On the myth of the gay gene.

 

No ‘gay gene’: Massive study homes in on genetic basis of human sexuality

Scientific American 

Massive Study Finds No Single Genetic Cause of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior

Analysis of half a million people suggests genetics may have a limited contribution to sexual orientation

By Sara Reardon on August 29, 2019

Few aspects of human biology are as complex—or politically fraught—as sexual orientation. A clear genetic link would suggest that gay people are “born this way,” as opposed to having made a lifestyle choice. Yet some fear that such a finding could be misused “cure” homosexuality, and most research teams have shied away from tackling the topic.

Now, a new study claims to dispel the notion that a single gene or handful of genes make a person prone to same-sex behavior. The analysis, which examined the genomes of nearly half a million men and women, found that although genetics are certainly involved in who people choose to have sex with, there are no specific genetic predictors. Yet some researchers question whether the analysis, which looked at genes associated with sexual activity rather than attraction, can draw any real conclusions about sexual orientation.

“The message should remain the same that this is a complex behavior that genetics definitely plays a part in,” said study co-author Fah Sathirapongsasuti, a computational biologist at genetic testing company andMe in Mountain View, Calif., during a press conference. The handful of genetic studies conducted in the past few decades have looked at only a few hundred individuals at most—and almost exclusively men. Other studies have linked sexual orientation with environmental factors such as hormone exposure before birth and having older brothers.

             In the new study, a team led by Brendan Zietsch of the University of Queensland, Australia, mined several massive genome data banks, including that of 23andMe and the UK Biobank (23andMe did not fund the research). They asked more than 477,000 participants whether they had ever had sex with someone of the same sex, and also questions about sexual fantasies and the degree to which they identified as gay or straight.

The researchers found five single points in the genome that seemed to be common among people who had had at least one same-sex experience. Two of these genetic markers sit close to genes linked to sex hormones and to smell—both factors that may play a role in sexual attraction. But taken together, these five markers explained less than 1 percent of the differences in sexual activity among people in the study. When the researchers looked at the overall genetic similarity of individuals who had had a same-sex experience, genetics seemed to account for between 8 and 25 percent of the behavior. The rest was presumably a result of environmental or other biological influences. The findings were published Thursday in Science.

                  Despite the associations, the authors say that the genetic similarities still cannot show whether a given individual is gay. “It’s the end of the ’gay gene,’” says Eric Vilain, a geneticist at Children’s National Health System in Washington, D.C., who was not involved in the study.

The research has limitations: almost all of the participants were from the U.S. or Europe, and the individuals also tended to be older—51 years old on average in the 23andMe sample and at least 40 in the UK Biobank sample.

Still, researchers welcome the data. “A lot of people want to understand the biology of homosexuality, and science has lagged behind that human interest,” says William Rice, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who also was not involved in the work. “It’s been a taboo topic, and now that we’re getting information I think it’s going to blossom.”

                  The study will not be the last word on the vexing question of what causes homosexuality, however. In 1993 geneticist Dean Hamer of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and his colleagues published a paper suggesting that an area on the X chromosome called Xq28 could contain a “gay gene.” But other studies, including the new paper, found no such link, and Sathirapongsasuti says that the new study is the final nail in the coffin for Xq28 as a cause of same-sex attraction.

But Hamer, now retired, disagrees. His study, which analysed the genomes of 40 pairs of gay brothers, looked exclusively at people who identified as homosexual. He sees the new paper as an analysis of risky behavior or openness to experience, noting that participants who engaged in at least one same-sex experience were also more likely to report having smoked marijuana and having more sexual partners overall. Hamer says that the findings do not reveal any biological pathways for sexual orientation. “I’m glad they did it and did a big study, but it doesn’t point us where to look.”

Rice and Vilain agree that the conclusion is unclear. A more detailed questionnaire that looks at more aspects of sexuality and environmental influences would allow the researchers to better pinpoint the roots of attraction.

                        The authors say that they did see links between sexual orientation and sexual activity, but concede that the genetic links do not predict orientation. “I think it’s true we’re capturing part of that risk-taking behavior,” Sathirapongsasuti says, but the genetic links still suggested that same-sex behavior is related to attraction.

Nevertheless, Hamer and others praise the new contribution to a field that suffers from a dearth of good studies. “I hope it will be the first of many to come.”

More on Dawinists' we don't know what it does therefore it does nothing argument.

 Did Dr. Dan Make Us Change Our Position on Junk DNA?

Jonathan Mclatchie

Last week, I published a review of Casey Luskin’s recent debate with Rutgers University professor Daniel Stern Cardinale (“Dr. Dan”) of the Creation Myths YouTube channel. I noted that Luskin did a good job during the debate of refuting Dr. Dan’s main arguments that most of our genome is junk — and I also pointed out that after the debate we posted a follow-up article that refuted his claim that “degraded” LINE elements cannot be functional. Now, Dr. Dan is claiming that he forced Discovery Institute to “change” its take on the percent of the genome that is functional. This claim is totally false and it perhaps reflects Dr. Dan’s wish to find a positive spin on the substance of what happened during the debate. 

We’ll get to that in a moment, but first, let’s recap what happened during the debate.

Point 1: Luskin Refutes Dr. Dan’s Main Argument

The first of Dr. Dan’s two primary arguments during the debate was that most of the transcribed DNA documented by ENCODE cannot be functional since 70 percent of the coverage is transcribed at a rate of less than one transcript per cell. Luskin refuted this argument during the debate, making two main points. First, this statistic is an average — and, therefore, a mean of one transcript per cell does not imply that every cell has only one transcript or less. Second, there are plenty of examples of cases where there is a low copy number of RNA transcripts that are nonetheless functional. See my previous article for details. I observed that it was curious that, after these rejoinders were made by Casey Luskin, Dr. Dan never revisited this argument throughout the remainder of the debate.

Point 2: We Refute Dr. Dan’s Fallback Argument

After abandoning his first argument, Dr. Dan’s then fell back to a secondary argument — namely that large percentages of our genome are composed of “degraded” repetitive DNA which he claimed are “absolutely not” functional. Well, during the debate Luskin gave examples of “degraded” repetitive DNA that can be functional, and after the debate Richard Sternberg, Luskin, and I co-authored an article that reported over 50 peer-reviewed papers showing that what Dr. Dan calls “degraded” LINE elements can be functional. The only thing that Dr. Dan’s secondary argument showed is that evolutionists continue to assume that if they do not understand what a particular genetic element is doing then this constitutes grounds for thinking that it is functionless.

Did We Change Our Arguments in Response to Dr. Dan?

The short answer is no, we didn’t change our arguments in response to Dr. Dan because he did not raise any points that warranted our changing anything. To appreciate why this is the case, one first must appreciate our position. 

In Casey Luskin’s opening statement in the debate — before Dr. Dan had made any arguments — Luskin fully acknowledged that there’s much we don’t know about the genome. He stated the following:

So again we’re going to deep dive into this today but I think it’s good to start with some points of agreement. I fully agree with Dr. Dan, and I’m assuming this is what you think Dr. Dan so forgive me if I’m misrepresenting you, but I thought these are reasonable things — that there is still a lot we don’t know about the genome. And I agree with you that probably some of it is going to turn out to be “junk”. I also agree with you that there’s much transcription going on where we still don’t know what it’s for. Some of it could even be quote-unquote stochastic. But I certainly agree that there’s a lot we don’t know, and that science will reveal much to us in the coming years. 

That was from Luskin’s opening statement, before Dr. Dan had made any substantive points. And it was entirely consistent with what Luskin has said in the past. For example in a paper last year in the journal Religions, Luskin stated the following about junk DNA

Junk DNA genetic arguments for common human–ape ancestry have also come under significant critique in recent years due to the discovery of mass-functionality for non-coding or “junk” DNA in the human genome. A major 2012 Nature paper by the ENCODE consortium reported “biochemical functions for 80%” of the human genome (ENCODE Project Consortium 2012, p. 57). Lead ENCODE scientists predicted that with further research, “80 percent will go to 100” since “almost every nucleotide is associated with a function.” (Yong 2012). In the wake of this research, the journal Science published an article titled “ENCODE Project Writes Eulogy for Junk DNA” which stated that these findings “sound the death knell for the idea that our DNA is mostly littered with useless bases” (Pennisi 2012, p. 1159). Evidence of functions for non-coding DNA has continued to mount at a high pace. A 2021 article in Nature reported that over 130,000 specific “genomic elements, previously called junk DNA” have seen specific functions identified (Gates et al. 2021, p. 215), followed by a paper in Genome Biology and Evolution which concluded, “The days of ‘junk DNA’ are over” (Stitz et al. 2021, p. 11). There is still much we do not understand about the genome and there are many specific genetic elements for which no function has yet been discovered. Nonetheless, this evidence suggests a strong trendline in the research literature away from non-functionality for “junk” DNA. 

Luskin later wrote the following in that paper:

Again, it is true that there is still much we do not know about junk DNA and there are many specific genetic elements (including pseudogenes and ERVs) for which specific functions have not yet been discovered. However, recent trends in research show that far more functionality is being discovered than was anticipated, leading to the possibility of mass functionality for junk DNA. As a 2023 academic book on RNA states:

“While the story is still unfolding, we conclude that the genomes of humans and other complex organisms are not full of junk but rather are highly compact information suites that are largely devoted to the specification of regulatory RNAs. These RNAs drive the trajectories of differentiation and development, underpin brain function and convey transgenerational memory of experience, much of it contrary to long-held conceptions of genetic programming and the dogmas of evolutionary theory.”

(Mattick and Amaral 2023, p. vii) 

So Luskin has been very clear that there’s a lot we do not know about the genome — including many specific genetic elements for which we have not yet discovered their specific functions — and much remains to be discovered. But we do have evidence that over 80 percent of the genome is transcribed, and that’s evidence of function. Plus, the numerous scientific papers discovering function for “junk” DNA show the trendline of the research strongly implies the large bulk of the genome is functional. 

Does Lack of Knowledge of Specific Function Imply Junk?

Does our lack of knowledge of the specific function for a genetic element imply it is probably junk? Again, the answer is no.

I also noted in my review that “Though Dr. Dan is correct that we currently know of specific functions for significantly less than half of the genome, this is hardly a strong argument for supposing that the ‘dark regions’ of the genome are non-functional ‘junk’ — particularly given the trends in the scientific literature over the last couple of decades — and the fact that the great majority of our genome is transcribed.” Dr. Dan has now put out a video titled “I Made Discovery Institute Change Their Junk DNA Argument.” In the video, Dr. Dan quoted my statement above, together with Luskin’s remark from his concluding statement: “I mean it could be another hundred years before we cross that 50 percent threshold, but I predict we’re going to get there and we’re going to go above that.” Dr. Dan contends that this is a significant shift in our position on the subject of junk DNA.

In support of his contention, Dr. Dan cites a few past articles from Evolution News, which he contends are at odds with this statement. Here is a list of the relevant quotes:

Casey Luskin, on March 28, 2024:

“…the concept of junk DNA — long espoused by evolutionists — has overall been refuted by mountains of data and is no longer even considered valid by many biologists.”

“A major Nature paper by the ENCODE consortium reported evidence of ‘biochemical functions for 80%’ of the human genome. Lead ENCODE scientists predicted that with further research, ’80 percent will go to 100’ since ‘almost every nucleotide is associated with a function.’”

Evolution News, on August 4, 2020:

“Skipper says it was ‘striking’ to find that they were able to assign a ‘biochemical function’ to 80 percent of the genome…”

Casey Luskin, on July 9, 2015:

“I should note that for my part, I think that the percentage of our genome that is functional is probably very high, even higher than 80%.”

“ENCODE critics who say the genome is junky rely primarily on theory. ENCODE proponents who say the genome is functional rely primarily on data.”

Dr. Dan contends that my (and Luskin’s) statements that we do not know the functions of significantly more than half of the genome are incompatible with the statements given above. This is not the case because, as noted, not knowing the specific function does not mean we don’t have evidence of function. Indeed, Luskin clearly stated during the debate that we are well over the 50 percent threshold” when it comes to evidence of genome function. As Luskin argued, over 80 percent of the genome is known to be transcribed into RNA, and it has long been our contention that the fact that over 80 percent of the genome is transcribed is prima facie evidence of function. (ENCODE only studied about 147 cell types, leading to the prediction Luskin quoted that as more cell types are studied “80 percent will go to 100.”) This does not mean that we know the specific function of all of the sequences that are transcribed, but again we don’t need to know the specific function to have evidence for some real function. Assigning specific functions to DNA sequences is not the only sort of evidence that may be adduced for functionality. Transcription itself is evidence that there is a function. Indeed, as Luskin noted during the debate, an ID-friendly RNA biologist at an Ivy League school told him that in their field, the dominant thinking in the field holds: “If it’s transcribed, it has a function.”

Moreover, the trends in the scientific literature — documenting more and more function of the dark regions of the genome — give us strong reason for confidence that those trends will continue. Thus, it’s not at all hard to envision virtually all of these transcribed regions have a specific function that is just waiting for us to discover. 

The only statement listed above that might be construed as being at odds with this is the quote from the 2020 Evolution News article. However, here is the statement in context:

Skipper says it was “striking” to find that they were able to assign a “biochemical function” to 80 percent of the genome: striking, because “not such a long time ago, we still considered that a vast proportion of the human genome was simply junk.” Birney comments, “It’s very hard to get over the density of information” in the genome. They found places that are “much more complex” than expected, and loci thought to be completely silent are actually “teeming with life, teeming with things going on; we still really don’t understand that…” 

Neither Casey Luskin nor I wrote those words, nor did any Discovery Institute author. Indeed, those quotes are pulled from a video from Nature. Skipper’s comment that they are “able to assign a ‘biochemical function’ to 80 percent of the genome” is clumsily worded. However, Birney’s statement (also quoted in the Evolution News article) adds more nuance: “It’s like a jungle of stuff out there. There are things that we thought we understood and yet it’s much, much more complex. And then places of the genome that we thought were completely silent and they’re teeming with life. They’re teeming with things going on. We still really don’t understand that.” Thus, Birney appears to agree that we do not know what is going on in many of these regions, though we nonetheless have evidence of function. This supports what we are saying about the genome, not Dr. Dan’s view. 

Of course, Dr. Dan objects to our contention that transcription constitutes prima facie evidence of function, since the mean level of transcription for much of the transcribed regions is less than a single transcript per cell. But we rebutted that argument during the debate, and it is curious that Dr. Dan still (even in his latest video) has not addressed, nor even remarked on, our rebuttal to his objection — that this is only an average and that even low copy number transcripts can be functional. 

Dr. Dan Should Stop Projecting His Own Views Upon Us

To conclude, we have not changed our position on junk DNA as a result of Dr. Dan’s debate with Casey Luskin. Luskin’s comment about the “50 percent threshold” pertained to our not having yet identified the specific function for 50 percent of the genome — he was NOT claiming that there is no evidence of function for 50 percent of the genome, and he was certainly NOT conceding that there is evidence that 50 percent of the genome is junk. Instead, as we have noted, because over 80 percent of the genome is transcribed, this provides prima facie evidence that at least 80 percent of the genome is functional even if we have not yet identified the specific function. In fact, Luskin stated this upfront in his opening statement — fully acknowledging that there is much we have yet to learn about the genome. 

In this debate, Dr. Dan is the only party who is arguing that if we have not identified the specific function, then even if it is transcribed, we are safe to assume it is probably junk. He seems to think that if we concede that we don’t know the specific function, that therefore this means it is junk. Dr. Dan must be projecting his own views upon us because he is the only party here who thinks like that. We certainly don’t. We are not arguing that way because it is a science-stopping argument. We believe that the evidence of mass-transcription of the genome plus the trendline of the research indicate that the vast majority of the genome is functional. Dr. Dan is welcome to disagree with us, but he should not impose his own science-stopping views upon us

Against Nincsnevem ad pluribus VI

 "as his being prototokos from the dead must mean that he is numbered among the resurrected"

However, Col. 1:18 contains a certain 'ek' preposition, which here means "from," "of," thus "among," and the same role can be filled by "en" in Romans 8:29. Therefore, in these cases, there is an actual inclusion in the given group, which does not occur in Colossians 1:15.

Me:I quoted revelation ch.1:5 and not colossians ch.1:18 because I was aware of this particular fudge by trinitarians

The resurrection is a creative act or more specifically a recreation of what has ceased to exist. JEHOVAH is unchangingly the immortal God hence can never under any possible circumstance die and thus be resurrected 

       Roman's ch.1:23NIV"and exchanged the glory of the IMMORTAL God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles."

Thus Christ being firstborn of those resurrected clearly disqualifies him from being the most high God

   The categories of immortal God and mortal man are mutually exclusive no single person can simultaneously belong to both categories according to scripture.

       Numbers ch.23:19NKHV"God is NOT a man, that He should lie,

NOR a son of man, that He should repent.

Has He said, and will He not do?

Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?"

    As JEHOVAH is unchanging not here means NEVER Machi ch.3:6

"...in scripture WITHOUT EXCEPTION the protokis...."

This certain "protokis" is surely some kind of crowing, but πρωτόκτιστος (correctly: prōtóktistos) is found NOT in the Scripture, but in Clement of Alexandria's work "Stromata," and he does not specifically refer to the Son/Logos, but to Wisdom. Neither Clement (nor any other Church Father) wrote that the Father created/made the Son.

The AI apparently realized you were out of your depth and decided to give you a hand .I of course meant prototokos is always a member of the set of which he is prototokos whether term is being used literally or figuratively

"But neither are they less to be blamed who think that the Son was a creation, and decided that the Lord was made just as one of those things which really were made; whereas the divine declarations testify that He was begotten, as is fitting and proper, but not that He was created or made. On the contrary, for example, Dionysius of Alexandria specifically writes in 262 AD (thus LONG before the Council of Nicaea):

"But neither are they less to be condemned who think that the Son was a creation, and decided that the Lord was made just as one of those things which really were made; whereas the divine declarations testify that He was begotten, as is fitting and proper, but not that He was created or made. [...] Finally, any one may read in many parts of the divine utterances that the Son is said to have been begotten, but never that He was made. From which considerations, they who dare to say that His divine and inexplicable generation was a creation, are openly convicted of thinking that which is false concerning the generation of the Lord."

 Me:The last Apostle John mentioned that already in his time there was a multiplying of false teachers see 1John ch.2:18 and predicted that once he as the last the 12 passed on things would get worse the last hour being mentioned here is the end of the Apostolic era. The scriptures are really the only safe guide

Nincs:"If you can find a single exception sola scriptura I promise to convert to Catholicism."

I appreciate the humor, but I think converting to Catholicism is not primarily advisable based on this kind of biblical ping-pong, but rather due to the untenability of the principles of "sola Scriptura," the "Great Apostasy," and "the modern restoration of true Christianity." Incidentally, Jewish rabbinical writers called Yahweh Bekoroh Shel Olam (בכורו של עולם), which practically means the same as what Apostle Paul used here: the Firstborn of the world. In a Jewish context, therefore, this title actually proves his divinity, not his createdness. Read this: https://justpaste.it/cs2gp

Me:And it is just as well too because your doctrine finds NO basis in scripture I actually appreciate the fact that Catholics openly admit that their supposedly Christian dogma are not actually based on the scriptures. It's a much more honest position than that of certain protestants who like to pretend that doctrines like the trinity or unconditional immortality can be demonstrated sola scriptura. 

Nincs:"if the God and Father of Jesus is the ONLY true God then only the God and Father of Jesus is THE true God basic logic which trumps your church councils demand"

Okay, then from "there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ" (1Cor. 8:6) it follows that the Father cannot be Lord, congratulations :) Read my comments as well: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2023/09/alone-or-only-how-theyre-construed.html

Me:You keep urging me to read your comments when it's clear that you are not reading mine with any focus. As I explained by way of an illustration you are making a category error.

There are many Gods and many Lords but there is a category of God(i.e the most high God) in which only the God and Father Jesus belongs.

   1Corinthians ch.8:6NKJV"6yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live."

  The God and Father of Jesus is the only God who is the ultimate source of all the power and wisdom in the creation. He alone is autotheos he is the only valid self appointed Lord as well. Every other valid God or Lord is derived from his own Godhood and Lordship including christ's there is also a category of Lord to which only Christ belongs he is JEHOVAH'S Highest ranked representative.

 In the U.S there many presidencies but there is a category of presidency that is higher and than all others this category of presidency is held by a single officeholder at any given time. Same is true of the divine office there is just one perpetual officeholder that is the God and Father of Jesus.

     

Nincs:"Jesus' who was MADE Lord by his Lord"According to his human nature, the Son received the name Lord only upon his resurrection and ascension, but according to his divine nature, he has been Lord from eternity, as John 20:28, Luke 1:43 already refer to him as Lord before this.

Me:All irrelevant you assert that his Lordship is from eternity but don't demonstrate it

John Ch.20:28 is after his resurrection and of course he was only christ and lord prophetically at Luke ch.1:43.

No doubt he was a prince in his prehuman existence but this would be at his God and father's pleasure. 

       John ch.8:29NIV"The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.”

Nincs:"what kind of practices ought not to be tolerated in his church"

Anyone who has not been baptized is not a member of the Church and is not under the jurisdiction of Church discipline. Therefore, the unbaptized Constantine could not have been reprimanded by the Church."

No doubt but the point is that Constantine did not join the church because his conscience won't allow it. I can form an opinion of the genuineness of his commitment based on that fact. And he certainly had no business preaching sermons in the assembly or presiding over gatherings of the aldermen in the church.

Against Nincsnevem ad pluribus V

 Me:Colossians ch.1:15KJV"5Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: "

Whether literally or figuratively the prototokos is ALWAYS a member of the set. Thus this statement makes Christ a member of the creation.

Just as his being prototokos from the dead must mean that he is numbered among the resurrected colossians ch. Revelation Ch.1:5KJV"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood," And it matters not that the scripture says that All were created "dia" the prototokos any more than it days that all are resurrected by the prototokos of the resurrected . To say that a servant of JEHOVAH is speaking with the voice of God is to say that he is not speaking in his own authority power or wisdom but with that which he has received from his lord. Therefore he is definitely a subordinate JEHOVAH is self- sufficient and always acts and speaks solely of his own authority. That is why would NEVER read any where in scripture of JEHOVAH Speaking with God's voice that would be ridiculously unworthy of mention. But the fact that the author felt the need to mention it proves that the Logos is subordinate to the one who gave him leave to speak with such authority

This my post to which nincsnevem is supposedly responding  ,I will demonstrate from an unabridged copy of Mr.nincsnevems response that he is in fact just another strawman bully.

Nincs:"In the Bible, birth language ALWAYS implies creation"

No, the New Testament consistently distinguishes between the birth/begetting of the Son and the creation of creatures, and it also states that this occurred before all ages (aions). Therefore, the Nicene Creed includes the phrases, "Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons)" and "begotten, not made." The question remains, why do you insist on this CREATEDNESS when there is already a specific term for the Son's origin from the Father, which is precisely what is NOT stated.

Me: you will notice this pattern with Mr.nevem's responses he always asserts he NEVER Demonstrates and this claim(that birth language is never used to refer to JEHOVAH'S Creative activity should be easily demonstrable.

Let's go into the scripture and see what is actually the case.

Acts Ch.17:28NKJV"for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’"

Birth language clearly being used to refer to giving existence to another at a particular point in time.

Psalm ch.90:2NIV"Before the mountains were born

or you brought forth the whole world,

from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

This precedent is without exception and given the extremely patriarchal culture of the time and place how could it be otherwise

What about Jesus himself:

Acts ch.13:33NIV"he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm:

“ ‘You are my son;

tTODAY  have become your fFATHER’

He is here shown as begotten at a particular point in time and that his being begotten means the same thing that it does for the rest of JEHOVAH'S Children a receiving of life and form that he did not have previously. There us no such thing as an eternal begetting.

Nincs:"Whenever JEHOVAH acts Dia another"

It is not "Jehovah" who acts 'dia' through the Son, because the New Testament never speaks of "Jehovah," only of the Father, and the Father indeed acts 'dia' through the Son. However, this does not exclude the Son from being an active participant in creation or from being truly God.

Me:I'm going to have to go with the scriptures over you on this one nincs:

John ch.8:54NIV"Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 

Acts ch 3:13NIV"The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. .."

JEHOVAH is the God Lord and Father of Jesus the empty protestations of your church councils notwithstanding.

"Dia" indicates subordination Moses had a very active role in revealing the law to Israel but he was not the source of the law.

John ch.1:17NIV"For the law was given through(Dia) Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. "

The power and wisdom manfest in the creation has its source in JEHOVAH not the secondary instruments through which he acts even those consciously involved in the creation. Our parents conscious decision resulted in our being here yet they are not co-creators or to be regarded as of equal importance re: our creation 

Nincs:"the other is never the source of the power or wisdom"

Let me teach you something new that might be surprising: according to Nicene Christology, the Son receives his existence and divinity from the Father. Moreover, the Council of Florence explicitly stated as dogma: "Whatever the Father is or has, He does not have from another, but from Himself; and He is the principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle." Therefore, it is worth thoroughly researching what you are attempting to refute.

Me:All this means is that the God and Father of Jesus ALONE Meets the biblical standard of true Godhood being totally self-sufficient in all respects.

Roman's ch.11:35NIV"“Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?”

It's a rhetorical question the most high God is in no ones debt.

Nincs:"the prototokos is ALWAYS a member of the set"

No, "prototokos" belongs to the category or group from which it descend from. Robert Keay, Ph.D. writes:"...the Watchtower argues that 'the firstbornof' always indicates that the firstborn is part of the named group. That is, the relationship between the two terms involves basic similarity and equality as parts and whole. For example, the firstborn of an animal is an animal, the firstborn of Pharaoh is part of Pharaoh’s family. The Watchtower wants the Witness to think that the firstborn of creation must be similar to and part of the creation, hence a created being. Again, this reasoning is seriously flawed. When the argument is taken to its logical conclusion, its flaws are obvious. The phrase 'firstborn of Pharaoh' cannot mean simply that the child is similar to Pharaoh as part of the Pharaoh family. If the firstborn is part of Pharaoh’s family, it is only because Pharaoh is the father of the firstborn. Likewise, the firstborn of an animal is part of that animal group because an animal is the parent of the firstborn. One cannot separate being 'part of' from its actual cause: giving birth, fathering, or mothering. When the Watchtower argument is applied to Jesus as 'firstborn of creation', the fallacy is revealed. The argument becomes absurd. If Jesus is the firstborn of creation, according to the Watchtower’s reasoning, then creation is the parent of Jesus; that is, creation gives birth to Jesus. If the Watchtower argument is valid, then Creation truly is 'Mother Earth.' Even the Watchtower would not want to believe this, but the logic of their argument demands it, thus showing its absurdity. Obviously, the phrase 'firstborn of creation' is not being used in the way the Watchtower claims. The phrases 'the firstborn of' that the Witnesses cite are not analogous with Paul’s statement that Jesus is the firstborn of creation. The Apostle does not reason as the Watchtower does. But the reason the Watchtower must resort to a fallacious argument is that they fail to understand the actual usage of the term in the Old Testament. As shown above, the 'birth order' meaning of firstborn fades as the 'birthright' significance takes on greater meaning, culminating in its Messianic connotations. The Watchtower’s attempts to limit the meaning to 'birth order' cannot be justified."

Mr.nincsnevem is apparently incapable of thinking for himself if you read my original response above you will see that it is all but totally ignored by Mr. Nevem's excuse for a response. I mentioned for instance that prototokos is being used figuratively at colossians. So creation is not literally a parent. Anymore than the resurrection is literally a parent in Jesus illustration.

Luke ch.20:36NIV"and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection."

Similarly the Logos is the firstborn of JEHOVAH by being firstborn of creation.

Also firstborn is used in the Bible with reference to relationship to kin .

Revelation ch.1:5NIV"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, "

He is definitely the first to be resurrected to holiness and he is kin to the resurrected.

I am forced to repeat myself because Mr.nevem insists on ignoring my actual quote for one on colossians 1:18 which he imagines he can win with some kind of made up grammar rule

All who are begotten of God are so via creation but the majority of the creation is created indirectly through prior creations either as raw materials or secondary causes

Isaiah ch.54:16NIV"“See, it is I who created the blacksmith who fans the coals into flame and forges a weapon fit for its work. And it is I who have created the destroyer to wreak havoc;"

Well not directly the blacksmith and the destroyer undoubtedly had a Father and mother yet because the power wisdom manifest in their form came from JEHOVAH as the ultimate source he can take credit for their existence.

It would be different with the firstborn of creation his begetting would be unique.

Hence he could poetically be referred to as the only begotten.