Ezekiel28 The Tanakh

1.Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: א. וַיְהִי דְבַר יְהֹוָה אֵלַי לֵאמֹר:

2. "Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre: So said the Lord God: Because your heart is proud, and you said, 'I am a god, I have sat in a seat of God, in the heart of the seas,' but you are a man and not a god, yet you have made your heart like the heart of God. ב. בֶּן אָדָם אֱמֹר לִנְגִיד צֹר כֹּה אָמַר | אֲדֹנָי יֱהֹוִה יַעַן גָּבַהּ לִבְּךָ וַתֹּאמֶר אֵל אָנִי מוֹשַׁב אֱלֹהִים יָשַׁבְתִּי בְּלֵב יַמִּים וְאַתָּה אָדָם וְלֹא אֵל וַתִּתֵּן לִבְּךָ כְּלֵב אֱלֹהִים:

3. Behold, are you wiser than Daniel, that no secret is hidden from you? ג. הִנֵּה חָכָם אַתָּה מִדָּנִאֵל כָּל סָתוּם לֹא עֲמָמוּךָ:

4. With your wisdom and with your understanding did you acquire wealth for yourself, and gather gold and silver in your treasurehouses? ד. בְּחָכְמָתְךָ וּבִתְבוּנָתְךָ עָשִׂיתָ לְּךָ חָיִל וַתַּעַשׂ זָהָב וָכֶסֶף בְּאוֹצְרוֹתֶיךָ:

5. With your great wisdom in your commerce did you increase your wealth, that your heart became haughty with your wealth? ה. בְּרֹב חָכְמָתְךָ בִּרְכֻלָּתְךָ הִרְבִּיתָ חֵילֶךָ וַיִּגְבַּהּ לְבָבְךָ בְּחֵילֶךָ:

6. Therefore, so said the Lord God: Because you made your heart like the heart of God, ו. לָכֵן כֹּה אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יֱהֹוִה יַעַן תִּתְּךָ אֶת לְבָבְךָ כְּלֵב אֱלֹהִים:

7. Therefore, behold I am bringing foreigners, the strong of the nations, upon you, and they will draw their swords on the beauty of your wisdom and profane your brightness. ז. לָכֵן הִנְנִי מֵבִיא עָלֶיךָ זָרִים עָרִיצֵי גּוֹיִם וְהֵרִיקוּ חַרְבוֹתָם עַל יְפִי חָכְמָתֶךָ וְחִלְּלוּ יִפְעָתֶךָ:

8. Into the Pit they will lower you, and you will die the deaths of those who are slain, in the heart of the seas. ח. לַשַּׁחַת יוֹרִדוּךָ וָמַתָּה מְמוֹתֵי חָלָל בְּלֵב יַמִּים:

9. Will you say, "I am a god" before your slayer? Indeed, you are a man and not a god in the hand of your slayer. ט. הֶאָמֹר תֹּאמַר אֱלֹהִים אָנִי לִפְנֵי הֹרְגֶךָ וְאַתָּה אָדָם וְלֹא אֵל בְּיַד מְחַלְלֶךָ:

10. The deaths of the uncircumcised you shall die at the hand of foreigners, for I have spoken," says the Lord God. י. מוֹתֵי עֲרֵלִים תָּמוּת בְּיַד זָרִים כִּי אֲנִי דִבַּרְתִּי נְאֻם אֲדֹנָי יֱהֹוִה:

11. Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: יא. וַיְהִי דְבַר יְהֹוָה אֵלַי לֵאמֹר:

12. "Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre and say to him, So said the Lord God: You are the one who engraves images, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. יב. בֶּן אָדָם שָׂא קִינָה עַל מֶלֶךְ צוֹר וְאָמַרְתָּ לּוֹ כֹּה אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יֱהֹוִה אַתָּה חוֹתֵם תָּכְנִית מָלֵא חָכְמָה וּכְלִיל יֹפִי:

13. In Eden, the garden of God you were; every precious stone was [set in] your covering; ruby, topaz, diamond, chrysolite, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, carbuncle, and crystal and gold; the work of your drums and your orifices is in you; on the day of your creation they were established. יג. בְּעֵדֶן גַּן אֱלֹהִים הָיִיתָ כָּל אֶבֶן יְקָרָה מְסֻכָתֶךָ אֹדֶם פִּטְדָה וְיַהֲלֹם תַּרְשִׁישׁ שֹׁהַם וְיָשְׁפֵה סַפִּיר נֹפֶךְ וּבָרְקַת וְזָהָב מְלֶאכֶת תֻּפֶּיךָ וּנְקָבֶיךָ בָּךְ בְּיוֹם הִבָּרַאֲךָ כּוֹנָנוּ:

14. You were a cherub of great measure, that covers, and I gave that to you; you were on the mount of the sanctuary of God: you walked among stones of fire. יד. אַתְּ כְּרוּב מִמְשַׁח הַסּוֹכֵךְ וּנְתַתִּיךָ בְּהַר קֹדֶשׁ אֱלֹהִים הָיִיתָ בְּתוֹךְ אַבְנֵי אֵשׁ הִתְהַלָּכְתָּ:

15. You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created until wrongdoing was found in you. טו. תָּמִים אַתָּה בִּדְרָכֶיךָ מִיּוֹם הִבָּרְאָךְ עַד נִמְצָא עַוְלָתָה בָּךְ:

16. Because of the multitude of your commerce, they filled you with violence and you sinned, and I shall cast you as profane from the mountain of God, and I shall destroy you, O covering cherub, from among the stones of fire. טז. בְּרֹב רְכֻלָּתְךָ מָלוּ תוֹכְךָ חָמָס וַתֶּחֱטָא וָאֲחַלֶּלְךָ מֵהַר אֱלֹהִים וָאַבֶּדְךָ כְּרוּב הַסּוֹכֵךְ מִתּוֹךְ אַבְנֵי אֵשׁ:

17. Your heart became haughty because of your beauty; you destroyed your wisdom with your brightness; I have cast you upon the ground; I have set you before kings to gaze upon you. יז. גָּבַהּ לִבְּךָ בְּיָפְיֶךָ שִׁחַתָּ חָכְמָתְךָ עַל יִפְעָתֶךָ עַל אֶרֶץ הִשְׁלַכְתִּיךָ לִפְנֵי מְלָכִים נְתַתִּיךָ לְרַאֲוָה בָךְ:

18. Because of the multitude of your iniquities, with the wrongdoing of your commerce, you profaned your sanctity, and I shall bring forth fire out of your midst-it will consume you, and I shall make you ashes on the ground before the eyes of all who see you. יח. מֵרֹב עֲו‍ֹנֶיךָ בְּעָוֶל רְכֻלָּתְךָ חִלַּלְתָּ מִקְדָּשֶׁיךָ וָאוֹצִא אֵשׁ מִתּוֹכְךָ הִיא אֲכָלַתְךָ וָאֶתֶּנְךָ לְאֵפֶר עַל הָאָרֶץ לְעֵינֵי כָּל רֹאֶיךָ:

19. All who know you among the peoples will wonder over you; you shall be a terror, and you shall be no more, ever." יט. כָּל יוֹדְעֶיךָ בָּעַמִּים שָׁמְמוּ עָלֶיךָ בַּלָּהוֹת הָיִיתָ וְאֵינְךָ עַד עוֹלָם:

20. Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: כ. וַיְהִי דְבַר יְהֹוָה אֵלַי לֵאמֹר:

21. "Son of man! Set your face toward Zidon and prophesy about her. כא. בֶּן אָדָם שִׂים פָּנֶיךָ אֶל צִידוֹן וְהִנָּבֵא עָלֶיהָ:

22. And you shall say; So said the Lord God: Behold I am against you, Zidon, and I shall be honored in your midst, and you will know that I am the Lord when I perform judgments in her and I shall be sanctified in her. כב. וְאָמַרְתָּ כֹּה אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יֱהֹוִה הִנְנִי עָלַיִךְ צִידוֹן וְנִכְבַּדְתִּי בְּתוֹכֵךְ וְיָדְעוּ כִּי אֲנִי יְהֹוָה בַּעֲשׂוֹתִי בָהּ שְׁפָטִים וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי בָהּ:

23. And I shall send into her pestilence and blood in her streets, and they will judge themselves as slain in her midst by the sword [coming] upon her from all around, and they will know that I am the Lord. כג. וְשִׁלַּחְתִּי בָהּ דֶּבֶר וָדָם בְּחוּצוֹתֶיהָ וְנִפְלַל חָלָל בְּתוֹכָהּ בְּחֶרֶב עָלֶיהָ מִסָּבִיב וְיָדְעוּ כִּי אֲנִי יְהֹוָה:

24. And there will no longer be to the house of Israel a pricking briar or a painful thorn from all that are around them, who plunder them, and they will know that I am the Lord God. כד. וְלֹא יִהְיֶה עוֹד לְבֵית יִשְׂרָאֵל סִלּוֹן מַמְאִיר וְקוֹץ מַכְאִב מִכֹּל סְבִיבֹתָם הַשָּׁאטִים אוֹתָם וְיָדְעוּ כִּי אֲנִי אֲדֹנָי יֱהֹוִה:

25. So says the Lord God: When I gather in the house of Israel from the peoples among whom they have been scattered, and I have been sanctified through them in the eyes of the nations, then shall they dwell on their land that I gave to My servant, to Jacob. כה. כֹּה אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יֱהֹוִה בְּקַבְּצִי | אֶת בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר נָפֹצוּ בָם וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי בָם לְעֵינֵי הַגּוֹיִם וְיָשְׁבוּ עַל אַדְמָתָם אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לְעַבְדִּי לְיַעֲקֹב:

26. And they shall dwell upon it securely, and they shall build houses and plant vineyards and dwell securely when I execute judgments against all those who plunder them from all around them, and they shall know that I am the Lord their God." כו. וְיָשְׁבוּ עָלֶיהָ לָבֶטַח וּבָנוּ בָתִּים וְנָטְעוּ כְרָמִים וְיָשְׁבוּ לָבֶטַח בַּעֲשׂוֹתִי שְׁפָטִים בְּכֹל הַשָּׁאטִים אֹתָם מִסְּבִיבֹתָם וְיָדְעוּ כִּי אֲנִי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵיהֶם:

Whence the controversy?

Stephen Meyer at the University Club: Why Are We Still Debating Darwin?

Tom Bethell March 21, 2012 11:22 AM

In his "Socrates in the City" talk in Washington last week, Steve Meyer asked: "Is there a scientific controversy about the theory of evolution?" After quoting many spokesmen for official science who deny the existence of any such controversy, or any reason to doubt evolutionary theory whatsoever, Meyer showed that there are significant reasons to doubt both biological and chemical evolutionary theory.

He first addressed the problems associated with chemical evolutionary theory, which "attempts to explain the origin of the first life from simpler pre-existing chemicals." Here he explained the critical question of the origin of genetic information. This is the problem he addressed in his bookSignature in the Cell, a problem that has beset all attempts to explain the origin of life by reference to undirected chemical evolutionary processes.

The most important idea for laymen to grasp is that of biological information. It's difficult to understand "exactly what information is," Meyer has written. It's not a physical thing. He quotes the evolutionary biologist George Williams as saying that information "doesn't have mass or charge or length," and matter "doesn't have bytes." It follows that matter and information belong to "two separate domains."

Information in biology is best understood as analogous to software code. Recall Bill Gates's comment: "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created."

Software is a set of instructions for a new program in a computer. Likewise, DNA contains a set of instructions for the assembly of parts, namely proteins, within a cell. In the 19th century the cell was thought to be simple. Darwin and his contemporaries had no way of knowing just how complex it was. The cell today is sometimes compared to a high-tech factory. (Except it's much more complex than that -- factories can't replicate themselves.)

Here is the key question: How did the requisite information get into the DNA in the first place? Without it, the first cell would never have been constructed and life would never have started. So the question about information is closely related to the question: How did life begin?

Charles Thaxton, a co-author of The Mystery of Life's Origins, told Meyer that the origin-of-life question is still unanswered. When Ben Stein asked Richard Dawkins in Expelled how life began, Dawkins said he had no idea. Stanley Miller performed a famous experiment in 1952 showing that some amino acids can be generated artificially, but that was as far as they could get. They were far short of life itself. (And even Miller's experiment has been criticized for not simulating actual conditions on the early Earth.)

Nucleotides arrayed along the backbone of the DNA molecule form triplets called codons. In the language of the genetic code, these three-digit codons are commands that the cell interprets when constructing proteins. There are codons that signify start commands, stop commands, and codons for signaling each of the 20 amino acids used in proteins. They convey information by virtue of their sequence, not their chemical properties. DNA is like written language in that respect. For example, both s-a-l-t and l-a-s-t contain the same four letters, but convey different meanings based on their sequence alone. When sequenced correctly, nucleotides in the DNA instruct the cell to use its molecular machinery to link amino acids into proteins. The precise sequence of these amino acids, specified by the DNA, is crucial to ensuring that a protein is properly assembled and functional. That's how DNA embodies functional information.

In 1953 Watson and Crick described the double helical structure of DNA but no one has yet explained the origin of the information DNA contains. This creates a problem for those trying to explain the origin of life as a result of undirected processes. If the nucleotide sequence in the DNA were different, proteins wouldn't function, or they probably would not even get built to begin with. "So the information in DNA and its companion molecule RNA is a huge stumbling block for evolution," Meyer said.

He mentioned the famous Dawkins comment that biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose. But we are talking about actual, not apparent design. No undirected chemical process that we know of can produce the information necessary to account for the origin of the first living cell.

Just as useful computer code comes from programmers, so functional information comes from intelligence. It comes from mind, said Charles Thaxton. Darwin's geologist friend, Charles Lyell, said that in trying to understand events in the remote past, we should look for causes now in operation. Mind fits that bill. Intelligence, or mind, or conscious activity, is the only known cause of the kind of sequence-specific, information-rich code that we see in biology.

Thus, we infer that the ultimate origin of biological information is best explained as proceeding from the design of an intelligent agent or agents. All other proposed explanations have failed; none cites a cause that is known to produce information.

Meyer said a few words about the reaction to Signature in the Cell. No one has demonstrated that there is a better chemical evolutionary explanation for the appearance of information, said Meyer. Some critics insist that Darwinian mechanisms can get the job done. But processes such as natural selection can't take place until life is already up and running. "Invoking biological evolution is to miss the whole point of the book," Meyer said.

Until we have a living and self-replicating cell, we have no way of introducing natural selection into the picture. "Nothing I've said to this point challenges Darwin directly," Meyer added. But then Darwin himself never successfully refuted the design argument. Nor do those who cite Darwinian processes.

At this point, Meyer transitioned to the second part of his talk. Here he explained that biological evolutionary theory, which "attempts to explain how new forms of life evolved from simpler pre-existing forms" also faces formidable difficulties. In particular, the modern version of Darwin's theory, or neo-Darwinism, also has an information problem. The mutation and natural selection mechanisms have failed to explain the origin of the new information necessary to build fundamentally new forms of life, or even just new proteins.

Before going on, Meyer distinguished three meanings of evolution. First "change over time," which no one disputes. Second, the claim that this change has occurred in a continuous way, giving us the "branching tree picture" that was the only diagram in The Origin of Species. Third we have natural selection with mutation, or "copying errors in the DNA." They are analogous to copying errors in digital code.

The errors change the information in the DNA, supposedly providing the grist for natural selection. "We are expected to believe that random mutations provide the new information that is necessary to build new proteins, new cells, new traits, organs and tissues that arise in the process of evolution," Meyer said. But can natural selection generate enough information to build new forms of life?

In a "sneak preview," Meyer said his next book would be about the Cambrian explosion -- the geologically sudden appearance of most of the major animal forms and body designs. It is a dramatic event in the history of life; new body plans -- for example arthropods, chordates and brachiopods -- appeared suddenly about 530 million years ago. There's a geological stratum in China where many new animal phyla appear within a few million years. This pattern doesn't match that "continuously branching tree" that Darwin drew. Nothing that can plausibly be called a precursor appears in the strata below the Cambrian.

More importantly, the same information problem arises: What would it take to build one of those new body plans? "You need a big instruction set, just for one body part." The trilobite has a compound, lens-focusing eye. "Each new cell for each new tissue had dedicated proteins. And the proteins in turn need instructions for them to be built." It's hard to believe that mutation could generate the new information required.

Random changes in DNA are supposed to generate new sections of code. But how? Meyer discussed the 1966 Wistar Institute symposium in which MIT mathematicians and others expressed doubts about the plausibility of the story.

We have already seen that DNA and software must have something called "sequence specificity" if they are to provide functional information.

"What we know from all codes and languages is that when we are dealing with specificity of sequence as a condition of function, random changes degrade function much faster than they ever come up with something new," Meyer said.

There's a combinatorial problem. A bike lock with four dials and ten digits gives 10,000 possibilities, only one of which opens the lock. Ten dials would give us 10 billion possibilities. But the protein alphabet has 20 possibilities at each site and the average protein has about 300 amino acids in sequence.

Meyer explained that, in the case of proteins, unlike the bike lock, there are many functional arrangements of amino acids among the possible combinations. Nevertheless, the ratio of functional sequences to the total number remains prohibitively small. How rare are the functional sequences? A colleague of Meyer's, Doug Axe, with a PhD from Caltech, looked into this question while doing research at Cambridge University.

Using the method of Site Directed Mutagenesis, Axe found the ratio of functional to all possible sequences for a protein 150 amino acids in length to be an absurdly small 1 to 10⁷⁴. That search space is larger than the number of atoms in the Milky Way galaxy. So we have a "hideous search problem." Multiplying that low probability by the total number of organisms reduces the problem somewhat, but not enough to make it remotely plausible that mutation and natural selection could produce one functional protein of modest length during entire history of life on earth.

Not just any old jumble of amino acids makes a protein. Similarly, chimps typing at keyboards will have to type for a long time before they get a complete, error-free, meaningful sentence of 150 characters. They'll get letters of the alphabet because they use typewriters. The problem is they have to get the letters in the right order. The required sequence is both complex and specified.

"Lots of biophysicists are aware of the problem," Meyer said. "We have a small needle in a huge haystack. It's a problem that neo-Darwinism has not solved. And notice that there's a mathematical rigor to this which has not been a part of the so-called evolution-creation debate."

Meyer concluded by emphasizing that there is a huge disparity between the alleged consensus about contemporary evolutionary theory and the many formidable, and increasingly quantifiable, problems with the theory that are known in the technical scientific literature.

We may live at the centre of the universe(so to speak) after all

In Search of Circumstellar Habitable Zones

Daniel Bakken November 25, 2014 4:38 AM 

Editor's Note: As a series at ENV, we are pleased to present "Exoplanets." Daniel Bakken is an engineer who teaches astronomy at the college level, and an entrepreneur in compound semiconductor crystal growth. In a series of articles he critically examines recent claims about exoplanets beyond our solar system, asking whether our own planet Earth is a rarity, or common, in the cosmos.

In the search for habitable planets, the circumstellar habitable zone is the spherical shell environment defined as habitable in a stellar system. Astrobiologists have used the term for many decades. This shell encompasses the distance at which a planet in a fairly circular orbit could maintain liquid water on its surface. We will start here for historical reasons, but broader environments also must be considered. The galactic neighborhood factors in, as does the galactic habitability zone. On a larger scale still, there is also a cosmic habitable age, needed to produce the necessary elements for life and life-supporting planets. These factors cannot be completely separated, and all of cosmic history also plays an important role.

The primary problem with liquid water on a planet's surface is getting the planet in the right range for temperature and pressure.¹ We now know this concept needs to be modified to what is called the circumstellar continuously habitable zone. This zone allows a body to have liquid water not just at one point in time, but over several billion years.² After all, it has required nearly four billion years of stable conditions on Earth for intelligent technological life to appear. François Forget recognized the difficulty in his paper on this topic:

I will not discuss here the inherent difficulty of biological evolution and the fact that "a lot of luck" may have been required to make animals (Ward and Brownlee, 2000, Carter, 2008). Nevertheless, it is striking that when assessing the odds of having planets harboring complex or even intelligent life like in the Drake equation, one must estimate the frequency of planets which can remain continuously habitable for billions of years.³

This is much more restrictive. For a body to be continuously habitable for this length, many other factors come into play.

In order to understand the complexities of the CHZ, let's look at it in more detail. The inner boundary of the CHZ can be defined in two different ways. It can be set by the "moist greenhouse" effect, where water is transported by energy from the host star into the upper atmosphere, where it is broken up by ultraviolet light into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen has enough energy to be lost to outer space, slowly drying out the planet. The other defining inner limit of the CHZ is the runaway greenhouse effect, where water vapor acts as a greenhouse gas, and eventually heats the surface to the point it cannot support liquid water.⁴

The outer boundary can be defined by the maximum possible carbon dioxide-caused greenhouse effect that can allow water in the liquid state on the surface, without creating so many carbon dioxide clouds that reflectivity of the planet increases to the point where it cancels out the greenhouse effect.⁵ As far as the outer edge of our sun's habitable zone, the classical model suggests the Earth is already on the outer edge to avoid runaway glaciation.⁶ But as Forget says, "In reality, on Earth there is a long-term stabilization of the surface temperature and CO₂ level due to the carbonate-silicate cycle."⁷

To increase the size of the habitable zone, and thus the chances for finding habitable planets, it has been suggested that planets with masses between one and ten times that of Earth (called super-Earths in the literature)⁸ with a H₂-He (hydrogen-helium) thick atmosphere, could have greenhouse effects that would enable habitable zones out to ten astronomical units (AU).⁹ An AU is an astronomical unit, the average Earth-Sun distance. That is ten times further out than the Earth presently orbits the Sun. However, models show that the H₂-rich atmosphere will either rapidly escape to space after the planet forms, or remain thick, preventing liquid water with high surface pressure.¹⁰ We must also take account of the fact that the percentage of planets left with exactly the right atmospheric pressures to allow habitable temperatures after the early stages of atmospheric erosion is likely to be very small.¹¹ Although these systems could transition through an appropriate environment, the periods would be thousands to a few millions of years, too short for advanced life over the long haul.

Also to be considered is that animal lung systems can only efficiently work within a narrow range of pressure. The atmospheric pressure cannot vary much from Earth's, which is dependent on the planet's mass, or else the efficient mammalian lung system as we know it will not work.¹² Imagine a world where the atmospheric pressure limits intelligent life to the most basic activities of life, because it requires too much energy to do other productive work. The higher atmospheric pressure increases the viscosity of the air, and without energy to push above and beyond mere survival, any alien life's ability to produce technology would be nil.

Venus and Mars are candidates in our solar system to test these models. The most restrictive CHZ models set the boundaries for our Sun at 0.95 AU for the inner and 1.37 AU for the outer one. The Earth couldn't be much closer to the Sun than it is, but it enjoys, according to these models, the near-maximum energy from the Sun that life can utilize.¹³ A further study found that the inner boundary may be even more severe. It looks like the inner limit to avoid a moist greenhouse loss of water is 0.99 AU -- almost exactly where the Earth sits in its orbit.¹⁴

The circumstellar habitable zone was historically calculated with constant circular orbits and constant energy flux, but newer studies include other variables that would certainly affect a planet's habitability. Previous to 2011, most studies of habitable atmospheres were conducted with easy to model one-dimensional steady state radiative convective parameters that simulated average planet-wide conditions. These 1D models are too simple to gauge properly the habitability of a planet. Utilizing more sophisticated 3D models with time-based changing parameters, the actual habitability of a planet can be approximated much better. These also can give local habitability data by including day-night cycles, and seasons. They can also model the impact of clouds on habitability for the first time, which is important, since clouds can affect the boundaries of a star's habitable zone.¹⁵

These more complex 3D models can also simulate with much better precision what can happen to carbon dioxide and water on a tidally locked planet, or one with high eccentricity or obliquity. Some planets could have liquid water that are further out than the classical models suggest if they have high levels of carbon dioxide.¹⁶ However, these high pressures would likely not enable efficient lungs such as exist on the earth, making it difficult to develop technological civilizations.

The other outcomes of these models seldom suggest habitable climates, and it seems that these complex simulations bring with them more reasons for pessimism in the search for habitable worlds. These studies include factors such as gravitational interactions, stellar winds, and particle radiation, UV radiation, and luminosity variations. Many other factors probably also come into play, but for the stellar habitable zone studies these are the most recently investigated.

Next up: The Right Kind of Star.

References Cited:

(1) Forget, "On the Probability of Habitable Planets," 180.

(2) Gonzalez, "Setting the Stage for Habitable Planets," 38.

(3) Forget, "On the Probability of Habitable Planets," 180.

(4) Gonzalez, "Setting the Stage for Habitable Planets," 37-39.

(5) Ibid., 37.

(6) Forget, "On the Probability of Habitable Planets," 182.

(7) Ibid., 6.

(8) Dimitar Sasselov, The Life Of Super-Earths: How the Hunt for Alien Worlds and Artificial Cells Will Revolutionize Life on Our Planet (New York: Basic Books, 2012), 64.

(9) Forget, "On the Probability of Habitable Planets," 183.

(10) Ibid., 6.

(11) Robin Wordsworth, "Transient conditions for biogenesis on low-mass exoplanets with escaping hydrogen atmospheres," Icarus 219 No. 1 (May 2012): 276-279.

(12) Michael J. Denton, Nature's Destiny: How The Laws Of Biology Reveal Purpose In The Universe(New York: The Free Press, 1998), 128.

(13) Gonzalez, "Setting the Stage for Habitable Planets," 37.

(14) Ibid., 37.

(15) Forget, "On the Probability of Habitable Planets," 184.

(16) Ibid.

culinary clash.

Dropping the gavel on Darwinists.

Why Do We Invoke Darwin?

Darwin's theory of evolution offers a sweeping explanation of the history of life, from the earliest microscopic organisms billions of years ago to all the plants and animals around us today. Much of the evidence that might have established the theory on an unshakable empirical foundation, however, remains lost in the distant past. For instance, Darwin hoped we would discover transitional precursors to the animal forms that appear abruptly in the Cambrian strata. Since then we have found many ancient fossils – even exquisitely preserved soft-bodied creatures – but none are credible ancestors to the Cambrian animals.

Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas," A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000.¹ "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."

I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.

When I recently suggested this disconnect publicly, I was vigorously challenged. One person recalled my use of Wilkins and charged me with quote mining. The proof, supposedly, was in Wilkins's subsequent paragraph:

"Yet, the marginality of evolutionary biology may be changing. More and more issues in biology, from diverse questions about human nature to the vulnerability of ecosystems, are increasingly seen as reflecting evolutionary events. A spate of popular books on evolution testifies to the development. If we are to fully understand these matters, however, we need to understand the processes of evolution that, ultimately, underlie them."

In reality, however, this passage illustrates my point. The efforts mentioned there are not experimental biology; they are attempts to explain already authenticated phenomena in Darwinian terms, things like human nature. Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.

Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit. None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs.

Philip S. Skell tvk@psu.edu is Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. His research has included work on reactive intermediates in chemistry, free-atom reactions, and reactions of free carbonium ions.

Path to the good life?

"The cheque's in the mail"our Darwinist friends assure.

Evolution's Central Claim Has Not Yet Been Observed

Tom Bethell March 23, 2013 5:19 AM

The other day, Stephen Batzer commented here on a great article by Vincent Torley posted at Uncommon Descent (and that is indebted to David Berlinski), about the evolution of the vertebrate eye. Here I shall ignore the eye, and focus -- no pun intended! -- on something that Torley quoted in passing. He reminds us that Jerry Coyne once wrote:

When, after a Christmas visit, we watch grandma leave on the train to Miami, we assume that the rest of her journey will be an extrapolation of that first quarter-mile. A creationist unwilling to extrapolate from micro- to macroevolution is as irrational as an observer who assumes that, after grandma's train disappears around the bend, it is seized by divine forces and instantly transported to Florida. (Nature412:587, 19 August 2001.)

We do need to be reminded that Darwinism depends on extrapolation. According to Harvard's longtime evolution expert Ernst Mayr [1904-2005], evolution across species "is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species."

Coyne's comment shows us that this extrapolation has not yet been demonstrated. If it had been, believe me, we would never hear the end of it. He wouldn't have needed to put grandma on that imaginary train.

Here's the background: In The Origin of Species, Darwin discussed the work of animal breeders, pigeon fanciers in particular. They might vary in coloring or display, but at the end of the day, as Darwin well knew, they all remained pigeons. Dogs vary greatly in size, but dogs they remain.

Darwin said that varieties were "incipient species," thereby staking his claim to the belief they were on their way to becoming something else. In short, he was extrapolating. But that was philosophy, not science. He lacked the evidence to claim that the extrapolation had actually been observed.

Ever since, evolutionists have assumed that it has been observed. But the Coyne quote reminds us that it hasn't been. Grandma just keeps traveling on to Miami, he reassures us, and it takes a "creationist" to raise doubts about that.

Darwin wrote in his 1844 Essay (a preliminary version of the Origin):

That a limit to variation does exist in nature is assumed by most authors, though I am unable to discover a single fact on which this belief is grounded . . .

Well, I'm sorry, Charles, but it's up to you to demonstrate that unlimited variation has been observed. It's no good complaining that "most authors" won't tell us why it hasn't been. Almost 170 years later, it still hasn't been.

In the Origin, Darwin wrote that "by the repetition of this process [of micro-evolution] a new variety might be formed, which would either supplant or co-exist with the parent form."

Might be, yes. But we don't know that yet.

Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer of natural selection, wrote in 1858 that his theory could be summarized as "indefinite departure from the original type." "Indefinite departure" is in fact the central claim of the theory of evolution by natural selection. But it still hasn't been observed.

Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne and others keep trying to bully us into accepting that it is a "fact." OK. Maybe it is. So give us the evidence. We have to read their books carefully to realize how meager it is. They still haven't shown us that extrapolation. To an amazing extent, their books are filled with tendentious anti-design arguments, not positive evidence of evolution as a demonstrated fact.

In Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987), Soren Lovtrup wrote: "Neither in nature nor under experimental conditions have any substantial effects ever been obtained through the systematic accumulation of micromutations."

In his final book, What Evolution Is (2001), Ernst Mayr was evasive on the question of whether extrapolation had been observed. He persistently obscures our vision by his references to "population thinking." This is another way of asserting that micro-evolution is a reality. No one doubts that. And from that premise he leads us to suppose that the observed variation is continuous; all the way to Miami.

As to Coyne's metaphor about grandma's train ride, several people made critical comments, in the replies to Torley's article. Here's just one:

It is really hard to know if grandma will ever arrive at Miami when she is laying the track, randomly directed, one rail at a time, as she goes.

Good point. When you are relying on random variation, the track that Coyne presupposes doesn't even exist. And if such parallel tracks could be created, and laid, they might lead anywhere. Or nowhere.

Proverbs8 The Tanakh

Proverbs Chapter 8 מִשְׁלֵי

א  הֲלֹא-חָכְמָה תִקְרָא;    וּתְבוּנָה, תִּתֵּן קוֹלָהּ.	1 Doth not wisdom call, and understanding put forth her voice?
ב  בְּרֹאשׁ-מְרֹמִים עֲלֵי-דָרֶךְ;    בֵּית נְתִיבוֹת נִצָּבָה.	2 In the top of high places by the way, where the paths meet, she standeth;
ג  לְיַד-שְׁעָרִים לְפִי-קָרֶת;    מְבוֹא פְתָחִים תָּרֹנָּה.	3 Beside the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors, she crieth aloud:
ד  אֲלֵיכֶם אִישִׁים אֶקְרָא;    וְקוֹלִי, אֶל-בְּנֵי אָדָם.	4 'Unto you, O men, I call, and my voice is to the sons of men.
ה  הָבִינוּ פְתָאיִם עָרְמָה;    וּכְסִילִים, הָבִינוּ לֵב.	5 O ye thoughtless, understand prudence, and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart.
ו  שִׁמְעוּ, כִּי-נְגִידִים אֲדַבֵּר;    וּמִפְתַּח שְׂפָתַי, מֵישָׁרִים.	6 Hear, for I will speak excellent things, and the opening of my lips shall be right things.
ז  כִּי-אֱמֶת, יֶהְגֶּה חִכִּי;    וְתוֹעֲבַת שְׂפָתַי רֶשַׁע.	7 For my mouth shall utter truth, and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.
ח  בְּצֶדֶק כָּל-אִמְרֵי-פִי:    אֵין בָּהֶם, נִפְתָּל וְעִקֵּשׁ.	8 All the words of my mouth are in righteousness, there is nothing perverse or crooked in them.
ט  כֻּלָּם נְכֹחִים, לַמֵּבִין;    וִישָׁרִים, לְמֹצְאֵי דָעַת.	9 They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.
י  קְחוּ-מוּסָרִי וְאַל-כָּסֶף;    וְדַעַת, מֵחָרוּץ נִבְחָר.	10 Receive my instruction, and not silver, and knowledge rather than choice gold.
יא  כִּי-טוֹבָה חָכְמָה, מִפְּנִינִים;    וְכָל-חֲפָצִים, לֹא יִשְׁווּ-בָהּ.	11 For wisdom is better than rubies, and all things desirable are not to be compared unto her.
יב  אֲנִי-חָכְמָה, שָׁכַנְתִּי עָרְמָה;    וְדַעַת מְזִמּוֹת אֶמְצָא.	12 I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of devices.
יג  יִרְאַת יְהוָה,    שְׂנֹאת-רָע: גֵּאָה וְגָאוֹן וְדֶרֶךְ רָע, וּפִי תַהְפֻּכוֹת    שָׂנֵאתִי.	13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil; {N} pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.
יד  לִי-עֵצָה, וְתוּשִׁיָּה;    אֲנִי בִינָה, לִי גְבוּרָה.	14 Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom; I am understanding, power is mine.
טו  בִּי, מְלָכִים יִמְלֹכוּ;    וְרֹזְנִים, יְחֹקְקוּ צֶדֶק.	15 By me kings reign, and princes decree justice.
טז  בִּי, שָׂרִים יָשֹׂרוּ;    וּנְדִיבִים, כָּל-שֹׁפְטֵי צֶדֶק.	16 By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.
יז  אֲנִי, אהביה (אֹהֲבַי) אֵהָב;    וּמְשַׁחֲרַי, יִמְצָאֻנְנִי.	17 I love them that love me, and those that seek me earnestly shall find me.
יח  עֹשֶׁר-וְכָבוֹד אִתִּי;    הוֹן עָתֵק, וּצְדָקָה.	18 Riches and honour are with me; yea, enduring riches and righteousness.
יט  טוֹב פִּרְיִי, מֵחָרוּץ וּמִפָּז;    וּתְבוּאָתִי, מִכֶּסֶף נִבְחָר.	19 My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my produce than choice silver.
כ  בְּאֹרַח-צְדָקָה אֲהַלֵּךְ;    בְּתוֹךְ, נְתִיבוֹת מִשְׁפָּט.	20 I walk in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of justice;
כא  לְהַנְחִיל אֹהֲבַי יֵשׁ;    וְאֹצְרֹתֵיהֶם אֲמַלֵּא.	21 That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance, and that I may fill their treasuries.
כב  יְהוָה--קָנָנִי, רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ:    קֶדֶם מִפְעָלָיו מֵאָז.	22 The LORD made me as the beginning of His way, the first of His works of old.
כג  מֵעוֹלָם, נִסַּכְתִּי מֵרֹאשׁ--    מִקַּדְמֵי-אָרֶץ.	23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
כד  בְּאֵין-תְּהֹמוֹת חוֹלָלְתִּי;    בְּאֵין מַעְיָנוֹת, נִכְבַּדֵּי-מָיִם.	24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
כה  בְּטֶרֶם הָרִים הָטְבָּעוּ;    לִפְנֵי גְבָעוֹת חוֹלָלְתִּי.	25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth;
כו  עַד-לֹא עָשָׂה, אֶרֶץ וְחוּצוֹת;    וְרֹאשׁ, עַפְרוֹת תֵּבֵל.	26 While as yet He had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the beginning of the dust of the world.
כז  בַּהֲכִינוֹ שָׁמַיִם, שָׁם אָנִי;    בְּחֻקוֹ חוּג, עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם.	27 When He established the heavens, I was there; when He set a circle upon the face of the deep,
כח  בְּאַמְּצוֹ שְׁחָקִים מִמָּעַל;    בַּעֲזוֹז, עִינוֹת תְּהוֹם.	28 When He made firm the skies above, when the fountains of the deep showed their might,
כט  בְּשׂוּמוֹ לַיָּם, חֻקּוֹ, וּמַיִם, לֹא יַעַבְרוּ-פִיו;    בְּחוּקוֹ, מוֹסְדֵי אָרֶץ.	29 When He gave to the sea His decree, that the waters should not transgress His commandment, when He appointed the foundations of the earth;
ל  וָאֶהְיֶה אֶצְלוֹ, אָמוֹן:    וָאֶהְיֶה שַׁעֲשׁוּעִים, יוֹם יוֹם; מְשַׂחֶקֶת לְפָנָיו בְּכָל-עֵת.	30 Then I was by Him, as a nursling; and I was daily all delight, playing always before Him,
לא  מְשַׂחֶקֶת, בְּתֵבֵל אַרְצוֹ;    וְשַׁעֲשֻׁעַי, אֶת-בְּנֵי אָדָם.	31 Playing in His habitable earth, and my delights are with the sons of men. {P}
לב  וְעַתָּה בָנִים, שִׁמְעוּ-לִי;    וְאַשְׁרֵי, דְּרָכַי יִשְׁמֹרוּ.	32 Now therefore, ye children, hearken unto me; for happy are they that keep my ways.
לג  שִׁמְעוּ מוּסָר וַחֲכָמוּ;    וְאַל-תִּפְרָעוּ.	33 Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.
לד  אַשְׁרֵי אָדָם, שֹׁמֵעַ-לִי:    לִשְׁקֹד עַל-דַּלְתֹתַי, יוֹם יוֹם--לִשְׁמֹר, מְזוּזֹת פְּתָחָי.	34 Happy is the man that hearkeneth to me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors.
לה  כִּי מֹצְאִי, מצאי (מָצָא) חַיִּים;    וַיָּפֶק רָצוֹן, מֵיְהוָה.	35 For whoso findeth me findeth life, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.
לו  וְחֹטְאִי, חֹמֵס נַפְשׁוֹ;    כָּל-מְשַׂנְאַי, אָהֲבוּ מָוֶת.	36 But he that misseth me wrongeth his own soul; all they that hate me love death.'