous to the Cambrian Explosion of animal phyla. It is yet another example of the general pattern of abrupt appearances of new biological groups in the fossil record that contradict any Darwinian expectations and better resonates with a design perspective.

The skilled trades just keeping making ever more sense (dollars?)

Pseudo-science is the mother of science?

On the borders of the unknown country?

So ,there is 'darwinism' and then there is 'Darwinism'?

Here is Why Steven Novella is Wrong About That Harvard Experiment

Cornelius G Hunter

Steven Novella, neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine, has Commented on a recent Harvard University Experiment for visualizing bacterial adaptation to antibiotics. The Harvard researchers constructed a giant petri dish with spatially-varying antibiotics to watch how bacteria adapt over time and space (the researchers came up with a great name for the experiment: The microbial evolution and growth arena [MEGA]–plate). And adapt they did. Those adaptations, however, were instantly claimed as an example of evolution in action. The researchers wrote that the “MEGA-plate provides a versatile platform for studying microbial adaption and directly visualizing evolutionary dynamics.” And the press Release informed the public that the experiment provided “A powerful, unvarnished visualization of bacterial movement, death, and survival; evolution at work, visible to the naked eye.” Likewise, Novella called it “a nice demonstration of evolution at work in a limited context.” There’s only one problem: The experiment did not demonstrate evolution, it falsified evolution.

First off, Novella deserves some credit for acknowledging at least some limitations in the experiment’s results:

Of course, this one piece of evidence does not “prove” something as complex and far ranging as the evolution of life on Earth.

Novella also deserves credit for acknowledging that evolutionary change that requires a few mutations, rather than merely one, is a big problem. Novella has solutions which he believes resolve this problem (as we shall see below), but at least he acknowledges what too often is conveniently ignored.

What Novella does not acknowledge, however, is that bacteria adaptation research, over several decades now, has clearly shown non evolutionary change. For instance, bacterial adaptation has often been found to be rapid, and sensitive to the environmental challenge. In other words, when we look at the details, we do not find the evolutionary model of random variation slowly bringing about change, but rather environmentally directed or influenced variation.

That is not evolution.

And indeed, the Harvard experiment demonstrated, again, very rapid adaptation. In just 10 days the bacteria adapted to high doses of lethal antibiotic. As one of the researchers commented, “This is a stunning demonstration of how quickly microbes evolve.”

True, it is “stunning,” but “evolve” is not the correct term.

The microbes adapted.

The ability of organisms to adapt rapidly falls under the category of epigenetics, a term that encompasses a range of sophisticated mechanisms which promote adaptation which is sensitive to the environment. Given our knowledge of bacterial epigenetics, and how fast the bacteria responded in the Harvard experiment, it certainly is reasonable to think that epigenetics, of some sort, may have been at work.

Such epigenetic change is not a new facet of evolution, it contradicts evolution. Not only would such complex adaptation mechanisms be difficult to evolve via random mutations, they wouldn’t provide fitness improvement, and so would not be selected for, even if they did somehow arise from mutations.

Epigenetic mechanisms respond to future, unforeseen conditions. Their very existence contradicts evolution. So the Harvard experiment, rather than demonstrating evolution in action, is probably yet another example of epigenetic-based adaptation. If so, it would contradict evolution.

Another problem, that Michael Behe has pointed out, is that it appears that most of the mutations that occurred in the experiment served to shutdown genes. In other words, the mutations broke things, they did not build things. This is another way to see that this does not fit the evolutionary model. It’s devolution, not evolution. Novella begs to differ, and says Behe has made a big mistake:

Behe is wrong because there is no such thing as “devolution.” Evolution is simply heritable change, any change, and that change can create more complexity or more simplicity. Further, altering a protein does not “degrade” it – that notion is based on the false premise that there is a “correct” sequence of amino acids in any particular protein. Evolution just makes proteins different. Proteins perform “better” or “worse” only in so much that they contribute to the survival and reproduction of the individual. If it is better for the survival of the organism for an enzyme to be slower, then the slower enzyme is better for that organism.

First, Novella ignores the fact that many of the mutations introduced stop codons, and so did not merely slow an enzyme but rather shut it down altogether.

Secondly, it is not Behe here who is making the mistake, it is Novella. He says “Evolution is simply heritable change …”

But this is an equivocation.

On the one hand, evolutionists want to say that shutting down or slowing a gene is “evolution,” but on the other hand, evolutionists say that a fish turning into a giraffe is “evolution.”

Unfortunately evolutionists routinely make this equivocation. This is because they don’t think of it as an equivocation. In their adherence and promotion of the theory, the distinction is lost on them. All change just smears together in one big long process called evolution. You can see other examples of this Here and Here.

So the comments, press releases, and articles send a misleading message. Readers are told that the researchers have seen “evolution in action.” The message is clear: This is evolution, the evolution. But it isn’t. There is nothing in these findings that show us how a fish turns into a giraffe.

Multiple mutations

As mentioned above, Novella also believes that evolution coming up with designs requiring multiple mutations is not a problem. Novella’s reasoning is that while this would be a problem if most mutations are harmful, they aren’t. Most mutations are neutral, so evolutionary drift can introduce the many needed mutations, and once the set of required mutations are in place, then you have the new design.

This is a profound misunderstanding of the problem evolution faces. You can’t evolve a protein, for example, with drift. That most mutations are neutral does not suddenly resolve the curse of dimensionality and resolve this astronomical search problem. There just is no free lunch.

Similarly, Novella makes yet another profound mistake involving what he calls “the lottery fallacy.”

The first is basically the lottery fallacy – considering the odds of John Smith winning the lottery by chance alone and concluding it could not have happened by chance. Rather, you should consider the odds that anyone would win the lottery. This is actually pretty good. Behe looks at life on Earth and asks – what are the odds that this specific pathway or protein or whatever evolved by chance alone. He is failing to consider that there may have been billions of possible solutions or pathways down which that creature’s ancestors could have evolved. Species that failed to adapt either migrated to an environment in which they could survive, or they went extinct. In other words, Behe should not be asking what the odds are that this bit of complexity evolved, but rather what are the odds that any complexity evolved. It is difficult to know the number of potential complexities that never evolved – that number may dwarf the odds of any one bit evolving. Right there Behe’s entire premise is demolished …

This is a terribly flawed argument for several reasons. First, life needs proteins. All life that we know of needs proteins.

Thousands of proteins.

Yet proteins are far beyond evolution’s reach. It is true, per Novella’s point, that there are a whole lot of ways to make a given protein. There are many, many different amino acid sequences that give you a globin. But “many, many” is like a grain of sand compared to the astronomical amino acid sequence search space.

There just is no free lunch.

But Novella goes further than this, and this brings us to the second flaw. Novella is not merely arguing there are many different ways to construct life as we know it. He is pointing out that there are, or at least there could be, a whole bunch of different ways to make life, in the first place.

If you take them all together, you could have a pretty big set of possibilities. Perhaps it is astronomical. So what we got in this world—the life forms we observe, are not point designs in an otherwise lifeless design space. Rather, the design space could be chocked full of life forms. And hence, the evolution of life becomes likely, and “Right there Behe’s entire premise is demolished.”

What Novella is arguing for here is unobservable. He is going far beyond science, into an imaginary philosophical world of maybe’s.

Not only is Novella clearly appealing to the unobservable, but even that doesn’t work. At least for any common sense approach. There is no question that the design space is full of useless blobs of chemicals that do nothing. A speculative claim? No, that is what this thing called science has made abundantly clear to us. Even the simple case of a single protein reveals this. Only a relatively few mutations to most proteins rob them of their function. Protein function is known to dramatically reduce as different amino acids are swapped in.

Of course this is all obvious to anyone who understands how things work. Sure, Novella may be right that there are other, unknown, solutions to life. But that isn’t suddenly going to resolve evolution’s astronomical search problem. That problem was never contingent on the life we observe being the only possible life forms possible

Novella calls himself a skeptic. In fact, he is exactly the opposite.

The southern U.S megadrought?

Win win/lose lose.

2+2=5?

Thursday 13 April 2023

On the propaganda industrial complex?

Urban farmer?

More red ink in the ledger re: Darwinism's simple beginning.

About That Genetic Code

Cornelius G Hunter

We Recently looked at the enormous problems that the DNA, or genetic, code pose for evolutionary theory. Here is a paper that seems to have come to the same conclusion. The authors argue that the underlying patterns of the genetic code are not likely to be due to “chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways,” (P-value < 10^-13), and conclude that they are “essentially irreducible to any natural origin.”

A common response from evolutionists, when presented with evidence such as this, is that we still don’t understand biology very well. This argument from ignorance goes all the way back to Darwin. He used it in Chapter 6 of Origins to discard the problem of evolving the electric organs in fish, such as the electric eel (which isn’t actually an eel). The Sage from Kent agreed that it is “impossible to conceive by what steps these wondrous organs” evolved, but that was OK, because “we do not even know of what use they are.”

Setting aside the fact that Darwin’s argument from ignorance was a non-scientific fallacy, it also was a set up for failure. For now, a century and half later, we do know “what use they are.” And it has just gotten Worse for evolution.

Darwin’s argument has been demolished, once again demonstrating that arguments from ignorance, aside from being terrible arguments, are not good science.

The truth is, when evolutionists today claim that the many problems with their chance theory are due to a lack of knowledge, they are throwing up a smoke screen.

Yet more on when the thumb print of JEHOVAH is the logical conclusion.

Pages

Search This Blog

Thursday 20 April 2023

Balance: Bipeds Need It; Where Did It Come From?

Wednesday 19 April 2023

The DNA Code and Evolution

Sworn in on a Copy of…a Carl Sagan Book?

Tuesday 18 April 2023

Fake News From PBS on the DNA Code

Monday 17 April 2023

Do Plant Galls Falsify Darwinism?

The DNA Code and Evolution

Sunday 16 April 2023

How the Peppered Moth Backfired

Saturday 15 April 2023

Is a New Design-Based Paradigm of Biology Emerging?

Friday 14 April 2023

Fossil Friday: The Abrupt Origin of Butterflies

Here is Why Steven Novella is Wrong About That Harvard Experiment

Thursday 13 April 2023

About That Genetic Code

Wednesday 12 April 2023

Pageviews last month