The Watchtower Society's commentary on Jehovah's High Priest

HIGH PRIEST:

The principal one who represented the people before God. He was also charged with supervision of all the other priests.

The Bible uses various terms to designate the high priest, namely, “the high [literally, great] priest” (Nu 35:25, 28; Jos 20:6, ftn), “the priest, the anointed one” (Le 4:3), “the chief [or, high; literally, head] priest” (2Ch 26:20, ftn; 2Ki 25:18, ftn), “the head” (2Ch 24:6), or simply, “the priest” (2Ch 26:17). In the latter case the context often makes clear that the high priest is meant. In the Christian Greek Scriptures, “chief priests” is evidently used to denote the principal men of the priesthood, which might include any ex-high priests who had been deposed and possibly, in addition, the heads of the 24 priestly divisions.—Mt 2:4; Mr 8:31.

The appointment of Aaron, Israel’s first high priest, was from God. (Heb 5:4) The high priesthood of Israel was inaugurated in Aaron and passed down from father to oldest son, unless that son died or was disqualified, as in the case of Aaron’s two oldest sons, who sinned against Jehovah and died. (Le 10:1, 2) King Solomon deposed a high priest in fulfillment of divine prophecy and put another qualified man of the line of Aaron in his place. (1Ki 2:26, 27, 35) Later on, when the nation was under Gentile rule, those Gentile rulers removed and appointed high priests according to their will. It seems, nonetheless, that the line of Aaron was quite well adhered to throughout the entire history of the nation down till Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 C.E., although there may have been exceptions, such as Menelaus, also called Onias (Jewish Antiquities, XII, 238, 239 [v, 1]), whom 2 Maccabees 3:4, 5 and 4:23 indicates was a Benjamite.

Qualifications and Requirements for Office. In harmony with the dignity of the office, the high priest’s closeness to Jehovah in representing the nation before Him, and also the typical significance of the office, the requirements were rigid.

A list of disqualifying physical blemishes for all priests is set forth at Leviticus 21:16-23. Additional restrictions were placed on the high priest: He was to marry none other than a virgin of Israel; he was not to marry a widow. (Le 21:13-15) Furthermore, he was not allowed to defile himself for the dead, that is, he could not touch any human corpse, even that of his father or his mother, because that would make him unclean. He was neither to let his hair go ungroomed nor tear his garments for the dead.—Le 21:10-12.

The Bible does not specifically state the age of eligibility for high priest. While it gives a retirement age of 50 years for Levites, it does not mention any retirement for priests, and its record indicates that the high priest’s appointment was for his lifetime. (Nu 8:24, 25) Aaron was 83 years old when he went with Moses before Pharaoh. His anointing as high priest apparently took place in the following year. (Ex 7:7) He was 123 years of age at the time of his death. During all this time he served, with no retirement. (Nu 20:28; 33:39) The provision of the cities of refuge takes note of the lifetime tenure of the high priest, in requiring that the unintentional manslayer remain in the city until the death of the high priest.—Nu 35:25.

Installation. Some indication of the office Jehovah had in mind for Aaron is seen in privileges given him soon after the Exodus from Egypt. In the wilderness on the way to Sinai, Aaron was the one commanded to take a jar of manna and to deposit it before the Testimony as something to be kept. This was before the tent of meeting or the ark of the covenant was yet in existence. (Ex 16:33, 34, ftn) Later, Aaron came to be the one in full charge of the sacred tent and its Ark. Aaron and two of his sons, with 70 of the older men of Israel, were specifically named as privileged to approach Mount Horeb, where they saw a vision of God.—Ex 24:1-11.

But Jehovah made his first actual statement of his purpose to separate Aaron and his sons for the priesthood when giving Moses instructions for making the priestly garments. (Ex 28) After these instructions were given, God outlined to Moses the procedure for installing the priesthood and then definitely made it known: “The priesthood must become theirs as a statute to time indefinite.”—Ex 29:9.

In keeping with Jehovah’s majesty and cleanness, Aaron and his sons could not perform priestly duties until they were sanctified and empowered by the installation service. (Ex 29) Moses, as mediator of the Law covenant, performed the installation. A sanctification ceremony, occupying the seven days of Nisan 1 to 7, 1512 B.C.E., saw the priesthood fully installed, their hands filled with power to act as priests. (Le 8) The next day, Nisan 8, an initial atonement service was performed for the nation (very much like the regular Day of Atonement services that were decreed to be celebrated annually on Tishri 10; this first performance of the priesthood is described in Leviticus 9). It was appropriate and necessary, for the people of Israel were in need of cleansing from their sins, including their recent transgression in connection with the golden calf.—Ex 32.

In installing the high priest, one of the significant acts Moses had to perform was the anointing of Aaron by pouring upon Aaron’s head the sacred anointing oil specially compounded according to God’s directions. (Le 8:1, 2, 12; Ex 30:22-25, 30-33; Ps 133:2) The later high priests, successors of Aaron, are spoken of as “anointed.” While the Bible does not record an instance of their actual anointing with literal oil, it does set forth this law: “And the holy garments that are Aaron’s will serve for his sons after him to anoint them in them and to fill their hand with power in them. Seven days the priest who succeeds him from among his sons and who comes into the tent of meeting to minister in the holy place will wear them.”—Ex 29:29, 30.

Garments of Office. Besides wearing linen garments similar to those of the underpriests in his usual activities, the high priest wore special garments of glory and beauty on certain occasions. Exodus chapters 28 and 39 describe both the design and the making of these garments under the direction of Moses as commanded by God. The innermost garment (except for the linen drawers reaching “from the hips and to the thighs,” worn by all the priests “to cover the naked flesh”; Ex 28:42) was the robe (Heb., kut·toʹneth), made of fine (probably white) linen of checkerwork weave. This robe apparently had long sleeves and reached down to the ankles. It was likely woven in one piece. A sash of fine twisted linen woven with blue, reddish purple, and coccus scarlet thread went around the body, probably above the waist.—Ex 28:39; 39:29.

The turban, evidently different from the headdress of the underpriests, was also of fine linen. (Ex 28:39) Fastened to the forefront of the turban was a shining plate of pure gold with the words “Holiness belongs to Jehovah” engraved on it. (Ex 28:36) This plate was called “the holy sign of dedication.”—Ex 29:6; 39:30.

Over the linen robe was the blue sleeveless coat (Heb., meʽilʹ). It was also probably woven in one piece, with a strong border around the opening at the top to prevent tearing. The blue sleeveless coat was put on by slipping it over the head. This garment was shorter than the linen robe, and around its bottom hem were alternate golden bells and pomegranates made of blue, reddish-purple, and scarlet thread. The bells would be heard as the high priest went about his work in the sanctuary.—Ex 28:31-35.

The ephod, an apronlike garment made with front and back parts and reaching a short distance below the waist, was worn by all the priests and sometimes by persons not in the priesthood. (1Sa 2:18; 2Sa 6:14) But the ephod of the high priests’ apparel of beauty was of special embroidered work. It was of fine twisted linen with wool dyed reddish purple, coccus scarlet material, and gold thread made from gold beaten into thin plates, then cut into threads. (Ex 39:2, 3) Shoulder pieces possibly extended down on each side in the back from the shoulders to the girdle. On top of the shoulder pieces were two gold settings, each with an onyx stone, and each stone having engraved on it six of the names of the sons of Israel (Jacob) in order of their birth. A girdle of the same material bound the ephod around the waist, the girdle being “upon” the ephod, possibly being fastened to the ephod as a part of it.—Ex 28:6-14.

The breastpiece of judgment was undoubtedly the most costly and glorious part of the high priest’s dress. It was made of the same material as the ephod, was rectangular in shape, the length being twice the width, but was doubled so that it formed a square about 22 cm (9 in.) on a side. The doubling made a sort of pocket or pouch. (See BREASTPIECE.) The breastpiece was adorned with 12 precious stones set in gold, each engraved with the name of one of the sons of Israel. These stones, of ruby, topaz, emerald, and other gems, were arranged in four rows. Two chains of gold, wreathed in a ropework pattern, were made on the breastpiece, and rings of gold were set in the corners; the top rings were fastened to the ephod’s shoulder pieces by the gold chains. The two bottom rings were attached with blue strings to the shoulder pieces of the ephod, just above the girdle.—Ex 28:15-28.

The Urim and the Thummim were put by Moses “in the breastpiece.” (Le 8:8) It is not known just what the Urim and the Thummim were. Some scholars consider them to have been lots that were cast or drawn from the breastpiece, by Jehovah’s direction, giving, basically, a “yes” or “no” answer to a question. If so, they may have been placed in the “pouch” of the breastpiece. (Ex 28:30, AT; Mo) This is perhaps indicated in the text at 1 Samuel 14:41, 42. Yet others hold that the Urim and Thummim had to do with the stones in the breastpiece in some way, but this view seems less likely. Other references to the Urim and the Thummim are found at Numbers 27:21; Deuteronomy 33:8; 1 Samuel 28:6; Ezra 2:63; and Nehemiah 7:65.—See URIM AND THUMMIM.

These beautiful garments were worn by the high priest when he approached Jehovah with an inquiry on an important matter. (Nu 27:21; Jg 1:1; 20:18, 27, 28) Also, on the Day of Atonement, after the sin offerings were completed, he changed from the white linen garments to his garments of glory and beauty. (Le 16:23, 24) He apparently wore the latter on other occasions as well.

The instructions regarding Atonement Day, at Leviticus chapter 16, do not state specifically that the high priest, after putting on his glorious apparel, was to lift his hands and bless the people. However, in the record of the atonement service held on the day after the priesthood’s installation, which follows closely the Atonement Day procedure, we read: “Then Aaron raised his hands toward the people and blessed them.” (Le 9:22) Jehovah had shown what the blessing should be when he commanded Moses: “Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying, ‘This is the way you should bless the sons of Israel, saying to them: “May Jehovah bless you and keep you. May Jehovah make his face shine toward you, and may he favor you. May Jehovah lift up his face toward you and assign peace to you.”’”—Nu 6:23-27.

Responsibility and Duties. The dignity, seriousness, and responsibility of the high priest’s office is emphasized by the fact that sins on his part could bring guiltiness upon the people. (Le 4:3) The high priest alone was to go into the Most Holy compartment of the sanctuary, and only on one day of the year, the Day of Atonement. (Le 16:2) When he went into the tent of meeting on that day, no other priest was allowed in the tent. (Le 16:17) He officiated over all the Atonement Day services. He made atonement for his house and for the people on special occasions (Le 9:7) and intervened before Jehovah in behalf of the people when Jehovah’s anger blazed against them. (Nu 15:25, 26; 16:43-50) When questions of national importance arose, he was the one to approach Jehovah with Urim and Thummim. (Nu 27:21) He officiated at the slaughter and burning of the red cow, the ashes of which were used in the water for cleansing.—Nu 19:1-5, 9.

Evidently the high priest was able, as he desired, to take part in any priestly duty or ceremony. By King David’s time the priesthood had grown large in number. So that all could serve, David arranged the priests in 24 divisions. (1Ch 24:1-18) This system continued for the duration of the priesthood’s existence. However, the high priest was not restricted to certain times for service at the sanctuary, as were the underpriests, but could take part at any time. (The underpriests could assist at any time, but certain duties were reserved as the privilege of the priests of the particular division then on duty.) As was true with the underpriests, the festival seasons were the high priest’s busiest periods.

The sanctuary, its service, and treasury were under the high priest’s supervision. (2Ki 12:7-16; 22:4) In this responsibility, it appears that there was a secondary priest who was his chief assistant. (2Ki 25:18) In later times, this assistant, called the Sagan, would officiate for the high priest when for some reason the high priest was incapacitated. (The Temple, by A. Edersheim, 1874, p. 75) Eleazar, Aaron’s son, had a special oversight assigned to him.—Nu 4:16.

The high priest was also the leader in the religious instruction of the nation.—Le 10:8-11; De 17:9-11.

He and the secular rulers (Joshua, the Judges, and, under the monarchy, the king) were the high courts of the nation. (De 17:9, 12; 2Ch 19:10, 11) After the Sanhedrin was formed (in later times), the high priest presided over that body. (Some traditions say that he did not preside in every case—only as he willed.) (Mt 26:57; Ac 5:21) High Priest Eleazar participated with Joshua in dividing the land among the 12 tribes.—Jos 14:1; 21:1-3.

The high priest’s death had to be announced to the cities of refuge throughout the land; it meant the release of all persons who were confined to the boundaries of the cities of refuge for the guilt of accidental manslaughter.—Nu 35:25-29.

The High-Priestly Line. For the line of descent of the high priest and the names of those who actually served in this office, please see the accompanying chart. The Bible specifically names only a few as serving in that capacity, but it gives us genealogical records of Aaron’s line. No doubt a good number of those listed in the genealogical tables served as high priests, even though the Bible does not have occasion to relate an account of their acts nor name them definitely as holding the office. The few it actually names as such are hardly enough to fill in the lapse of time, particularly between the priesthood’s beginning in 1512 B.C.E. and Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C.E. Also, often there are names passed over in the genealogical tables, so unnamed ones may also have served in the office. The chart, therefore, is not intended to give a wholly complete and accurate list but may help the reader to obtain a better picture of the high-priestly line.

Melchizedek’s Priesthood. The first priest mentioned in the Bible is Melchizedek, who was “priest of the Most High God” as well as king of Salem (Jerusalem). Abraham met this priest-king when he returned from defeating the three kings in league with Elamite King Chedorlaomer. Abraham showed he recognized the divine source of Melchizedek’s authority by giving him a tenth of the fruits of his victory and by receiving Melchizedek’s blessing. The Bible does not give the record of Melchizedek’s ancestry, his birth, or his death. He had no predecessors or successors.—Ge 14:17-24; see MELCHIZEDEK.

The High Priesthood of Jesus Christ. The Bible book of Hebrews points out that Jesus Christ, since his resurrection and entry into heaven, is “a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek forever.” (Heb 6:20; 7:17, 21) To describe the greatness of Christ’s priesthood and its superiority over the Aaronic priesthood, the writer shows that Melchizedek was both a king and a priest by designation of the Most High God, and not by inheritance. Christ Jesus, not of the tribe of Levi, but of Judah and of the line of David, did not inherit his office by descent from Aaron, but obtained it by direct appointment of God, as did Melchizedek. (Heb 5:10) In addition to the promise recorded at Psalm 110:4: “Jehovah has sworn (and he will feel no regret): ‘You are a priest to time indefinite according to the manner of Melchizedek!’” which appointment makes him a heavenly King-Priest, Christ also possesses Kingdom authority by reason of his descent from David. In the latter case, he becomes the heir of the kingship promised in the Davidic covenant. (2Sa 7:11-16) He therefore holds in combination the offices of kingship and priesthood, as did Melchizedek.

In another way the surpassing excellence of Christ’s high priesthood is shown, namely, in that Levi, the progenitor of the Jewish priesthood, in effect, gave tithes to Melchizedek, for Levi was still in the loins of Abraham when the patriarch gave a tenth to Salem’s priest-king. Moreover, in that sense Levi was also blessed by Melchizedek, and the rule is that the lesser is blessed by the greater. (Heb 7:4-10) The apostle also calls attention to Melchizedek’s being “fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having neither a beginning of days nor an end of life” as being representative of the everlasting priesthood of Jesus Christ, who has been resurrected to “an indestructible life.”—Heb 7:3, 15-17.

Nevertheless, although Christ does not get his priesthood from fleshly descent through Aaron, nor does he have a predecessor or successor in his office, he fulfills the things typified by the Aaronic high priest. The apostle makes this perfectly clear when he shows that the tentlike tabernacle constructed in the wilderness was a pattern of “the true tent, which Jehovah put up, and not man” and that the Levitical priests rendered “sacred service in a typical representation and a shadow of the heavenly things.” (Heb 8:1-6; 9:11) He relates that Jesus Christ, who had, not animal sacrifices, but his own perfect body to offer, did away with the validity or need for animal sacrifices; Jesus then “passed through the heavens,” “not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance for us.” (Heb 4:14; 9:12; 10:5, 6, 9) He went into the holy place typified by the Most Holy into which Aaron entered, namely, “heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us.”—Heb 9:24.

The sacrifice of Jesus as the antitypical High Priest did not need to be repeated as did those of the Aaronic priests, because his sacrifice actually removed sin. (Heb 9:13, 14, 25, 26) Moreover, in the type, or shadow, no priest of the Aaronic priesthood could live long enough to save completely or bring to complete salvation and perfection all those to whom he ministered, but Christ “is able also to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he is always alive to plead for them.”—Heb 7:23-25.

In addition to making sacrifices, the high priest in Israel blessed the people and was their chief instructor in God’s righteous laws. The same is true of Jesus Christ. On appearing before his Father in the heavens, he “offered one sacrifice for sins perpetually and sat down at the right hand of God, from then on awaiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet.” (Heb 10:12, 13; 8:1) Therefore, “the second time that he appears it will be apart from sin and to those earnestly looking for him for their salvation.”—Heb 9:28.

Jesus Christ’s superiority as High Priest is seen in another sense also. Becoming a man of blood and flesh like his “brothers” (Heb 2:14-17), he was thoroughly tested; he suffered all manner of opposition, persecution, and finally, an ignominious death. As it is stated: “Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered; and after he had been made perfect he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him.” (Heb 5:8, 9) Paul explains benefits we can receive from his being thus tested: “For in that he himself has suffered when being put to the test, he is able to come to the aid of those who are being put to the test.” (Heb 2:18) Those in need of help are assured of his merciful and sympathetic consideration. “For,” says Paul, “we have as high priest, not one who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tested in all respects like ourselves, but without sin.”—Heb 4:15, 16.

Christian Underpriests. Jesus Christ is the only priest “according to the manner of Melchizedek” (Heb 7:17), but like Aaron the high priest of Israel, Jesus Christ has a body of underpriests provided for him by his Father, Jehovah. These are promised joint heirship with him in the heavens, where they will also share as associate kings in his Kingdom. (Ro 8:17) They are known as “a royal priesthood.” (1Pe 2:9) They are shown in the vision of the Bible book of Revelation singing a new song in which they say that Christ bought them with his blood and “made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and [that] they are to rule as kings over the earth.” (Re 5:9, 10) Later in the vision these are shown to number 144,000. They also are described as having “been bought from the earth,” as followers of the Lamb, “bought from among mankind as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.” (Re 14:1-4; compare Jas 1:18.) In this chapter of Revelation (14), warning is given with regard to the mark of the beast, showing that avoidance of this mark “means endurance for the holy ones.” (Re 14:9-12) These 144,000 bought ones are the ones who endure faithfully, who come to life and rule as kings with Christ, and who “will be priests of God and of the Christ, and will rule as kings with him for the thousand years.” (Re 20:4, 6) Jesus’ high-priestly services bring them into this glorious position.

Beneficiaries of the Heavenly Priesthood. The vision of the New Jerusalem recorded in Revelation gives an indication of who will receive the ministrations of the great High Priest and those associated with him as heavenly underpriests. Aaron and his family, together with the priestly tribe of Levi, ministered to the people of the 12 tribes in the land of Palestine. As for the New Jerusalem, “the nations will walk by means of its light.”—Re 21:2, 22-24.

See also PRIEST.

[Chart on page 1114-1116]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

ISRAEL’S HIGH-PRIESTLY LINE

Genealogies of the high priests are found at 1 Chronicles 6:1-15, 50-53 and Ezra 7:1-5. These do not contain all the names; some links are omitted, as is common in Hebrew genealogical tables. Josephus and the Jewish rabbis insert additional names, but their accuracy is open to question. Question marks after names in boldface type indicate those who may have served in the office of high priest (several very likely so) but who are listed only in the high-priestly line of descent in the Bible and are not specifically stated to have served as high priests.

Levi (Son of Jacob.—Ge 29:34)

Kohath (Ge 46:11; Ex 6:16; 1Ch 6:1)

Amram (Ex 6:18; 1Ch 6:2)

Izhar

Hebron

Uzziel

Gershon

Merari

1512 B.C.E.—PRIESTHOOD OF ISRAEL BEGINS

Moses

AARON (Ex 6:20; 1Ch 23:13)

ELEAZAR (Ex 6:23; Le 10:1-7; Nu 20:25-28; 1Ch 6:3)

Nadab (died) (Ex 6:23; 1Ch 24:1, 2)

Abihu (died)

Ithamar

(Ark of the covenant located in Shiloh from the time land was subdued [c. 1467 B.C.E.] until time of Eli, with a temporary stay at Bethel.—Jos 18:1; Jg 20:18, 26-28)

PHINEHAS (Jehovah gives covenant for priesthood in his line.—Ex 6:25; Nu 25:10-13; Jos 22:13; Jg 20:27, 28)

ABISHUA? (1Ch 6:4, 5; Ezr 7:5)

BUKKI? (1Ch 6:5; Ezr 7:4)

UZZI? (1Ch 6:5, 6; Ezr 7:4)

Zerahiah (1Ch 6:6; Ezr 7:4)

Meraioth (1Ch 6:6, 7; Ezr 7:3, 4)

Amariah (1Ch 6:7)

Ahitub (2Sa 8:17; 1Ch 6:7, 8; 18:16)

(Line of Ithamar apparently officiated during this period)

ELI (First high priest of line of Ithamar; succeeded either Abishua or Uzzi, according to Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, V, 361, 362 [xi, 5]; VIII, 12 [i, 3]; compare 1Ch 24:3)

Hophni

Phinehas

(Ark captured by Philistines. Eli and sons died. Ark remained 7 months in Philistine territory. [1Sa 4:17, 18; 6:1] Ark returned, temporarily at Beth-shemesh, then located at Kiriath-jearim [Baale-judah] at the house of Abinadab for many years, until shortly after David captured Zion.—1Sa 6:14, 15; 7:2; 2Sa 6:2, 3)

Ichabod (1Sa 4:19-22)

AHITUB? (1Sa 14:3; 22:9)

AHIJAH (Probably the brother of Ahimelech. Served at tabernacle in Shiloh.—1Sa 14:3)

(David attempted to bring Ark to Jerusalem; Uzzah smitten. David took Ark to house of Obed-edom the Gittite; Ark there three months; then moved by David to Jerusalem.—2Sa 6:1-11)

AHIMELECH (Aided David; killed when 85 priests of Nob were slain by order of Saul.—1Sa 21:1-6; 22:9-18)

ABIATHAR (Escaped and joined David. [1Sa 22:20-23; 23:6, 9; 30:7] But later supported Adonijah and was deposed by Solomon. House of Eli fell from high priesthood, fulfilling Jehovah’s words at 1 Samuel 2:30-36.—1Ki 2:27, 35)

Office returns to line of Eleazar

ZADOK (May have been “second” priest during David’s reign. [See 2Ki 25:18; Jer 52:24.] Loyal to David when Adonijah tried to take throne. Made high priest by Solomon in place of Abiathar.—2Sa 8:17; 15:24-29; 19:11; 1Ki 1:7, 8, 32-45; 2:27, 35; 1Ch 24:3)

(Ark placed in newly built temple by Solomon.—1Ki 8:1-6)

AHIMAAZ? (2Sa 15:27, 36; 17:20; 1Ch 6:8)

AZARIAH (I)? (1Ki 4:2; 1Ch 6:9)

(The next three names, Amariah, Jehoiada, and Zechariah, are evidently links that were passed over at 1Ch 6:1-15)

AMARIAH (In King Jehoshaphat’s time.—2Ch 19:11)

JEHOIADA (In the time of Ahaziah, Athaliah, and Jehoash.—2Ki 11:4–12:9; 2Ch 22:10–24:15)

ZECHARIAH? (Stoned to death, with King Jehoash’s approval.—2Ch 24:20-22)

JOHANAN? (1Ch 6:10)

AZARIAH (II) (Probably the priest who resisted King Uzziah in his presumptuous act.—1Ch 6:10; 2Ch 26:17-20)

(The next two names, Urijah and Azariah, may be links that are omitted at 1Ch 6:1-15)

URIJAH? (The priest who built an altar like the pagan altar at Damascus, at King Ahaz’ order.—2Ki 16:10-16)

AZARIAH (II or III) (Of the line of Zadok; served in King Hezekiah’s time. He may be the same person as Azariah II, listed earlier, or another with the same name.—2Ch 31:10-13)

AMARIAH? (1Ch 6:11; Ezr 7:3)

AHITUB (Ne 11:11; 1Ch 6:11, 12; 9:11; Ezr 7:2)

MERAIOTH? (He was a priest, a descendant of Ahitub, but may not have served as high priest.—1Ch 9:11; Ne 11:11)

ZADOK? (1Ch 6:12; 9:11; Ezr 7:2; Ne 11:11)

SHALLUM? (Meshullam) (1Ch 6:12, 13; 9:11; Ezr 7:2; Ne 11:11)

HILKIAH (In King Josiah’s time.—2Ki 22:4-14; 23:4; 1Ch 6:13; 2Ch 34:9-22)

AZARIAH (III or IV)? (1Ch 6:13, 14)

SERAIAH (Killed by Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah after Jerusalem’s fall in 607 B.C.E.—2Ki 25:18-21; 1Ch 6:14; Ezr 7:1; Jer 52:24-27)

JEHOZADAK? (Taken into Babylonian exile by Nebuchadnezzar in 607 B.C.E. His son Jeshua [Joshua] and possibly other sons were born during the exile. He was, of course, unable to perform duties at the temple.—1Ch 6:14, 15; Ezr 3:2)

(Ark of the covenant disappears; not in later temples built in Jerusalem)

AFTER THE RETURN FROM EXILE

JOSHUA (Jeshua) (Returned in 537 B.C.E. with Zerubbabel.—Ezr 2:2; 3:2; Ne 12:10; Hag 1:1; Zec 3:1; 6:11)

JOIAKIM? (Ne 12:10, 12; held office at time of Ezra’s return to Jerusalem, according to Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, XI, 121 [v, 1])

ELIASHIB (In Nehemiah’s time.—Ne 3:20; 12:10, 22; 13:4, 6, 7)

JOIADA? (Ne 12:10, 11, 22; 13:28)

JOHANAN (Jonathan?) (Ne 12:11, 22, 23)

JADDUA? (Probably in or “down till” the days of Darius the Persian.—Ne 12:11, 22)

FROM THE TIME OF DARIUS (II) THE PERSIAN

(From this point the Apocryphal books of First and Second Maccabees and Jewish Antiquities [XI-XX], by Josephus, are the sources for the list of high priests down to the time of the Maccabees. Josephus names more as high priests than does First Maccabees. From the Maccabees to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., the chief source is Josephus. The Bible names only three [Annas, Joseph Caiaphas, and Ananias]. The high-priestly line seems to have been adhered to, at least in the majority of cases, although pagan rulers deposed and appointed the high priests at will.)

ONIAS I

SIMON I

ELEAZAR

MANASSEH

ONIAS II (Continued in column to the right)

SIMON II

ONIAS III

JOSHUA (Gr., Jesus); also Jason

ONIAS (Called also Menelaus)

JAKIM (Called in Greek, Alcimus); also Jacimus

THE MACCABEAN PRIEST-KINGS

JONATHAN

SIMON (Jonathan’s brother)

JOHN HYRCANUS

ARISTOBULUS I

ALEXANDER JANNAEUS

HYRCANUS II (Aristobulus II seized temporary rule)

ANTIGONUS

AFTER HEROD THE GREAT BECAME KING (Mt 2:1)

(Appointed by Herod)

HANANEL (Latinized Gr., Ananelus)

ARISTOBULUS III

HANANEL (a second time)

JESUS (son of Phabet)

SIMON (son of Boethus)

MATTHIAS (Mattathias) (son-in-law of Boethus)

JOAZAR (son of Boethus)

(Appointed by Archelaus, King of Judea—Mt 2:22)

ELEAZAR (son of Boethus)

JESUS (son of Sie) (Joazar restored by the multitude)

(Appointed by Quirinius, Governor of Syria—Lu 2:2)

ANNAS (Ananus) (son of Seth) (Appointed by Quirinius; deposed by Valerius Gratus, governor of Judea, about 15 C.E. He was the father-in-law of Caiaphas. After being deposed, he continued to exercise great influence.—Lu 3:2; Joh 18:13, 24; Ac 4:6)

(Appointed by Valerius Gratus, Governor of Judea)

ISMAEL (son of Phabi)

ELEAZAR (son of Annas)

SIMON (son of Camithus)

JOSEPH CAIAPHAS (Officiated during Jesus’ earthly ministry and the early part of the apostles’ ministry. He presided as high priest over Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin, in company with his father-in-law Annas. [Mt 26:3, 57; Lu 3:2; Joh 11:49, 51; 18:13, 14, 24, 28] He and Annas called Peter and John before them and commanded them to stop preaching. [Ac 4:6, 18] Caiaphas was the high priest who authorized Saul to receive letters to the synagogue at Damascus for the arrest of Christians.—Ac 9:1, 2, 14)

(Appointed by Vitellius, Governor of Syria)

JONATHAN (son of Annas)

THEOPHILUS (son of Annas)

(Appointed by Herod Agrippa I)

SIMON (Cantheras) (son of Boethus)

MATTHIAS (Mattathias) (son of Annas)

ELIONAEUS (son of Cantheras)

(Appointed by Herod, King of Chalcis)

JOSEPH (son of Camydus)

ANANIAS (son of Nedebaeus) (Presided over the Sanhedrin at Paul’s trial.—Ac 23:2; 24:1)

(Appointed by Herod Agrippa II)

ISMAEL (son of Phabi)

JOSEPH (Cabi) (son of former high priest Simon)

ANNAS (Ananus) (son of Annas)

JESUS (son of Damnaeus)

JESUS (son of Gamaliel)

MATTHIAS (Mattathias) (son of Theophilus)


PHANAS (Phannias or Phinehas; son of Samuel) (Made high priest not by Herod Agrippa but by the people during the war against Rome)

The quest to deprivilege our home planet hits a snag again.

Paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Suggests Our Solar System Is Exceptional
Casey Luskin September 10, 2015 9:27 AM

Back in July, around the time I was busy running our Summer Seminar on Intelligent Design, biologist Jeff Schweitzer wrote a polemical article in the Huffington Post, "Earth 2.0: Bad News for God." Schweitzer, who served under the White House Science Advisor in the Clinton Administration, rails against religion, contending that the discovery of extraterrestrial life would refute the great Abrahamic faiths. I could go on about Schweitzer's simplistic and naïve theological analysis, including the tortured logic he uses to claim that the Bible's silence on extraterrestrial life is really a denial that ETs could exist. But I'm more interested in looking at his scientific assertion that our solar system isn't special and that in fact there must be "thousands or millions or even billions of such earth-like planets in the universe."

Schweitzer is excited about the discovery of what he calls "Earth 2.0," an extrasolar planet otherwise known as Kepler 452-B. If you believe what the Huffington Post tells you, it's probably a rocky earthlike planet thought to orbit its star within the region where liquid water is possible. He calls it "possibly habitable." In reality, many parameters beyond the mere existence of water are necessary for a planet to be habitable, so it has not been established that Kepler 452-B is habitable, or even "possibly habitable," like Earth. Schweitzer wants people to believe that this suggests habitable earthlike planets are extremely common in the universe. A quick check of the technical scientific literature shows he is mistaken.

According to an April 2015 paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, "Jupiter's decisive role in the inner Solar System's early evolution," a review of the sizes and orbital radii of known extrasolar planets shows how exceptional our solar system is:

The statistics of extrasolar planetary systems indicate that the default mode of planet formation generates planets with orbital periods shorter than 100 days and masses substantially exceeding that of the Earth. When viewed in this context, the Solar System is unusual. ... The Solar System is an unusual member of the galactic planetary census in that it lacks planets that reside in close proximity to the Sun. [emphasis added]
The problem for Schweitzer, essentially, is that the vast majority of extrasolar planets we've discovered orbit their stars much closer than even our earth orbits the sun -- and, these extrasolar planets are much larger than earth. Both of these properties make these planets uninhabitable. Moreover, large planets like Jupiter -- which in our solar system help keep earth habitable by sweeping up comets and asteroids -- almost never exist far out in the solar system, as Jupiter does. 

There's something about our solar system that appears to be unusual. For some reason, most of our bigger planets are far away from our host star, while closer in are smaller, rocky worlds, including Earth itself.
This is not the case for many extrasolar systems that have been discovered. So-called "hot Jupiters" -- huge gas giant planets that nestle close to their star -- have been found in a few examples. In other instances, planets slightly bigger than Earth are so close to their stars as to be uninhabitable.

What this means is that our solar system stands out dramatically compared to other solar systems we've discovered and that getting rocky planets orbiting near their star as Earth does, in the circumstellar habitable zone, requires a very exceptional set of circumstances. As the paper explains:
Perhaps the most important exoplanet-related discovery has been the realization that roughly half of the Sun-like stars in the solar neighborhood are accompanied by systems of one or more planets on low-eccentricity orbits with periods ranging from days to months, and masses falling in the 1M⊕ p < 50 M⊕ range, where M⊕ is an Earth mass unit. This dominant population of planets (which often presents tightly packed, nearly coplanar multiple systems) contrasts sharply with the Solar System, whose inner edge is marked by Mercury's 88-d [0.4 astronomical units (AU)] orbit (see Fig. 1). An iconic example from the new planetary catalog is the Kepler-11 system, which encompasses at least six planets comprising more than ∼40 Earth masses (4). In short, the exoplanetary surveys have revealed a hitherto unrecognized oddity of the Solar System. Relative to other Sun-like, planet-bearing stars, our terrestrial region is severely depleted in mass.
By "depleted in mass" they mean that nearly all known extrasolar planets orbiting at or around earth's radius are many times bigger than earth and uninhabitable. True, Kepler 452-B is an exception to this rule, but its mass is still about five times that of the earth, and may even be a gas-based planet. It is therefore thought to be a "super-earth" or perhaps a "gas-dwarf" which would make it high in volatile elements. This fits with what the paper predicts, that "the majority of Earth-mass planets are strongly enriched in volatile elements and are uninhabitable," like a mini version of Neptune.
Indeed, others have claimed that the data suggests Kepler 452-B is volatile-rich, gaseous planet and not habitable. Physicist Andrew LePage who closely monitors claims of habitable planets writes:

A recently published analysis of the mass-radius relationship for extrasolar planets smaller than Neptune performed by Leslie Rogers strongly suggests that planets transition from being predominantly rocky planets like the Earth to predominantly volatile-rich worlds like Neptune at radii no greater than 1.6 RE (see "Habitable Planet Reality Check: Terrestrial Planet Size Limit"). While rocky planets larger than this are possible, they become more uncommon with increasing radius. Using a model based on recent work by Torres et al. (see "Habitable Planet Reality Check: 8 New Habitable Zone Planets"), I estimate that there is something like a 40% chance that Kepler 452b with a radius of 1.6 RE is a rocky planet. This is somewhat less than the often repeated claim of "greater than 50%" chance found in media reports.
Unfortunately, the chance that Kepler 452b is a terrestrial planet might not be as good as even 40%. Recent work by Dawson et al. strongly suggests that planets with masses greater than about 2 times that of the Earth (or 2 ME which would have a radius of about 1.2 RE, assuming an Earth-like bulk composition) which orbit stars with a high metallicity are more likely to be mini-Neptunes. This is because stars with higher metallicities tend to have more solid material available to form planetary embryos more quickly making it more likely for them to acquire some gas directly from the protoplanetary disk before it dissipates. Stars with lower metallicity tend to form planetary embryos more slowly and they might not reach the required 2 ME mass threshold fast enough to begin to acquire more than trace amounts of gas before the it has already dissipated from the disk. Only 1% or 2% of a planet's total mass of hydrogen and helium is sufficient to puff up its observed radius and make it a mini-Neptune. With a iron-to-hydrogen ratio about 60% higher than the Sun, Kepler 452 has a slightly higher metallicity than the Sun increasing the odds somewhat that Kepler 452b is a mini-Neptune.


The overall trend in this data makes our solar system look highly unusual, and from what we know so far, Kepler 452-B is probably not habitable. Schweitzer's back-of-the-envelope calculation invoking even billions of earth-like planets evidently pleased the editors of the Huffington Post. As science, it's less than compelling.

Materialists "borrow" from design advocates' toolbox

Extinct Aliens Could Yield a Design Inference
Evolution News & Views September 13, 2015 4:31 AM

National Geographic jokes about the silence of the space aliens.

For more than 50 years, we've been eavesdropping on the cosmos, searching for transmissions that would reveal the existence of intelligent, extraterrestrial life.
To date, nobody's bothered to call.

Is it something we said?

If the silence keeps up, the alternatives get narrow. (1) We are alone in the universe as intelligent beings or (2) "the morbid alternative: Intelligent life periodically emerges on other worlds, but has an unfortunate tendency to self-destruct." (3) A third possibility is that aliens know about us but cloak their presence for some reason.

Possibility #2, that alien civilizations have a tendency to self-destruct, is being seriously considered by some who look at humans' bad example of creating devastation "during our relatively brief span as the dominant species on this planet."

That's why a trio of scientists recently published a guide to help astronomers detect alien apocalypses -- whether it's the chemical signature of a world filled with rotting corpses, the radioactive aftermath of nuclear warfare, or the debris left over from a Death Star scenario where an entire planet gets blown to bits. [Emphasis added.]
We see here the makings of a design inference. It might be called Cosmic Forensics. Since forensics is a type of intelligent design science (e.g., determining whether a death was natural or intentional), why not apply the same principles to alien beings? It is, after all, a search for extinct extraterrestrial intelligence (SEETI). That's a goal far beyond astrobiology, the search for biomarkers that could indicate life down to the microbial level. SETI and SEETI are looking for beings "at least as clever as we are," as Seth Shostak likes to say.

The clues for SEETI could be very indirect and faint:

SEETI research, however, is not looking for biosignatures -- signs of life. Instead, scientists have to hunt down necrosignatures -- signs of death -- that would indicate destruction on a colossal scale.
Consider a scenario in which biological warfare rapidly wiped out a planet's population. Microorganisms that cause decomposition would gorge themselves on alien corpses. In doing so, they would excrete chemical compounds, dramatically increasing the levels of methane and ethane in the atmosphere.

If the population size of the alien world were comparable to that of Earth, the methane and ethane gases would dissipate in about a year, so there would be only a short window of opportunity to detect the cataclysm.

However, if the biological arsenal included a genetically modified virus capable of jumping species, then the planet's casualties might also include its animal life. In that case, the telltale signs of catastrophic biowarfare could be visible for several years.

The leftover glow of a nuclear holocaust could be another clue. Planets don't typically nuke themselves. Some intelligent cause would have had to push the button.

It's repulsive to think about global destruction, but intelligent design doesn't distinguish moral purposes from immoral ones. ID merely looks for evidence of something intentional. Like SETI, SEETI depends on the researcher being able to tell the difference between a purposeful act and a natural act.

SEETI thinkers even consider "speculative technologies" of aliens. If advanced civilizations create self-replicating nanobots that run haywire, they could reduce a planet to a "grey goo" of dust where once an intelligent society thrived.

But, what sort of evidence would exist for this heinous act? One remote possibility is the detection of artificial compounds in the debris disc, indicating that the planet was once home to a technologically-advanced civilization.
A "heinous act" is an intentional act, implying moral and intellectual responsiblity. We don't call a lion taking down a wildebeest "heinous." Something unnatural has happened.

Perhaps, as evolutionists, the trio of scientists contemplating SEETI as a research program view human planetary destruction on a continuum with animal death -- just a particularly egregious advanced form of ecological collapse. Why, then, call it SEETI with emphasis on the "I"? Animals like birds and dolphins have intelligence. Is human intelligence just more of the same?

Their language betrays something unique about human intelligence that carries over to alien intelligence. They talk about warfare. Animals have predator-prey relationships, but they don't engage in warfare. Animals don't "genetically modify" other organisms for the purpose of wiping them out. Animals don't create "artificial compounds" that can be distinguished from natural compounds.


The SEETI thinkers are looking for signs of intention. Even in global death, they believe they could separate natural causes from intelligent causes. That's the design inference.

Voltaire's letter on England's Antitrinitarian revivival

LETTER VII.—ON THE SOCINIANS, OR ARIANS, OR ANTITRINITARIANS.

There is a little sect here composed of clergymen, and of a few very learned persons among the laity, who, though they do not call themselves Arians or Socinians, do yet dissent entirely from St. Athanasius with regard to their notions of the Trinity, and declare very frankly that the Father is greater than the Son.

Do you remember what is related of a certain orthodox bishop, who, in order to convince an emperor of the reality of consubstantiation, put his hand under the chin of the monarch’s son, and took him by the nose in presence of his sacred majesty?  The emperor was going to order his attendants to throw the bishop out of the window, when the good old man gave him this handsome and convincing reason: “Since your majesty,” says he, “is angry when your son has not due respect shown him, what punishment do you think will God the Father inflict on those who refuse His Son Jesus the titles due to Him?”  The persons I just now mentioned declare that the holy bishop took a very wrong step, that his argument was inconclusive, and that the emperor should have answered him thus: “Know that there are two ways by which men may be wanting in respect to me—first, in not doing honour sufficient to my son; and, secondly, in paying him the same honour as to me.”

Be this as it will, the principles of Arius begin to revive, not only in England, but in Holland and Poland.  The celebrated Sir Isaac Newton honoured this opinion so far as to countenance it.  This philosopher thought that the Unitarians argued more mathematically than we do.  But the most sanguine stickler for Arianism is the illustrious Dr. Clark.  This man is rigidly virtuous, and of a mild disposition, is more fond of his tenets than desirous of propagating them, and absorbed so entirely in problems and calculations that he is a mere reasoning machine.

It is he who wrote a book which is much esteemed and little understood, on the existence of God, and another, more intelligible, but pretty much contemned, on the truth of the Christian religion.

He never engaged in scholastic disputes, which our friend calls venerable trifles.  He only published a work containing all the testimonies of the primitive ages for and against the Unitarians, and leaves to the reader the counting of the voices and the liberty of forming a judgment.  This book won the doctor a great number of partisans, and lost him the See of Canterbury; but, in my humble opinion, he was out in his calculation, and had better have been Primate of all England than merely an Arian parson.

You see that opinions are subject to revolutions as well as empires.  Arianism, after having triumphed during three centuries, and been forgot twelve, rises at last out of its own ashes; but it has chosen a very improper season to make its appearance in, the present age being quite cloyed with disputes and sects.  The members of this sect are, besides, too few to be indulged the liberty of holding public assemblies, which, however, they will, doubtless, be permitted to do in case they spread considerably.  But people are now so very cold with respect to all things of this kind, that there is little probability any new religion, or old one, that may be revived, will meet with favour.  Is it not whimsical enough that Luther, Calvin, and Zuinglius, all of them wretched authors, should have founded sects which are now spread over a great part of Europe, that Mahomet, though so ignorant, should have given a religion to Asia and Africa, and that Sir Isaac Newton, Dr. Clark, Mr. Locke, Mr. Le Clerc, etc., the greatest philosophers, as well as the ablest writers of their ages, should scarcely have been able to raise a little flock, which even decreases daily.

This it is to be born at a proper period of time.  Were Cardinal de Retz to return again into the world, neither his eloquence nor his intrigues would draw together ten women in Paris.


Were Oliver Cromwell, he who beheaded his sovereign, and seized upon the kingly dignity, to rise from the dead, he would be a wealthy City trader, and no more.

To chance and necessity be the glory? III

Hummingbird Tongue Design Gets an Upgrade
Evolution News & Views September 11, 2015 3:54 AM

One of the memorable moments in Illustra Media's documentary Flight: The Genius of Birds is the hummingbird tongue animation (see it on YouTube). The unique nectar-trapping mechanism of unfurling flaps (lamellae) on supporting rods that automatically fold over to seal in the nectar was discovered by two biologists at the University of Connecticut in 2011 (see the paper in PNAS). This was cutting-edge science at the time the film was made, because most biologists previously had assumed the tongue worked by simple capillary action.

The two biologists have continued their work since then, spending five years filming hummingbirds in the wild. Now, along with a mechanical engineer who is an expert in fluid mechanics, they have published a new paper in the Proceedings B of the Royal Society that should increase our admiration for the design of this structure. It's not only a nectar trap; the hummingbird tongue is a micropump!

News from UConn Today includes a video clip of the tongue in action (see it by clicking image above; nice soundtrack too). The new findings debunk the notion that capillary action called "wicking" draws nectar up the tongue.

Rico-Guevara explains that a hummingbird's tongue, which can be stuck out about the same length as its beak, is tipped with two long skinny tubes, or grooves. Rather than wicking, he says, the nectar is drawn into the tongue by the elastic expansion of the grooves after they are squeezed flat by the beak.
The tongue structure is collapsed during the time it crosses the space between the bill tip and the nectar pool, but once the tip contacts the nectar surface, the supply of fluid allows the collapsed groove to gradually recover to a relaxed cylindrical shape as the nectar fills it.

When the hummingbird squeezes nectar off its tongue during protrusion, it is collapsing the grooves and loading elastic energy into the groove walls. That energy subsequently facilitates the pumping of more nectar. [Emphasis added.]

This pumping action apparently works in concert with the lamellae (flaps) shown in the Illustra film. What's new is that the cylinders are in a flattened shape when they enter the nectar. Having been compressed by the beak, they store elastic energy that makes them rapidly expand in the fluid as they unfurl. This expansion helps to pump the fluid into the cylindrical cavity upward from the lamellae. That way, more nectar can be delivered into the bird's mouth.

Figure 1 shows the beak in cross-section from a CT scan. It looks beautifully designed to squeeze the tongue's cylinders during protrusion, with the lower bill fitting into spaces in the upper bill that spread laterally to flatten the tongue as it exits the bill tip. This design probably also squeezes the previous load of nectar into the mouth at the same time. "After complete loading, the grooves filled with nectar were brought back inside the bill and squeezed for the next cycle, all in less than a tenth of a second," they observed. The caption for Figure 1 explains how these two mechanisms (pumping and trapping) work together:

The hummingbird tongue fills with nectar even when only the tip is immersed. (a) Hummingbirds can drink from flowers with corollas longer than their bills by extending their bifurcated, longitudinally grooved tongues to reach the nectar. During protrusion, the tongue is compressed as it passes through the bill tip, which results in a collapsed configuration of the grooves (cross-section). (b) Upon reaching the nectar, the tongue tips fringed with lamellae roll open and spread apart, but some of the grooved portions of the tongue will never contact the nectar pool. For the grooves to fill with nectar, they must return to their uncompressed, cylindrical configuration.
Why doesn't the collapsed tongue rebound immediately after it leaves the beak and enters the air? That would result in open tubes that would need to fill by capillary action when they enter the nectar. But capillary action is much slower than the observed filling. Apparently the tongue material is designed to expand upon contact with the nectar. "After contacting the surface, the grooves expanded and filled completely with nectar," they found.

All hummingbirds have this mechanism. They filmed 32 wild birds, representing18 species (in 7 of the 9 main hummingbird clades), with a high-speed camera in natural wild habitats, undergoing hundreds of feeding cycles -- all with the same results. This allowed them to falsify the "century-old paradigm" of the capillary hypothesis and shed new light on this rapid, dynamic process.

All observed licks followed the same pattern: tongue thickness was stable during protrusion of the tongue, and rapidly increased after the tongue tips contacted the nectar... After complete loading, the grooves filled with nectar were brought back inside the bill and squeezed for the next cycle, all in less than a tenth of a second.
Capillary action could not have filled the cylinders this rapidly. In addition, no meniscus (diagnostic of capillarity) was observed to form in any of the 96 video sessions. The pumping action, by contrast, fills the entire tongue in just 14 milliseconds. Here's how it works, according to their new model:

We suggest that while squeezing nectar off the tongue during protrusion, the bird is collapsing the grooves and loading elastic energy into the groove walls that will be subsequently used to pump nectar into the grooves. The collapsed configuration is conserved during the trip of the tongue across the space between the bill tip to the nectar pool. Once the tongue tips contact the nectar surface, the supply of fluid allows the collapsed groove to gradually recover to a relaxed cylindrical shape until the nectar has filled it completely; hereafter, we refer to this previously undocumented mechanism as 'expansive filling'.
The tongue stays flattened and sealed, in short, until it hits the nectar pool. Then, inside the fluid, the tongue's twin cylinders rapidly expand, pumping nectar up into the tongue as it darts into the flower at speeds of a meter per second. As the tongue is withdrawn, the lamellae then seal the cylinder tightly shut for delivery into the bird's mouth, as shown in the Illustra animation (fluid trapping). This is a wonderful dual mechanism that results in much more efficient food capture in far less time.

Fluid trapping is the predominant process by which hummingbirds achieve nectar collection at small bill tip-to-nectar distances, wherein tongue grooves are wholly immersed in nectar, or when the nectar is found in very thin layers. Expansive filling accounts for nectar uptake by the portions of a hummingbird's tongue that remain outside the nectar pool. The relative contributions of the two synergistic mechanisms (fluid trapping and expansive filling) to the rate and volume of nectar ultimately ingested are determined by the distance from the bill tip to the nectar surface during the licking process.
In other words, these two "synergistic mechanisms" give the hummingbird the biggest possible nectar bang for the buck, regardless of how deep the nectar pool is. The new model explains how the tongue can fill up even in a short flower. Since hummingbirds already "have remarkably high metabolic rates, amazing speed and superb aeronautic control," it is essential they get the optimum return on investment of feeding energy.

All these traits result from the ability of hummingbirds to feed on nectar efficiently enough to fuel an extreme lifestyle out of a sparse, but energetically dense, resource. Therefore, the way in which they feed on nectar determines the peaks and span of their performance, and thus their behaviour (and evolutionary trajectory), across a range of environmental axes.
But did evolutionary theory contribute anything to this study? The authors speculate briefly about "co-evolution" of flowers and their pollinators, but do not offer any "trajectory" by which a bird could evolve either of these mechanisms from ancestors lacking them. How useful is it to offer up evidence-free promissory notes like this?

The new explanation of the mechanics of nectar uptake we provide here suggests that physical constraints are the main determinants of the relationship between pollinator type and nectar concentration, and can guide us through alternative hypotheses of hummingbird-flower coevolution.
By contrast, they save their best lines for what might be termed (though not by the authors) intelligent design. The paper begins:

Pumping is a vital natural process, imitated by humans for thousands of years. We demonstrate that a hitherto undocumented mechanism of fluid transport pumps nectar onto the hummingbird tongue.
This implies a seamless connection between human design and biological design. They conclude on the design theme:

Our discovery of this elastic tongue micropump could inspire applications, and the study of flow, in elastic-walled (flexible) tubes in both biological and artificial systems.

You see, not only does a design focus inspire study of biological systems, it leads to better designed applications. Everyone can agree on this: hummingbirds are inspiring!

Has Richard Darwkins stopped evolving?

awkins's Contributions as a Scientist Are Already Past Their Sell-By Date, Says Nature Reviewer

David Klinghoffer September 10, 2015 12:33 PM

In the journal Nature, Nathaniel Comfort delivers a softly devastating review of Richard Dawkins's memoir, part two, Brief Candle in the Dark: My Life in Science. Or let me rephrase that -- it's a devastating review of Dawkins himself as a scientist, including his enchantment with computer simulations. The problem with computers is that they're only as effective as the assumptions you bring to them. Garbage in, garbage out:

Much of Dawkins's research has been in silico, writing programs for evolutionary simulations. In his simulations, life is utterly determined by genes, which specify developmental rules and fixed traits such as colour. The more lifelike his digital animals ("biomorphs") become, the more persuaded he is that real genes work in roughly the same way. Dawkins's critics accuse him of genetic determinism. This synopsis of his work shows that his life virtually depends on it.

A curious stasis underlies Dawkins's thought. His biomorphs are grounded in 1970s assumptions. Back then, with rare exceptions, each gene specified a protein and each protein was specified by a gene. The genome was a linear text -- a parts list or computer program for making an organism --insulated from the environment, with the coding regions interspersed with "junk".

Today's genome is much more than a script: it is a dynamic, three-dimensional structure, highly responsive to its environment and almost fractally modular. Genes may be fragmentary, with far-flung chunks of DNA sequence mixed and matched in bewildering combinatorial arrays. A universe of regulatory and modulatory elements hides in the erstwhile junk. Genes cooperate, evolving together as units to produce traits. Many researchers continue to find selfish DNA a productive idea, but taking the longer view, the selfish gene per se is looking increasingly like a twentieth-century construct.

Dawkins's synopsis shows that he has not adapted to this view. He nods at cooperation among genes, but assimilates it as a kind of selfishness. The microbiome and the 3D genome go unnoticed. Epigenetics is an "interesting, if rather rare, phenomenon" enjoying its "fifteen minutes of pop science voguery", which it has been doing since at least 2009, when Dawkins made the same claim in The Greatest Show on Earth(Transworld). Dawkins adheres to a deterministic language of "genes for" traits. As I and other historians have shown, such hereditarianism plays into the hands of the self-styled race realists (N. Comfort Nature 513, 306-307; 2014).

Note the reference to "erstwhile" junk DNA, the acknowledgement by Comfort that epigenetics and its impact on evolutionary thinking are no flash in the pan, and the recognition that gene determinism plays into the hands of racialists -- and, one might add, genuine racists. Also see biologist Ann Gauger's comments here this morning on the design implications of "dynamic genomes."

Comfort, a science historian at Johns Hopkins, isn't impressed by Dawkins's atheist evangelizing, but he passes over that briefly. At Why Evolution Is True, Jerry Coyne complains that Comfort doesn't try to argue against Dawkins on the God question. But he doesn't need to. The aggressive atheist stance shared by Dawkins and Coyne is supposed to be an inference from the science. If the science is already outdated, "curiously static" while science passes it by in the scientist's own lifetime, what more is there to say?

Everyone agrees that Dawkins is a terrific writer -- his "greatest gift has been as a lyricist," says Comfort. In that respect, we in the intelligent design community could profit by taking notes from him.

But a scientist whose legacy amounts to little more than his sparkling prose style is not going to go down in the history books, at least not prominently. Nor should anyone be concerned that his acid musings on faith will have much impact in the long run.

Yet more on life's antidarwinian bias.III

Dynamic Genomes in Bacteria Argue for Design

Ann Gauger September 10, 2015 3:02 AM

Recent research described in a review article in the Journal of Biochemistry & Analytical Biochemistry ("Rethinking the Bacterial Genetic Regulation") indicates there is more to bacterial genetics than was previously suspected.

Bacterial geneticists have had tidy maps of genomes, with promoters and transcription units and operons neatly outlined -- all components that make sure that genes that work together are expressed at the same time. Those things are all still true. But nobody knew until recently about the existence of higher-level dynamics involved in genome regulation.

Using techniques analogous to those of the famous ENCODE project, which opened our eyes to the human genome's complex expression and interaction patterns, scientists have discovered that just like in our genome, much of a bacterium's genome is transcribed in both directions. This opens up the possibility of new forms of gene regulation. In addition, researchers have found the genome is organized into large-scale domains where long stretches of DNA are brought together so that genes involved in related functions can work together.

The way that the DNA supercoils seems to be involved in these dynamic domains. Some genes are preferentially expressed when the DNA is supercoiled, others when it is relaxed. There is also evidence to suggest "rapid movements (snaps) of the chromosomal loci and fast longitudinal density waves fluxing forth and back" along the nucleoid, the region of the cell where the bacterial cell's DNA is located. The DNA is active and moving.

Such dynamic structural change is a remarkable thing.

It may potentially provide global levels of organization that can change in response to the environment in which the cell finds itself. The authors describe one way it may happen in a plant bacterial pathogen, and they suggest that similar modes of environmental response could be involved in other pathogens as well.

Codes within codes within codes -- highly efficient and highly intelligent systems -- don't happen by accident and/or selection. The cell might begin with one code, which is incredible in itself. To layer another code in the opposite direction is far and away beyond that. Then to add a third layer of structural dynamics is simply awe-inspiring.

Darwinism vs. The real world XI

nderstanding Cardiovascular Function: Evolutionary Biologists Face a Catch-22

Howard Glicksman September 11, 2015 11:16 AM

Editor's note: Physicians have a special place among the thinkers who have elaborated the argument for intelligent design. Perhaps that's because, more than evolutionary biologists, they are familiar with the challenges of maintaining a functioning complex system, the human body. With that in mind, Evolution News & Views is delighted to present this series, "The Designed Body." Dr. Glicksman practices palliative medicine for a hospice organization.

The last several articles in this series have looked at the heart: its structure, how it works, how it is controlled, and how it helps the body meet its metabolic needs, given the laws of nature. We also reviewed the four main conditions that cause the heart to malfunction resulting in significant debility: coronary artery disease, valvular heart disease, heart failure, and some of the arrhythmias.

But what exactly happens to make the heart suffer cardiac arrest? It's important to realize that although the conditions mentioned in the last several articles can predispose a person to die from cardiac arrest, they are not the final event that actually causes it. Understanding how life came into being requires understanding how the body dies of cardiac arrest as well. It's like knowing all the different ways a car can "die" and then working backwards to figure out how to prevent them from happening. If you think about it, that's exactly how the control systems in the body are set up: to prevent not only respiratory but also cardiac arrest.

Cardiac arrest is the sudden stoppage of effective cardiac output, where the heart is no longer able to provide enough blood flow to sustain life. Clinical assessment will show that the person is unconscious and unresponsive to tactile stimulation and not breathing because the brain does not have enough blood flow for it to work properly. In addition, a pulse will not be palpable and no heart sounds will be heard because the heart is not pumping blood effectively enough.

There are basically three different conditions that can cause cardiac arrest. One is called asystole, (flat-line) where there is no electrical activity and no ventricular contraction. This results in no systolic function and therefore no cardiac output and blood flow within the circulatory system. Another is called pulseless with electrical activity(formerly called electromechanical dissociation), where there is electrical activity but no mechanical response from the ventricles. This is effectively like asystole in that there is no systolic function and therefore zero cardiac output and blood flow within the circulation.

The third are the malignant and life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias such as ventricular tachycardia, ventricular flutter, and ventricular fibrillation. Ventricular tachycardia (100-250 bpm) and ventricular flutter (150-300 bpm) are very rapid and regular rhythms that can severely limit cardiac output and blood flow within the circulation. If prolonged, these tachyarrhythmias usually degenerate into ventricular fibrillation. Ventricular fibrillation is an extremely rapid ventricular arrhythmia (400-600 bpm) in which there is electrical disorganization and an absence of coordinated ventricular contraction. Essentially, the ventricle quivers and is unable to effectively pump blood, leading to minimal, if any, cardiac output and blood flow within the circulatory system.

The malignant and life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias take place due to electrical irritability within the heart muscle and are most often associated with coronary artery disease and/or left ventricular failure. If a person dies unexpectedly from a cardiac arrest, it is called sudden cardiac death and is most often due to one of these arrhythmias. In fact, it is unfortunate that the first symptom for 25 percent of people with coronary artery disease is sudden cardiac death.

There are many different conditions that can lead to the other two causes of cardiac arrest, which effectively results in no systolic function and zero cardiac output. Both of these conditions require a massive failure in cardiac function. Although it is the sinus node that naturally paces the heart (usually at about 60-100 bpm), there exists a hierarchy of other cells below it that can also automatically depolarize and pace the heart, albeit at lower rates.

So, if the sinus node malfunctions, the AV node takes over with what is called a junctional rhythm, usually at a rate of 40-60 bpm. And if the AV node malfunctions, the specialized conduction tissue below it automatically paces the heart at even a lower rate of 20-40 bpm. People who experience this usually feel very tired and weak and have problems even walking slowly. However, when there is no systolic function, whether there is electrical activity or not, something catastrophic must have happened. Here are a few of the usual culprits.

It is important to remember that all of the parts of the heart are made up of cells, each of which must control its volume and chemical content and require certain chemicals to work properly. So, either a major blood flow problem to the heart or the lungs or a generalized metabolic problem in the body can lead to a sudden loss of systolic function. If not reversed, ventricular fibrillation usually degenerates into asystole because there is limited, if any, blood flow going through the coronary arteries. This results in the death of most of the heart cells.

A sudden lack of sufficient coronary blood flow caused by the blockage of either a major vessel or several branches, due to a clot (thrombosis), can do the same thing. A major blockage of blood flow in the pulmonary arteries, due to clots coming from the leg or pelvic veins (pulmonary embolism), not only drastically reduces the blood level of oxygen, but also the return of blood to the left side of the heart and leads to asystole.

Severely low blood pressure (hypotension) often due to low blood volume (hypovolemia), from either excessive blood loss (hemorrhage) and/or excessive water loss (dehydration) results in limited blood flow to the heart cells, which leads to cell malfunction and death from asystole. Very low blood levels of oxygen (hypoxia) and/or glucose (hypoglycemia) prevents the cells from getting the energy they need to function properly and this is another cause of the total absence of heart function. High levels of hydrogen ion (acidosis) are toxic to cells and high or low blood levels of potassium (hyperkalemia or hypokalemia) can cause nerve and muscle cell malfunction, so these conditions can also result in cardiac arrest due to asystole. Also, the core temperature of the body affects its metabolism and how well the enzymes in the cells work, so when the body is extremely cold (hypothermia) this can result in a lack of heart function as well.

In seeking to understand how human life came into being, we need to consider whether an explanation is within the credibility zone. In trying to explain how the heart is able to provide the blood flow the body needs, evolutionary biologists are faced with a Catch-22. Not only is the heart made up of cells, but so are all the organs and tissues involved in providing the control mechanisms needed to allow the heart to function in the first place. In other words, the heart is dependent on its own function for survival because all of the systems in the body that control chemicals like oxygen, glucose, water, potassium, hydrogen ion, and things like clotting, blood pressure, and temperature, are also made up of cells that are dependent on the heart providing enough blood flow.

The universal human desire to know the truth requires us to go beyond just describing how life looks, as evolutionary biology does. We must dig deeper. Seeing what is required for the body to maintain proper heart function, and how easily that can fail, you wonder how anyone could believe that such an intricate system, co-dependent on so many other controls in the body, could have come about without intelligent agency.

As our exploration of heart function has shown, the body must take control to follow the rules imposed on it by the laws of nature. That is because real numbers are a matter of life and death. So far in this series I have shown how the body controls its blood volume and heart function. But that is still not enough to explain how the body is able to do what it needs to do to live. As I noted above, the blood pressure is another factor that needs to be addressed.

Even if the heart is working properly and there is enough blood volume, debility and death can still take place if the blood pressure isn't just right. What is the blood pressure, how is it controlled, and what can make it drop too low or rise too high? That's what we'll begin to consider next time.