A clash of Titans XIV

Another Failed Darwinian prediction XVII

Functionally unconstrained DNA is not conserved

As different species evolve, their DNA segments are preserved only if they contribute to the organism’s fitness. DNA segments that are not functionally constrained should mutate and diverge over time. The result is that similar yet functionally unconstrained DNA segments should not be found in distant species. The corollary to this prediction is that similar DNA sequences found in distant species must be functionally constrained.

This prediction has been falsified in the many examples of functionally-unconstrained, highly similar stretches of DNA that have been discovered in otherwise distant species. For instance, thousands of so-called ultra-conserved elements (UCEs), hundreds of base pairs in length, have been found across a range of species including human, mouse, rat, dog, chicken and fish. In fact, across the different species some of these sequences are 100% identical. Species that are supposed to have been evolving independently for 80 million years were certainly not expected to have identical DNA segments. “I about fell off my chair,” remarked one evolutionist. (Lurie) “It can’t be true” another commented. (Pennisi)

Evolutionists assumed such highly preserved sequences must have an important function. But laboratory studies failed to reveal any significant effects in mice. A variety of experiments were done to determine the function of these sequences that evolution was supposed to have preserved. But in many of the regions no function could be found. One study deleted several UCE regions, including a stretch of 731 DNA base pairs that was hypothesized to regulate a crucial gene. Evolutionists expected the removal to result in lethality or infertility but instead found normal, healthy mice. Months of observation and a battery of tests found no abnormalities or significant differences compared to normal mice. (Ahituv, et. al.) As one of the lead researchers explained:

For us, this was a really surprising result. We fully expected to demonstrate the vital role these ultraconserved elements play by showing what happens when they are missing. Instead, our knockout mice were not only viable and fertile but showed no critical abnormalities in growth, longevity, pathology, or metabolism. (Mice thrive missing ancient DNA sequences)

Another study knocked out two massive, highly conserved, DNA regions of 1.5 million and .8 million base pairs in laboratory mice and, again, the results were viable mice, indistinguishable from normal mice in every characteristic they measured, including growth, metabolic functions, longevity and overall development. (Nobrega, et. al.) “We were quite amazed,” explained the lead researcher. (Westphal)

References

Ahituv, N., Y. Zhu, A. Visel, A. Holt, V. Afzal, L. Pennacchio, E. Rubin. 2007. “Deletion of ultraconserved elements yields viable mice.” PLoS Biol 5:e234.

Lurie, Karen. 2004. “Junk DNA.” ScienCentral July 20.

“Mice thrive missing ancient DNA sequences.” 2007. ScienceDaily September 6. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070904151351.htm

Nobrega, M., Y. Zhu, I. Plajzer-Frick, V. Afzal, E. Rubin. 2004. “Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice.” Nature 431:988-993.

Pennisi, Elizabeth. 2004. “Disposable DNA puzzles researchers.” Science 304:1590-1591.

Westphal, S. 2004. “Life goes on without ‘vital’ DNA.” New Scientist June 3.

Right to die or license to kill?

Canada's Prescription for Getting Away with Murder
Wesley J. Smith 

The Canadian government has proposed its new euthanasia bill -- and as expected, it will be the most radical in the world.

Since the death doctor need not be present at the demise, the bill creates an unprecedented license for family members, friends -- heck, a guy down the street -- to make people dead. From the bill:

Exemption for person aiding patient

(5) No person commits an offence under paragraph (1) (b) if they do anything, at another person's explicit request, for the purpose of aiding that other person to self-administer a substance that has been prescribed for that other person as part of the provision of medical assistance in dying in accordance with section 241. 2.

Reasonable but mistaken belief

(6) For greater certainty, the exemption set out in any of subsections (2) to (5) applies even if the person invoking the exemption has a reasonable but mistaken belief about any fact that is an element of the exemption.

Once the lethal drugs are obtained, this means there are zero meaningful safeguards and protections for vulnerable people, since anyone can kill at the request of the patient. How will authorities know that actual consent was made to do the deed?

Coercion happens behind closed doors. Indeed, even if there was a "mistake," the killer is protected from culpability by claiming "good faith." In short, this provision is the perfect defense for the murder of sick and disabled people who requested lethal drugs.

The George Delury case is an example of what I mean: Delury said he assisted his wife Myrna Lebov's suicide out of "compassion" and at her request due to MS.

But his real hope was not only to be free from care giving, but to become famous by writing a book about her death. (He did, What If She Wants to Die?)

It almost worked. But because assisted suicide was a criminal offense, authorities conducted an investigation and discovered his diary. It showed that contrary to the compassionate face Delury was conjuring, in reality he emotionally pressured Myrna into wanting to commit suicide, telling her, for example, that she was a burden and ruining his life.

He also withheld full dosage of antidepressants so he could use those drugs to kill her. And, he but put a plastic bag over her head to make sure she died.

If euthanasia Canada's bill had been the law of New York when Delury killed Myrnov, he might have been able to coerce her into asking for lethal drugs. At that point, he could have killed her any time he wanted and there wouldn't have been a criminal investigation to find his diary.


Canada has just paved the way for a person hungry for an inheritance or ideologically predisposed to get away with the perfect murder.

On ID as zombie apocalypse.

Is the Market for Articles that Ask "Is Intelligent Design Dead?" Dead?

David Klinghoffer 

and theistic evolutionists keep pumping them out, as they've done for ten years now since the Dover decision. Yet all these numerous funeral processions later, here we still are. 

Here's a partial list of contributions:

• "Is Intelligent Design Dead?" (American Policy Roundtable 2006)
• "Is Intelligent Design Dead?" (Annals of Spacetime 2007)
• "Intelligent Design is Dead! Long Live Creationism?" (Vassar Alumnae/i Quarterly 2007)
• "Twenty years after Darwin on Trial, ID is dead" (Jason Rosenhouse 2011)
• "Jason Rosenhouse pronounces intelligent design dead" (Jerry Coyne 2011)
• "Intelligent Design Is Dead: A Christian Perspective" (Paul Wallace, Huffington Post 2012)
• "Paul Wallace Says, 'Intelligent Design Is Dead'" (Internet Monk, 2012)
• "Is 'intelligent design' dead since everybody realized it's just good old creationism?" (Yahoo Answers 2013)
• "Intelligent Design: Still Dead" (Jason Rosenhouse 2014)

Back in 2012, a person identified only as RJS wrote at the blog Jesus Creed, "Is Intelligent Design Dead?" Now RJS is back with more musings at the same venue, and asking the same question, "Is Intelligent Design Dead?" RJS begins:

A decade ago Intelligent Design with a capital I and a capital D was a hot topic. A major trial testing the teaching of the ID in Pennsylvania was decided in late 2005 and Stephen C. Meyer's massive book Signature in the Cell was published in 2009. It was a common topic in evangelical churches -- viewed as a way to combat the evil influence of evolution. Quite frankly, it was a topic I was ready to see disappear. The controversy was tainting most conversations about Christianity in my circles at the University.

"Tainting conversations"? Why? He doesn't say.

RJS quotes a religion professor at Pepperdine University, Ron Highfield, who's looked into ID a bit. He concludes on Highfield's authority that intelligent design isn't "a particularly useful scientific or theological approach."

Not "useful"? Toward what end? What about "true," "serious," "honest"? But fine, then what wouldbe "useful"? This, says RJS:

[T]he best empirical evidence for intelligence isn't found in the pattern of DNA but in the existence of intelligence in the universe. This is complexity at its highest. In fact, the sciences that look for intelligence ... forensic science, information theory, cryptography etc. ... rely on intelligence to detect intelligence. "Only a mind can detect information or the activity of another mind." (p. 163)

Intelligent design theory as an empirical science alone cannot get us to a designer. It cannot offer an alternative to biological evolution. There is no reason to set it up against modern science as science. On the other hand, as a philosophical argument -- reasoning from intelligence to intelligence -- it has something to offer.

RJS allows that as a Christian he believes "the world is intelligently designed for a purpose." What he rejects is recognizing objective, scientific evidence of that. If I follow the line of reasoning correctly, he would rather infer "intelligence" from "intelligence." Once again quoting the indispensable Ron Highfield:

Had [William] Dembski argued from the mind's perception of the pervasive presence of intelligible reality with in the universe, in itself and other human minds, in biological structures, in cosmological laws and in the micro world of subatomic structures to the existence of a cosmic mind, his argument would demand attention. It would be built on a primitive , undeniable and universal human experience. (p. 164)

What? I don't want to give RJS, or Ron Highfield, less credit than they deserve, but that makes no sense. Because we experience minds at the human level, therefore...intelligent design? That's an "undeniable" argument that would "demand attention"?

Guys, please. You may notice that everyone dramatically heralding the demise of the ID movement does so with his own idiosyncratic justifications, often leaning on the vaporous authority of someone else who said it first, and never taking note of the excellent decade that ID has in fact enjoyed since Dover.

With the religious critics in particular, it's hard to resist the suspicion that it's easier to say "ID Is Dead" than it is to grapple with the relevant science, which can admittedly be challenging. RJS seems to regard the sheer volume of Stephen Meyer's "massive" book as off-putting. (It's actually not that massive.) 

But this is not surprising. If you write for a blog called Jesus Creed, it's probably not because of your interest in biology.

And I sympathize. Not everyone can picture himself cracking open a "massive" science tome. But then at least when someone asks you "Is ID Dead?," or when it occurs to you to write an article with that title, have the humility to say, "I don't have the slightest idea."

On the Herods:TheWatchtower Society's commentary.

the Days of Herod the King”

IN AN attempt to kill the infant Jesus, Herod the Great, king of Judea, sent envoys to massacre all baby boys in Bethlehem. History records numerous events that took place “in the days of Herod the king,” events that throw light on the context of Jesus’ life and ministry.—Matthew 2:1-16.

What made Herod want to kill Jesus? And why was it that when Jesus was born, the Jews had a king, but when Jesus died, Pontius Pilate, a Roman, governed them? To get the full picture of Herod’s role in history and to understand why he is important to Bible readers, we need to look back several decades before Jesus’ birth.

Power Struggles in Judea

In the first half of the second century B.C.E., Judea was ruled by the Syrian Seleucids, one of the four dynasties that formed after the breakup of the empire of Alexander the Great. However, in about 168 B.C.E., when the Seleucid king attempted to replace worship of Jehovah with the cult of Zeus at their temple in Jerusalem, the Jews, led by the Maccabee family, revolted. The Maccabees, or Hasmoneans, ruled Judea from 142-63 B.C.E.

In 66 B.C.E., two Hasmonean princes, Hyrcanus II and his brother Aristobulus, fought for succession to the throne. Civil war ensued, and both sought the aid of Pompey, a Roman general who at the time was in Syria. Pompey jumped at the chance to interfere.

The Romans, in fact, were extending their influence eastward, and by this time, they controlled much of Asia Minor. A series of weak rulers in Syria, however, had allowed the area to sink into anarchy, menacing the peace that the Romans desired to maintain in the East. So Pompey had stepped in to annex Syria.

His solution to the Hasmonean quarrel was to back Hyrcanus, and in 63 B.C.E., the Romans stormed Jerusalem to install their nominee. Hyrcanus, however, was not going to be an independent ruler. The Romans now had a foot in the door and were not about to remove it. Hyrcanus became a Roman ethnarch, one who ruled by the grace of the Romans, dependent on their goodwill and support to retain his throne. He could administer internal affairs as he wished, but in foreign relations, he had to conform to Roman policy.

The Rise of Herod

Hyrcanus was a weak-willed ruler. He was supported, though, by Antipater, an Idumean and the father of Herod the Great. Antipater was the power behind the throne. He kept restless Jewish factions at bay and soon took effective control of Judea. He helped Julius Caesar fight his foes in Egypt, and the Romans rewarded Antipater by raising him to the position of procurator, answerable directly to them. Antipater, in turn, appointed his sons, Phasael and Herod, as governors of Jerusalem and of Galilee respectively.

Antipater taught his sons that nothing could be achieved without Rome’s consent. Herod remembered that lesson well. Throughout his career, he juggled the demands of his Roman patrons with those of his Jewish subjects. He was aided by his skills as an organizer and a general. On his appointment as governor, 25-year-old Herod promptly won himself the admiration of Jews and Romans alike by vigorously eliminating bands of bandits from his territory.

After rivals poisoned Antipater in 43 B.C.E., Herod became the most powerful man in Judea. Yet, he had enemies. The Jerusalem aristocracy considered him a usurper and sought to persuade Rome to remove him. The attempt failed. Rome was loyal to Antipater’s memory and valued his son’s abilities.

Made King of Judea

Pompey’s solution to the Hasmonean succession crisis some 20 years earlier had embittered many. The unsuccessful faction repeatedly attempted to retake power, and in 40 B.C.E., they succeeded with the help of Rome’s enemies, the Parthians. Exploiting the chaos created by civil war in Rome, they invaded Syria, deposed Hyrcanus, and installed an anti-Roman member of the Hasmonean family.

Herod fled to Rome, where he received a warm welcome. The Romans wanted the Parthians ousted from Judea and the territory returned to their control with an acceptable ruler. They needed a reliable ally and saw Herod as their man. The Roman Senate thus crowned Herod king of Judea. In an act symbolic of the many compromises that Herod would have to make to maintain his grip on power, he led a procession from the Senate to the temple of Jupiter, where he sacrificed to pagan gods.

Helped by Roman legions, Herod defeated his enemies in Judea and claimed his throne. His revenge upon those who had opposed him was brutal. He eliminated the Hasmoneans and the Jewish aristocracy who had supported them, as well as any others who chafed at having a friend of the Romans rule over them.

Herod Consolidates His Power

In 31 B.C.E. when Octavius emerged as the undisputed ruler of the Romans by defeating Mark Antony at Actium, Herod realized that his long-standing friendship with Mark Antony would be viewed with suspicion. So Herod hastened to assure Octavius of his loyalty. The new Roman ruler, in turn, confirmed Herod as king of Judea and enlarged his territories.

In the years that followed, Herod stabilized and enriched his kingdom, transforming Jerusalem into a center of Hellenistic culture. He embarked upon great construction projects—building palaces, the port city of Caesarea, and grand new edifices for Jerusalem’s temple. All the while, the focus of his policy and the source of his strength were friendship with Rome.

Herod’s control over Judea was total; his authority, absolute. Herod also manipulated the high priesthood, appointing to this office whomever he wished.

Murderous Jealousies

Herod’s private life was turbulent. Many of his ten wives wanted one of their sons to succeed his father. Palace intrigues aroused Herod’s suspicions and his cruelty. In a fit of jealousy, he had his favorite wife, Mariamne, executed, and he later had two of her sons strangled for alleged plots against him. Matthew’s account of the Bethlehem massacre thus harmonizes with what is known of Herod’s temperament and his resolve to eliminate possible rivals.

Some say that, aware of his own unpopularity, Herod was determined that his death should be met with national mourning rather than rejoicing. In a scheme to achieve that goal, he arrested Judea’s leading citizens and ordered that they all be executed when his own death was announced. The order was never carried out.

The Legacy of Herod the Great

On Herod’s death, Rome decreed that Archelaus succeed his father as ruler of Judea and that two other sons become independent princes, or tetrarchs—Antipas over Galilee and Perea, Philip over Iturea and Trachonitis. Archelaus proved unpopular with his subjects and masters. After a decade of his ineffectual dominion, the Romans removed him and appointed their own governor, the predecessor of Pontius Pilate. In the meantime, Antipas—whom Luke simply calls Herod—and Philip continued to govern their own tetrarchies. This was the political situation at the start of Jesus’ ministry.—Luke 3:1.

Herod the Great was an astute politician and a ruthless murderer, probably his worst act being his attempt to kill the infant Jesus. Examining Herod’s historical role is useful for Bible readers—it helps illuminate key events of the period, explains how the Romans became rulers of the Jews, and sets the stage for Jesus’ earthly life and ministry.