On the resurrection;The Watchtower Society's commentary.

What Is the Resurrection?

The Bible’s answer

In the Bible, the word translated as “resurrection” comes from the Greek a·na′sta·sis, which means “raising up” or “standing up again.” A person who is resurrected is raised up from death and restored to life as the person he was before.—1 Corinthians 15:12, 13.

Although the word “resurrection” is not in the Hebrew Scriptures, often called the Old Testament, the teaching appears there. Through the prophet Hosea, for example, God promised: “From the power of the Grave I will redeem them; from death I will recover them.”—Hosea 13:14; Job 14:13-15; Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:2, 13.

Where will people be resurrected? Some people are resurrected to life in heaven to rule as kings with Christ. (2 Corinthians 5:1; Revelation 5:9, 10) The Bible calls this “the first resurrection” and “the earlier resurrection,” both expressions implying that there is another resurrection to follow. (Revelation 20:6;Philippians 3:11) This later resurrection will be to life on earth, which the vast majority of those brought back to life will enjoy.—Psalm 37:29.

How are people resurrected? God grants Jesus the power to raise the dead. (John 11:25) Jesus will restore “all those in the memorial tombs” to life, each one with his unique identity, personality, and memories. (John 5:28, 29) Those resurrected to heaven receive a spirit body, while those resurrected to life on earth receive a healthy physical body, completely sound.—Isaiah 33:24; 35:5, 6;1 Corinthians 15:42-44, 50.

Who will be resurrected? The Bible says that “there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) The righteous include faithful people, such as Noah, Sarah, and Abraham. (Genesis 6:9; Hebrews 11:11; James 2:21) The unrighteous include those who failed to meet God’s standards but did not have the opportunity to learn and follow them.

However, those who become so wicked that they are beyond reform will not be resurrected. When such ones die, they suffer permanent destruction with no hope of a return to life.—Matthew 23:33; Hebrews 10:26, 27.

When will the resurrection take place? The Bible foretold that the resurrection to heaven would take place during Christ’s presence, which began in 1914. (1 Corinthians 15:21-23) The resurrection to life on earth will occur during the Thousand Year Reign of Jesus Christ, when the earth will be transformed into a paradise.—Luke 23:43; Revelation 20:6, 12, 13.

Why is belief in the resurrection reasonable? The Bible provides detailed accounts of nine resurrections, each confirmed by eyewitnesses. (1 Kings 17:17-24; 2 Kings 4:32-37; 13:20, 21; Luke 7:11-17; 8:40-56; John 11:38-44; Acts 9:36-42; Acts 20:7-12; 1 Corinthians 15:3-6) Jesus’ resurrection of Lazarus is especially noteworthy, since Lazarus had been dead for four days and Jesus performed the miracle before a crowd of people. (John 11:39, 42) Even those who opposed Jesus could not deny the facts of the matter, so instead they plotted to kill both Jesus and Lazarus.—John 11:47, 53; 12:9-11.The Bible shows that God has both the ability and the desire to bring back the dead. He keeps in his limitless memory a detailed record of each person he will resurrect by means of his almighty power. (Job 37:23; Matthew 10:30; Luke 20:37, 38) God is able to restore the dead to life, and he wants to! Describing the coming resurrection, the Bible says of God: “You will long for the work of your hands.”—Job 14:15.

Misconceptions about the resurrection

Myth: The resurrection is a reuniting of the soul with the body.

Fact: The Bible teaches that the soul is the entire person, not some part that survives death. (Genesis 2:7, footnote; Ezekiel 18:4) A person who is resurrected is not reunited with his soul; he is recreated as a living soul.

Myth: Some people are resurrected and then immediately destroyed.

Fact: The Bible says that “those who practiced vile things” will receive “a resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:29) However, this judgment is based on what they do after they are resurrected, not before. Jesus said: “The dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who have paid attention will live.” (John 5:25) Those who ‘pay attention’ to, or obey, the things they learn after they are resurrected will have their names recorded in “the scroll of life.”—Revelation 20:12, 13.

Myth: When resurrected, a person receives exactly the same body that he had before he died.

Fact: After death, a person’s body would likely have broken down and disintegrated.—Ecclesiastes 3:19, 20.

Convergence;Darwinism's epicycle?

Spectacular Convergence: A Camera Eye in a Microbe

Evolution News & Views August 6, 2015 3:52 AM

hey thought it was a joke. A century ago, biologists could not believe that a one-celled creature had an eye. But since the warnowiid dinoflagellate was difficult to find and grow in the lab, detailed research was rare, until now. A team from the University of British Columbia gathered specimens off the coast of BC and Japan for a closer look. They found that the structure, called an ocelloid, has structures that mimic the complex eye of higher animals.PhysOrg says:

In fact, the 'ocelloid' within the planktonic predator looks so much like a complex eye that it was originally mistaken for the eye of an animal that the plankton had eaten.

"It's an amazingly complex structure for a single-celled organism to have evolved," said lead author Greg Gavelis, a zoology PhD student at UBC. "It contains a collection of sub-cellular organelles that look very much like the lens, cornea, iris and retina of multicellular eyes found in humans and other larger animals." [Emphasis added.]

New Scientist shares the astonishment:

It is perhaps the most extraordinary eye in the living world -- soextraordinary that no one believed the biologist who first described it more than a century ago.

Now it appears that the tiny owner of this eye uses it to catch invisible prey by detecting polarised light. This suggestion is also likely to be greeted with disbelief, for the eye belongs to a single-celled organism called Erythropsidinium. It has no nerves, let alone a brain. So how could it "see" its prey?

The "retina" of this eye, a curved array of chromosomes, appears arranged to filter polarized light. The news item from the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research quotes Brian Leander, co-supervisor of the project:

"The internal organization of the retinal body is reminiscent of the polarizing filters on the lenses of cameras and sunglasses," Leander says. "Hundreds of closely packed membranes lined up in parallel."

And that's not all this wonder of the sea has in its toolkit. It also has a piston and a harpoon:

Scientists still don't know exactly how warnowiids use the eye-like structure, but clues about the way they live have fuelled compelling speculation. warnowiids hunt other dinoflagellates, many of which are transparent. They have large nematocysts, which Leander describes as "little harpoons," for catching prey. And some have a piston -- a tentacle that can extend and retract very quickly -- with an unknown function that might be used for escape or feeding.

Did This Eye Evolve?

Lest anyone think the dinoflagellate's eye presents an easy evolutionary stepping stone to more complex eyes, the data reveal several problems. Thepaper in Nature claims that the ocelloids are built from "different endosymbiotically acquired components" such as mitochondria and plastids. "As such, the ocelloid is a chimaeric structure, incorporatingorganelles with different endosymbiotic histories." We can treat endosymbiosis as a separate issue. For now, we can ask if this complex structure is explainable by unguided natural selection.

The authors did not think this is a clear evolutionary story. "The ocelloid isamong the most complex subcellular structures known, but its function andevolutionary relationship to other organelles remain unclear," they say. Never in the paper do they explain how organelles with different histories came together into a functioning eye. Most of the paper is descriptive of the parts and how they function individually, or where they might have been derived by endosymbiosis. To explain the eye's origin as a functioning whole, they make up a phrase, "evolutionary plasticity" --

Nevertheless, the genomic and detailed ultrastructural data presented here have resolved the basic components of the ocelloid and their origins, and demonstrate how evolutionary plasticity of mitochondria and plastids can generate an extreme level of subcellular complexity.

Other than that, they have very little to say about evolution, and nothing about natural selection.

In the same issue of Nature, Richards and Gomes review the paper. They list other microbes including algae and fungi that have light-sensitive spots. Some have the rhodopsin proteins used in the rods and cones of multicellular animals. But instead of tracing eye evolution by common ancestry, they attribute all these innovations to convergence:

These examples demonstrate the wealth of subcellular structures and associated light-receptor proteins across diverse microbial groups. Indeed, all of these examples represent distinct evolutionary branches in separate major groups of eukaryotes. Even the plastid-associated eyespots are unlikely to be the product of direct vertical evolution, because the Chlamydomonasplastid is derived from a primary endosymbiosis and assimilation of a cyanobacterium, whereas the Guillardia plastid is derived from a secondary endosymbiosis in which the plastid was acquired 'second-hand' by intracellular incorporation of a red alga. Using gene sequences recovered from the warnowiid retinal body, Gavelis et al. investigated the ancestry of this organelle by building phylogenetic trees for the plastid-derived genes. Their analysis demonstrated that this modified plastid is also of secondary endosymbiotic origin from a red alga.

Although derived independently, there are common themes in theevolution of these eye-like structures. Many of them involve thereconfiguration of cellular membrane systems to produce anopaque body proximal to a sensory surface, a surface that in four of the five examples probably involves type 1 rhodopsins. Given the evolutionary derivation of these systems, this represents a complex case of convergent evolution, in which photo-responsive subcellular systems are built up separately from similar components to achieve similar functions. The ocelloid example is striking because it demonstrates a peak in subcellular complexity achieved through repurposing multiple components. Collectively, these findings show that evolution has stumbled on similar solutions to perceiving light time and time again.

But is convergence just a word masquerading as an explanation? We read:

The work sheds shed new light on how very different organisms can evolve similar traits in response to their environments, a process known as convergent evolution. Eye-like structures haveevolved independently many times in different kinds of animals and algae with varying abilities to detect the intensity of light, its direction, or objects.

"When we see such similar structural complexity atfundamentally different levels of organization in lineages that are very distantly related to each other, in this case warnowiids and animals, then you get a much deeper understanding of convergence," Leander says.

But "convergent evolution" is not a process. It is a post-hoc observation based on evolutionary assumptions. An environment has no power to force an organism to respond to it with a complex function. Light exists, whether or not an organism sees it. Magnetism exists, too; does it contain the power to nudge fish, turtles, and butterflies to employ it for navigation?

If it is highly improbable for a complex solution to evolve once, "convergent evolution" only exacerbates the improbability. In Illustra Media's new filmLiving Waters, Timothy Standish explains why "convergent evolution" is not a plausible explanation for unrelated similarities. "Evolution is blind," he says. It doesn't know that another organism has an elegant solution to a problem. It cannot drive a different animal to converge on a similar solution. What we do know, Standish continues, is that intelligence can take a solution to a problem and apply it in different circumstances over and over again.

It makes sense that an designer would understand optics and electromagnetic waves. A mind can take parts and arrange them into corneas, lenses, and receptors appropriate for the needs and sizes of disparate organisms. Unguided selection cannot do that. The environment cannot do that. From our uniform experience, the only cause we know that can organize parts into a functioning whole is intelligence. This is positive evidence for design. The alternative theory could be dubbed, "Convergence of the Gaps."

Speaking of Living Waters, the Northwest premiere is tomorrow night in Seattle. More information is here. You'll need to register by tonight at close of business!

More education less indoctrination II

Nature Agrees: Science Students Should "Actively Grapple with Questions" Not Just "Listen to Answers"

Sarah Chaffee August 5, 2015 3:59 AM |

 

Discovery Institute has long promoted critical thinking in the science classroom, noting that it is remarkably scarce in the way evolution is taught. Despite media opposition to academic freedom laws, active engagement, asking questions, and thinking analytically have been demonstrated to promote student understanding and success.

That insight has now been confirmed by no less a source than Nature, the world's most prestigious scientific journal, in collaboration with Scientific American. The two journals got together to produce an issue on the theme, showing that STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) instruction is due for reform. They note, "[S]tudents gain a much deeper understanding of science when they actively grapple with questions than when they passively listen to answers."

In the cover package, "Building the 21st Century Scientist: Why Science Education is More Important than Ever," Nature emphasizes research demonstrating that active engagement increases student understanding and success in STEM classes. They highlight various types of interactive instruction, and present strategies for teachers to improve their instructional methods and institutions to incentivize change.

What Is Active Learning?

Jay Labov, a senior education advisor from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, describes active engagement as "learning content not as something you memorize and regurgitate, but as raw material for making connections, drawing inferences, creating new information -- learning how to learn."

Unfortunately, this is not the norm for science classes. Jonathan Osborne wrote in 2010 in the journal Science:

Typically, in the rush to present the major features of the scientific landscape, most of the arguments required to achieve such knowledge are excised. Consequently, science can appear to its students as a monolith of facts, an authoritative discourse where the discursive exploration of ideas, their implications, and their importance is absent (7). Students then emerge with naïve ideas or misconceptions about the nature of science itself -- a state of affairs that exists even though the National Research Council; the American Association for the Advancement of Science; and a large body of research, major aspects of which are presented here, all emphasize the value of argumentation for learning science (8-10).

Active learning can take many forms, but it generally repudiates traditional lecture-style teaching. Neuroscientist Sarah Leupen, for example, doesn't ask her physiology class to name the sensory nerves in the leg. Instead, says Nature, she poses the following question to the students:

You're innocently walking down the street when aliens zap away the sensory neurons in your legs. What happens?

1. Your walking movements show no significant change.
2. You can no longer walk.
3. You can walk, but the pace changes.
4. You can walk, but clumsily.

"We usually get lots of vigorous debate on this one," Leupen said. (For curious readers, the answer is d).

And there are many other classroom strategies for fostering scientific inquiry. Nature highlights Little Scientists' House, a program developed in Germany for children between three and six years old, but spreading worldwide. At Little Scientists' House, students learn to ask questions about the world around them and look for answers by simple observation and experimentation.

In one exercise, students guessed whether more water could accumulate on the head of a euro coin or other currency. One student thought that the smaller coin, which was worth more money, would hold more water -- and the class proceeded to try out his idea. "In the end, the children could not come to a definitive answer, but that is OK, says [kindergarten teacher Christina] Jeuthe. The point is to spark questions, and a conviction that they can be explored rationally."

On the college level, the University of Richmond in Virginia has begun offering introductory, interdisciplinary science courses that explore real science questions such as "antibiotic resistance and cells' response to heat." Outside of the traditional classroom setting, active learning can encompass activities from involving high school students in real scientific research projects to materials-based outdoor exploration.

What about Evolution?

Eugenie Scott, former executive director of the National Center for Science Education, has said, "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." No matter what your stance is on evolution, however, treating scientific theories as unquestionable fact doesn't make sense.

At Discovery Institute, we recommend teaching both the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of evolutionary theory. Students should not only hear about similarities in DNA sequences between species and antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria, but also grapple with the Cambrian explosion and the intricacies of the cell.

We put it this way in our Educator's Briefing Packet:

What Is a Suggested Plan for Teaching a Unit on Neo-Darwinian Evolution?
Objective education means that students must be allowed to form and express their own opinions. An objective unit covering neo-Darwinian evolution might look something like this:

• First, cover the required curriculum by teaching the material in the textbook. Ensure that students understand the scientific arguments for neo-Darwinian evolution. (1-2 weeks)


• Next, spend a few days discussing scientific criticisms of neo-Darwinian evolution. The supplementary textbook Explore Evolution, the DVD Investigating Evolution, and the Icons of Evolution Study Guide are potential resources. Encourage students to think critically. (2-3 days)


• Finally, consider allowing students to spend a couple days wrestling with the data and forming their own opinions. This could include in-class debates, or an assignment where students write a position statement on neo-Darwinian evolution. In these exercises, students may defend whatever position they wish, but must justify it using only scientific evidence and scientific arguments. (1-2 days)

Most public school curricula stop after step 1, missing out on the benefits from steps 2 and 3. Some might claim those extra steps would take too much time. But teaching the modern neo-Darwinian theory of evolution in an objective fashion need not take any more time than the 2-3 weeks typically spent on an evolution unit.
More importantly, any extra time taken to teach this topic objectively is not wasted -- it will help students better understand the evidence, better appreciate scientific reasoning, and fulfill standards requiring critical thinking and use of the inquiry method. Finally, this approach will be welcomed by students who find this topic engages their interest in science.

Building 21st-Century Scientists

It's high time for a change. Science education, especially at the university level, faces some hurdles. Nature says, "A study tracking 17,000 post-secondary students in the United States and Puerto Rico found that only two-fifths of those who enrolled in a STEM discipline went on to obtain a degree in the field, or were still studying for one 6 years later." On the other hand, Nature notes that research at the University of Washington in 2014 surveyed 225 studies of teaching in STEM fields and found that active engagement decreased failure rates by one-third.

Carl Wieman, a physicist at Stanford who won the 2001 Nobel Prize in his field, began advocating for science education reform after interacting with newly graduated scientists who "had done really well as undergraduates, but couldn't do research." Today, along with prominent journals such as Nature, Scientific American,and Science, he promotes active engagement in the classroom.

Nature concludes its keynote editorial, "But change is essential.... In an era when more of us now work with our heads, rather than our hands, the world can no longer afford to support poor learning systems that allow too few people to achieve their goals."

That's right. Teaching the controversy over origins would be a step towards better overall science education. Where the approach has been adopted already, it trains students to think analytically and examine the evidence -- in all scientific fields. It awakens interest in the issue of origins by inviting students to confront the research themselves. And students who succeed in courses on evolution (as well as other STEM courses) are more likely to pursue degrees in these fields. Inquiry in the classroom paves the way for inquiry in the lab.

A line in the sand XIX

Two horrific killings of children put Israel at a crossroads

By Nic Robertson, CNN

Jerusalem (CNN)Ori and Mika Banki did what no parent should ever face.

On Monday they buried their daughter Shira. She was just 16.

The girl they said was "charming, happy, lively and beloved" has been ripped from their lives.

"With no purpose but with stupidity, evilness and recklessness, her life came to an end," the family said in a statement. "Bad things happen to good people and the worst thing happened to our amazing child."Israelis are familiar with sudden death. But this is different. Not just because Ori and Mika Banki's anguish is impossible for any parent to insulate against, but because Shira's brutal killing questions the very lives people live here.

It puts Israel at a crossroads.

Repeat attacker stabs 6 at Jerusalem gay pride parade, police say

Vilified through history by so many for so long, Jews are accustomed to sticking up for one another. But, in the light of Shira's murder, the question now is: Can they still do that?

Shira died Sunday after she was stabbed at a gay pride rally in Jerusalem Thursday while supporting the rights of her friend and others to be themselves.Israelis are familiar with sudden death. But this is different. Not just because Ori and Mika Banki's anguish is impossible for any parent to insulate against, but because Shira's brutal killing questions the very lives people live here.

It puts Israel at a crossroads.

Repeat attacker stabs 6 at Jerusalem gay pride parade, police say

Vilified through history by so many for so long, Jews are accustomed to sticking up for one another. But, in the light of Shira's murder, the question now is: Can they still do that?

Shira died Sunday after she was stabbed at a gay pride rally in Jerusalem Thursday while supporting the rights of her friend and others to be themselves.Israelis are familiar with sudden death. But this is different. Not just because Ori and Mika Banki's anguish is impossible for any parent to insulate against, but because Shira's brutal killing questions the very lives people live here.

It puts Israel at a crossroads.

Repeat attacker stabs 6 at Jerusalem gay pride parade, police say

Vilified through history by so many for so long, Jews are accustomed to sticking up for one another. But, in the light of Shira's murder, the question now is: Can they still do that?

Shira died Sunday after she was stabbed at a gay pride rally in Jerusalem Thursday while supporting the rights of her friend and others to be themselves.She was quite simply upholding one of the founding principles of the Israeli State: tolerance.

To many in the outside world familiar with the struggle between the Israeli state and Palestinians, that idea may seem hard to grasp. But to most Israelis, tolerance is what makes Israel a good place to live.

Tel Aviv is widely rated as one of the world's most tolerant places for gays. Above others, the coastal city seems to embody what Israel's founders declared in 1948: The state "will ensure equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion race or sex."

In the past few days that notion of tolerance has been challenged, not just by the brutal killing of bubbly 10th-grader Shira, but by the death of Ali Saad Dawabsha, an 18-month-old Palestinian toddler.

Yishai Shlissel, an ultra-orthodox Jew, stabbed Shira and was photographed during his attack on her and five others. He had just been released from jail for a similar attack 10 years ago. Suspicion for Ali's murder also points, unproven as yet, towards Jewish extremists.

Ali was sleeping in his house later that same Thursday in the tiny West Bank village of Duma when arsonists struck. His mother, father and 4-year-old brother were badly burned too. The house was daubed in Hebrew graffiti denoting a "price tag" attack.The so called price tag attacks began in 2008 and eere blamed on extremist Israeli settlers driven by a religious conviction that they should live on the land of their ancestors. The "price" was for settlements the government forced them to give up and revenge for Palestinian attacks on settlers.

Recent Israeli newspaper reports suggest Israeli's intelligence service Shin Bet believes that the right-wing extremists behind these attacks intend to escalate atrocities to destabilize Israel's government.

Regardless, both brutal killings have triggered an examination of the Jewish state and its tolerance, questioning whether that very principle has allowed homegrown extremists to go too far.

Israel's President Reuven Rivlin struck a chord saying "more than shame, I feel pain. The pain over the murder of a little baby. The pain over my people choosing the path of terrorism and losing their humanity, their path is not the path of the state of Israel."

Israel's security cabinet met this weekend determining that the killers be brought to justice by all legal means necessary and, for the first time, authorizing "administrative detention" for Jewish citizens -- a security measure implemented to stop attacks and one that is more usually applied to Palestinians.

The killings have also driven a deeper wedge between left and right, with the left blaming the right-wing government's tolerance of settlers as the root of the killing of Ali.

As they prepared to bury Shira, Mika and Ori Banki called for "less hate and more tolerance"

They are holding her funeral away from scrutiny and the public lament that surrounds her death. They want a quiet civil service, not a religious one.

It's the way they raised their family, they say.

In a newspaper interview three years ago, they told a reporter that raising Shira and her three siblings was "all about quality. To raise good citizens, children who will bring happiness to themselves and to their surroundings."

In her short life Shira did just that.

In her death, her country at a crossroads, many here hope her legacy will live on.

Genesis Vs.Young earth Creationism.The Watchtower Society's commentary

THE BIBLE’S VIEWPOINT:Creation


Did God create the earth in just six 24-hour days, as some creationists claim?
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”—Genesis 1:1.
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS: God created the universe, including the earth, in the indefinite past—“in the beginning,” as Genesis 1:1 says. Modern science agrees that the universe had a beginning. A recent scientific model suggests it to be almost 14 billion years old.
The Bible also describes six “days” of creation. However, it does not say that these were 24-hour days. (Genesis 1:31) In fact, the Bible uses the word “day” to refer to various lengths of time. For example, it calls the entire period of creation “the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.” (Genesis 2:4) Evidently, these “days” of creation lasted many thousands of years.—Psalm 90:4.WHY IT MATTERS:The false ideas of creationists could lead you to dismiss the Bible altogether. On the other hand, if the Bible actually contains a credible account of creation, you stand to benefit from its storehouse of “practical wisdom.”—Proverbs 3:21.Did God use evolution to create life on earth?:“God said: ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds.’”—Genesis 1:24.WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS: God did not make life in a simple form and allow it to evolve into more complex forms. Instead, he created basic “kinds” of complex plants and animals, which then reproduced “according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:11, 21, 24) This process, which continues today, has resulted in the earth being filled with the same “kinds” of life that God originally created.—Psalm 89:11.
The Bible does not specify how much variation can occur within a kind, as might result when animals within a kind interbreed and adapt to their environment. While some view such adaptations as a form of evolution, no new kind of life is produced. Modern research supports the idea that the basic categories of plants and animals have changed little over vast periods of time.
WHY IT MATTERS: The Bible’s scientific accuracy in describing basic “kinds” of life strengthens its credibility in other areas, including history and prophecy.
 Where did the raw material of the universe come from?:“I stretched out the heavens with my own hands.”—Isaiah 45:12
 WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS:God is the Source of infinite power, or energy. (Job 37:23) This is significant, because scientists have learned that energy can be converted into matter. The Bible says that God himself is the Source of the “vast dynamic energy” that produced the universe. (Isaiah 40:26) God promises to use his power to sustain his creation, for the Bible says regarding the sun, moon, and stars: “[God] keeps them established forever and ever.”—Psalm 148:3-6.
 WHY IT MATTERS: The astronomer Allan Sandage once said: “Science cannot answer the deepest questions. As soon as you ask why is there something instead of nothing, you have gone beyond science.” Not only does the Bible explain creation in a way that harmonizes with science but it also answers questions that science cannot—such as, What is God’s purpose for the earth and for mankind?*

Out of Africa.

And now,armor plated doubt.

Earliest Comb Jellies Wore Armor

Evolution News & Views July 29, 2015 3:29 AM

What does it take to wear armor? An animal has to be able to make the material and put it where it belongs. To be functional, the armor cannot interfere with the animal's movement. And the animal cannot simply glue sand particles on its exterior in a haphazard way. The appropriate materials, directed by genetic instructions, must be manufactured and placed holistically so that the finished armor provides a beneficial function. It would be surprising, under an evolutionary view, to find such a complex system in the earliest animal fossils. But that's what Chinese paleontologists discovered in their country's early Cambrian rocks.

Phylum Ctenophora (cilia-bearing) has about 150 living representatives. While most of them have tentacles, none have hard parts. Varying in size from a few millimeters to over a meter, they resemble jellyfish (phylum Cnidaria) in being gelatinous and transparent, but are distinct in having eight-fold radial symmetry with comb-like rows of fused cilia that propel them around. Some living comb jellies give stunning light shows as their comb rows reflect light in rainbows of iridescent colors, making them resemble alien spacecraft (watch on YouTube). Though not bilaterians, they have complex body plans with a buoyancy organ called a statolith, muscles, a nervous system, an alimentary canal, and the ability to control the direction of their locomotion. The phylum made its appearance in the earliest Cambrian layers, dated 520 million years ago. That takes us to the Chengjiang biota in China, one of the finest exposures of early Cambrian fossils in the world.

Seven Chinese researchers found beautifully preserved comb jellies in lower Cambrian strata -- three new species and three reclassified species -- all with armor. Their open-access paper in Science Advances, "A vanished history of skeletonization in Cambrian comb jellies," shows the photographs of the fossils along with diagrams of how they probably looked. Armored struts and plates are arranged in complex shapes along the animals' exterior, following the eight-fold symmetry and making up complex curves. One of the species has spines along its outer struts. The fossil hunters were quite surprised:

They share a basic body plan characterized by a tentacleless and octaradial body with an oral-aboral axis, eight rigid struts (termed here "spokes") radiating from the aboral end and arched to converge to the oral end, eight soft-bodied flaps or lobes supported by the spokes, eight pairs of ctene rows, a conspicuous apical (or aboral) organ walled by eight rigid platesand housing a spheroidal or ellipsoidal statolith, and an oral region surrounded by eight apiculate lappets...

The eight arcuate spokes [in one species] bear robust spines (Fig. 2, L to N, and figs. S4 to S6) and retain their structural integrity even when disarticulated, suggesting a remarkable degree of sclerotization. [Emphasis added.]

The plates have "considerable rigidity," they noticed, retaining their integrity even when separated. Some of the hard parts protrude into different layers of sediments. It's not clear what the armor is made of, but the authors presume it is chitin, the same protein that makes up the exoskeleton of arthropods. "The spokes and apical plates of scleroctenophores were likely cuticular or chitinous in composition, but the presence of minerals in their skeletons cannot be completely ruled out, given that the epidermis of extant ctenophores can produce Mg-Ca carbonates that partially form the statolith," they say. The statoliths of some fossil specimens even preserve some organic carbon.

The authors are not sure about the function of the armor, but indulge in some evolutionary speculation. The typical evolutionary explanation is to imagine an "arms race" that forced the animals to defend themselves against a new class of predators. It seems obvious, though, that nothing about predation can cause a brainless animal to build a suit of armor. It could more easily just go extinct.

What's even more remarkable (a word they use themselves) is that the ctenophores are not alone in being armored compared to living counterparts. They use this observation to support a view from the late Stephen Jay Gould that evolution is highly unpredictable:

The occurrence of sclerotized and armored skeletons inCambrian representatives of several animal groups -- including entoprocts, phoronids, lobopods, scalidophorans, and now ctenophores that are exclusively soft-bodied among modern survivors -- is a remarkable phenomenon. The independent skeletonization among these diverse Cambrian animals provides indirect evidence for an intensified level of ecological interactions (for example, arms race) and also highlights the importance of paleontological data in illuminating theevolutionary legacy that would be otherwise inaccessible by studying living animals alone. The widespread occurrence of skeletonization echoes Stephen Jay Gould's view of the striking morphological disparity of many animal phyla during their Cambrian debut, and the contrasting evolutionary trajectories of skeletonized cnidarians and ctenophores also elucidate the contingent fate of evolutionary innovations such as skeletonization.

This kind of explanation serves only to protect Darwinian evolution from the evidence. If animals are similar, they evolved. If animals are different, they evolved. But the authors noticed that the "morphological disparity" in the Cambrian explosion exists not only between phyla, but between species within phyla. Earlier, they referred to the explosion:

Here, we report several sclerotized and armored ctenophore species, based on new material and reinterpretation of previously published material from the early Cambrian Chengjiang biota (ca. 520 Ma). Along with armored Cambrian entoprocts, phoronids, lobopods, and scalidophorans, the new fossils suggest a vanished Cambrian history of skeletonization in multiple animal groups, imply the ecological importance of skeletonization in theCambrian explosion, and highlight the remarkable morphological disparity in certain Cambrian animal clades relative to their modern survivors.

A "vanished Cambrian history of skeletonization in multiple animal groups" is inconsistent with Darwinian evolution. "Ecological importance" is incapable of producing genetic programming for an armored skeleton. "Morphological disparity" at the earliest onset of complex animals is the opposite of Darwin's image of a branching tree gradually separating into more and more complex types.

Designers, by contrast, know how to apply a common solution in different applications. That's why it's unsurprising to see complex armor in disparate groups from the beginning.

Stephen Meyer did not go into detail about ctenophores in Darwin's Doubt, other than to note they are among the phyla that suddenly appeared in the Cambrian explosion (p. 32). But this new revelation that ctenophores are more complex than originally realized, possessing elaborate armor, certainly reinforces his contention that "the best explanation for the explosion of information necessary for the Cambrian animals... remains intelligent design" (see the Epilogue in the paperback edition, p. 448).

Join the debate! Order Debating Darwin's Doubt, edited by David Klinghoffer,with a limited-time discount of 35 percent off the cover price (enter the discount code 4DXTSYJU) to read this new collection of responses to critics of Meyer's original book, including ten chapters by Stephen Meyer.

A time to punish:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

When Is There a Basis for Taking Offense?

AT ECCLESIASTES 7:9, the Bible states: “The taking of offense is what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones.” This verse shows that we should not be overly sensitive when someone offends us; rather, we should be forgiving.

However, is Ecclesiastes 7:9 saying that we should never be offended by anything or anyone, that we are to forgive all offenses regardless of how severe or how frequent they are and not do anything about them? Should we be unconcerned about our giving offense by word or action because we know that the one offended should be forgiving? This cannot be the case.


Jehovah God is the epitome of love, mercy, forgiveness, and long-suffering. Yet, in the Bible, he is many times spoken of as being offended. When the offense was severe, he took action against the offenders. Consider some examples.

Offenses Against Jehovah.

The account at 1 Kings 15:30 speaks of the sins of Jeroboam “with which he caused Israel to sin and by his offensiveness with which he offended Jehovah.” At 2 Chronicles 28:25, the Bible says regarding King Ahaz of Judah: “He made high places for making sacrificial smoke to other gods, so that he offended Jehovah the God of his forefathers.” Another example is found at Judges 2:11-14: “Israel fell to doing what was bad in the eyes of Jehovah and serving the Baals . . . , so that they offended Jehovah. . . . At this Jehovah’s anger blazed against Israel, so that he gave them into the hands of the pillagers.”

There are other things that offended Jehovah and that called for strong action. For example, at Exodus 22:18-20, we read: “You must not preserve a sorceress alive. Anyone lying down with a beast is positively to be put to death. One who sacrifices to any gods but Jehovah alone is to be devoted to destruction.”

Jehovah did not continually forgive the major offenses of ancient Israel when they kept offending him and did not show true repentance. Where there was no true repentance and no actions to indicate that there was a turning around to obey Jehovah, God eventually gave the perpetrators up to destruction. This happened on a national scale in 607 B.C.E., at the hands of the Babylonians, and again in 70 C.E., at the hands of the Romans.


Yes, Jehovah takes offense at the bad things that people say and do, and he even executes unrepentant offenders whose sins are gross. But does this put him in the category of those of whom Ecclesiastes 7:9 speaks? Not at all. He is justified in taking offense at gross sins and always judges fairly. The Bible says of Jehovah: “Perfect is his activity, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; righteous and upright is he.”—Deuteronomy 32:4.

Major Offenses Against Individuals

Under the Law that God gave to ancient Israel, there were serious consequences for major offenses against individuals. For instance, if a thief came into a house at night and the householder killed him, there was no bloodguilt on the part of the householder. He was an innocent victim of a major crime. Hence, we read: “If a thief should be found in the act of breaking in and he does get struck and die, there is no bloodguilt for [the householder].”—Exodus 22:2.

A woman who has been raped has a right to be highly offended, as this is a major crime in God’s eyes. Under the Mosaic Law, a man who raped a woman was to die “just as when a man rises up against his fellowman and indeed murders him.” (Deuteronomy 22:25, 26) While we are no longer under that Law, it gives us insight into how Jehovah feels about rape—a horrible wrong.


In our time, rape is also a major crime with severe penalties. The victim has every right to report the matter to the police. In this way the proper 
authorities can punish the offender. And if the victim is a minor, the parents may want to initiate these actions.(emphasis mine)


Lesser Offenses.


However, not all offenses require action by the authorities. Thus, we should not want to take undue offense at the relatively minor mistakes that others make, but we should be forgiving. How often should we forgive? The apostle Peter asked Jesus: “Lord, how many times is my brother to sin against me and am I to forgive him? Up to seven times?” Jesus answered: “I say to you, not, Up to seven times, but, Up to seventy-seven times.”—Matthew 18:21, 22.

On the other hand, there is a continuing need for us to work on our Christian personality to try to minimize giving offense. For instance, when you deal with others, are you at times blunt, tactless, insulting? Such ways are likely to offend. Rather than blaming the victim for taking offense and feeling that the burden of forgiveness is on him, the offender needs to realize that he is the reason that the person took offense. The offender needs to work on controlling his actions and speech so as not to give offense in the first place. This effort will reduce the number of times we hurt the feelings of others. The Bible reminds us: “There exists the one speaking thoughtlessly as with the stabs of a sword, but the tongue of the wise ones is a healing.” (Proverbs 12:18) When we offend others, even if we did not intend to do so, our making an apology goes a long way toward remedying the situation.

God’s Word shows that we should “pursue the things making for peace and the things that are upbuilding to one another.” (Romans 14:19) When we are tactful and kind, the proverb applies: “As apples of gold in silver carvings is a word spoken at the right time for it.” (Proverbs 25:11) What a pleasant and delightful impression that leaves! Mild, tactful speech can even change the rigid attitudes of others: “A mild tongue itself can break a bone.”—Proverbs 25:15.

Hence, God’s Word counsels us: “Let your utterance be always with graciousness, seasoned with salt, so as to know how you ought to give an answer to each one.” (Colossians 4:6) “Seasoned with salt” means that we make our expressions tasteful to others, thereby reducing the possibility of giving offense. In both word and deed, Christians strive to apply the Bible’s admonition: “Seek peace and pursue it.”—1 Peter 3:11.


Thus, Ecclesiastes 7:9 must mean that we should refrain from taking offense at the relatively minor sins of others. These may be the result of human imperfection or may even be deliberate yet not gross. But when an offense is a major sin, it is understandable that the victim may be offended and may choose to initiate appropriate action.—Matthew 18:15-17.