So much mutating/so little time

Waiting for Mutations: Why Darwinism Won't Work
Ann Gauger September 23, 2015 10:33 AM

Many scientists now recognize the insufficiency of the classic Darwinian story to account for the appearance of new features or innovations in the history of life. They focus on other theories to account for remarkable differences between genomes, the appearance of novel body plans, and genuine innovations like the bat's wing, the mammalian placenta, the vertebrate eye, or insect flight, for example. They realize that the traditional story of population genetics (changes in allele frequencies in populations due to mutation, selection, and drift) cannot account for "the arrival of the fittest" and not just the "survival of the fittest." (Hugo DeVries, 1904).

One of the reasons many scientists acknowledge the insufficiency of Darwinism is because they know the accounting won't work. The mutation rate, the generation times, the strength of selection versus genetic drift, the population sizes, and the time available don't match up.

For example, supposedly humans last shared common ancestry with chimps about six million years ago. Since that time, we have accumulated significant differences with chimps -- genetic, anatomical, physiological, behavioral, and intellectual differences, among others. The genetic differences between humans and chimps are much more than the (shrinking) 1.2 percent difference in base pairs that is so often quoted in the media. Add small insertions and deletions and the differences climb to about 3-5 percent, depending on whose estimate is used. Add another 2.7 percent for large scale duplications or deletions, another 6 percent for new Alu elements (a kind of mobile genetic element) and some unknown number for rearrangements of the DNA, other insertions of mobile genetic elements, or new genes, we have more than 11.7 percent of our genome with unique features not present in chimps.

There is only so much time for these differences to have accumulated. Mutations arise and are propagated from generation to generation, so the number of generations limits how many mutations can accumulate. The estimated mutation rate is about 10-8 per base pairs per generation, and we have an average generation time of somewhere between 10 and 25 years. Our estimated breeding population size six million years ago is thought to have been about 10,000 (these are all rough estimates based on numbers currently in use -- see the papers cited below). Based on these numbers, one can estimate how many years it would take to acquire all those mutations, assuming every mutation that occurred was saved, and stored up.

But there's a difficulty -- it's called genetic drift. In small populations, like the 10,000 estimate above, mutations are likely to be lost and have to reoccur many times before they actually stick. Just because of random effects (failure to reproduce due to accidental death, infertility, not finding a mate, or the death of all one's progeny), a particular neutral mutation may have to arise many times before it becomes established in the population, and then many more years before it finally becomes fixed (that is, before it takes over the population and replaces all other versions).

How long before a single, new mutation appears and becomes fixed? An estimate from a recent paper using numerical simulations is 1.5 million years. That is within the range of possibility. But what if two specific mutations are needed to effect a beneficial change? Their estimate is 84 million years. Other scientists have done this calculation using analytical methods, but their numbers are even worse. One report calculates 6 million years for one specific base change in an eight base target typical of the size of a DNA binding site to fix, and 100 million years to get two specific mutations. (That work was later amended to 216 million years.) Extrapolating from other published data merely confirms the problem.

Another paper came up with much shorter time frames by assuming that any 5 to 10 base pair binding site could arise anywhere within 1 Kb of any promoter within the genome.

Yet in all likelihood many more than two binding sites would be required to change anything significant, and those binding sites must be appropriate in location and in sequence to accomplish the necessary changes. They must work together in order for a specific adaptive change to happen.

Genes operate in networks, and to shift a gene regulatory network would require many mutations, and not just random ones. Remember there are anatomical physiological, behavioral, and intellectual differences to explain, multiple traits each requiring multiple coordinated mutations. Unless one invokes luck on a large scale, those traits would not have come to be.


I'm not betting on luck.

Darwinism Vs. the real world XIII

Controlling Blood Pressure Requires an Irreducibly Complex System:
Howard Glicksman September 22, 2015 12:32 PM

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 body is a multi-cellular organism that requires the circulation of blood within its cardiovascular system to give its cells what they need to live, grow, and work properly.

In the last article in this series, I explained what blood pressure is -- the force that blood exerts against the walls of the large systemic arteries as it flows through them.

Since blood has mass, its flow within the body is prevented by natural forces such as inertia, vascular resistance and gravity. The heart pumps the blood throughout the circulatory system and it is the blood pressure that represents the driving force for blood flow. When the left ventricle contracts, it pumps more blood into the systemic arteries, which causes the blood pressure to rise to a maximum, called the systolic pressure.

During diastole, while the heart is relaxed, the blood in the large systemic arteries rebounds back and forth between the arterioles and the closed aortic valve as some of it makes its way into the capillaries within the tissues. This causes the blood pressure to slowly drop, reaching its nadir just before systole and is called the diastolic pressure.

The three main factors that affect the blood pressure are the cardiac output, the blood volume and its distribution within the cardiovascular system, and the peripheral vascular resistance of the arterioles. In general, the more cardiac output, blood in the arteries, and peripheral vascular resistance, the higher the blood pressure and the less cardiac output, blood in the arteries and peripheral vascular resistance, the lower the blood pressure.

Life is a dynamic process in which the physiological functions of the body are always in a state of flux. Evolutionary biologists claim to have explained how human life has come about, but they only describe how it looks. What about how it actually works within the laws of nature to survive? Think about it. You are always on the move: going from lying down to sitting and standing up, from walking to running and jumping, from crouching and crawling to kneeling. All of these changes in position affect the blood pressure and how effective the cardiovascular system is in giving the tissues what they need to live and work properly. That's what the bodies of our earliest ancestors would need to have been able to do to survive. I will now look at some of the ways that the body takes control to maintain an adequate blood pressure.

Three of the most important chemicals involved in blood pressure control have already been mentioned within another context in previous articles. Norepinephrine and epinephrine, the neurohormones of the sympathetic nervous system, act quickly, within a split second. Angiotensin II, a hormone that comes about from the action of renin, secreted by the kidneys, and Anti-Diuretic Hormone, sent out by the posterior pituitary gland, are slower and usually act within a few minutes. It is important to realize that the effects of these chemicals is limited to only several minutes which allows the body to maintain moment to moment control of its blood pressure. The sensors, integrators and effectors that make up each of the systems for these chemicals to affect blood pressure will be looked at one at a time below.

There are sensors located in the main arteries directly supplying blood to the brain, which can detect wall distension. These are the baroreceptors, which by sensing the stretching within the arterial walls are able to detect the arterial blood pressure. They are a type of mechanoreceptor that senses movement, in contrast to the chemoreceptors which detect chemicals like oxygen, carbon dioxide and hydrogen ion. The baroreceptors send their data on the blood pressure by way of nerves to the brain. The brain integrates this information, and if the blood pressure is too low, it causes the release of more norepinephrine and epinephrine from the sympathetic nerves. By attaching to specific receptors, increased sympathetic stimulation affects all three of the factors mentioned above, which makes the blood pressure rise.

As noted previously, it makes the heart pump harder and faster, which increases the cardiac output. In addition, it causes the kidneys to absorb more Na+ ions and more water by the release of more ADH, which increases the blood volume. It also stimulates the systemic veins to send more blood back into the systemic arteries. Finally, it tells the muscles surrounding the arterioles to contract more which increases the peripheral vascular resistance. All of these actions combine to increase the blood pressure. However, if the blood pressure is where it should be or higher than normal, the sympathetic system releases less of these neurohormones, usually at only a basal rate.

As we've already seen, there are wall motion sensors located within specialized cells within the kidneys where the blood enters to be filtered. These sensory cells release a hormone, called renin, in an amount that is inversely related to how much wall motion they detect. The more the walls stretch, the less renin is sent out, and the less the walls stretch, the more renin is sent out. Renin is an enzyme that starts a chemical reaction which results in the formation of a hormone called angiotensin II. By attaching to specific receptors, angiotensin II affects two of the three factors that make blood pressure rise.

First, it causes the body to take in more salt and water and the kidneys to hold onto more as well. All of these actions increase the blood volume. And second, as its name denotes, angiotensin II makes the muscles surrounding the arterioles constrict, causing a rise in the peripheral vascular resistance. In fact, it is the most powerful vasconstrictor in the body, even more than norepinephine. Both of these actions make the blood pressure rise.

The osmoreceptors in the hypothalamus, which detect the water content of the body, are shrink sensitive and affect the release of ADH. The less water in the body, the more they shrink, and the more ADH they cause to be sent out by the posterior pituitary gland. And the more water in the body, the less they shrink and the less ADH is sent out. By attaching to specific receptors ADH affects two of the three factors that impact the blood pressure. More ADH causes the body to take in more water and the kidneys to bring back more from the urine in production, all of which increases blood volume. Another name for ADH is, vasopressin, which like norepinephrine and angiotensin II increases the peripheral vascular resistance by making the muscles surrounding the arterioles contract more as well. Both of these actions increase the blood pressure.

Each of the three systems mentioned above have their own sensors, integrators, and specific receptors, while using the same effectors to affect blood pressure. Dr. Michael Behe would call each of these systems irreducibly complex because without any one component, each system would fail and life would be impossible. But to anyone who has ever had a momentary feeling of dizziness on standing up, this experience tells us that just trying to explain the simultaneous development of each of these systems, or all of them at once, as difficult as that may be, should not be enough. For, when it comes to life, and being able to stand up to gravity, real numbers have real consequences.

Evolutionary biologists seek to tell us how life came into being. Yet they only even purport to explain how the different parts of the body supposedly came together -- without considering how biological function must also meet specific numerical benchmarks to work within the laws of nature. Maybe that's why the famous British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge was quoted as saying, "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has."


With that in mind, next time we'll look at how, where blood pressure is concerned, the numbers must be just right for us to stay standing.

The menace of 'settled science'.

From the Folks Who Brought You Camels and Lucky Strikes: "Consensus"
Bruce Chapman May 5, 2015 6:56 PM 

Spend some time with old issues of TimeMagazine or Look circa 1950 and you'll find ad after ad touting the doctors who smoke Camels or Lucky Strikes ("More Doctors Smoke Camels than Any Other Cigarette"). The PR agencies surveyed the doctors, sometimes counting hundreds of thousands of them, then advised readers that such and such brand was "not irritating on the throat," was "soothing," and other euphemisms for scientific approval of what turned out to be a deadly product.
Most doctors smoked in those days. There was a kind of consensus that smoking was okay, especially if you bought a particular brand, one with filters, perhaps. That the incidence of lung and throat cancer was rocketing didn't register fully on medical practitioners for a long while. The connection with heart disease also was missed.
All those doctors testifying on behalf of cigarettes didn't matter to the truth, did it? The cigarette makers did not exactly announce a scientific consensus, but they implied it.
History tells repeatedly of scientific consensus or implications of same that were driven by self-interest, expedience, groupthink, or just plain ignorance. As SUNY brain surgeon Michael Egnor notes, the consensus is for man-made global warming (aka, climate change), Darwinian evolution, and whatever the latest fad headline attests that "Scientists Say." In the case of forensic science and the FBI, it has turned into a scandal.
But such is the prestige of scientists that you will hunt hard for universities that tolerate contrarian views on politically delicate science issues, or will even allow debate. But the careful reader can find out for himself.

Figuratively speaking, put out that cigarette.

The menace of 'settled science'. II

"Ninety-five Percent of Forensic Scientists Agree..."
Michael Egnor May 5, 2015 3:12 PM



 Firedoglake, on the scandal involving forensic science and the FBI:

In a stunning revelation the FBI has admitted that it provided flawed forensic testimony on hundreds of cases in the two decades prior to the year 2000. The FBI forensic experts falsely stated forensic matches that favored prosecutors 95% of the time in the over 200 cases reviewed so far.
In 14 of the cases the FBI experts offered that flawed testimony in the defendants have either died in prison or been executed. Four previous defendants have been exonerated so far thanks to new reviews of FBI forensic testimony...
The misleading testimony of the forensic scientists was pervasive:
The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000. Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory's microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far...
This scandal is of extraordinary importance, yet I suggest that its importance is generally misunderstood.
It is clearly a scandal involving the criminal justice system; the false testimony of these scientists has sent innocent men to prison and possibly to death. Yet it is only secondarily a scandal of the criminal justice system.
It is primarily a scandal of the scientific community. The testimony clearly reflected a consensus within the community of forensic scientists who testify for the FBI. The fundamental scandal is that the FBI took scientists at their word --that their scientific findings were consensus science, and therefore good science.
In the courtroom, scientists favored the prosecution (their employer) 95 percent of the time. This echoes government-funded global warming scientists' claim that "97% of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is occurring."
The parallel to the controversy about global warming and Darwinian biology is striking. Many climate scientists demand that we restructure the world economy and even world governance according to "consensus climate science," and many evolutionary biologists insist that it is the scientific consensus that Darwinian mechanisms explain all biological adaptation and that this consensus precludes discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory in schools.
No doubt the forensic scientists insisted, as climate scientists and evolutionary biologists still insist, that their findings were facts, and that there is a scientific consensus to support their proclamations. No doubt defense experts were labeled deniers (or the forensic equivalent) for questioning the consensus science, just as skeptical climate scientists and biologists are labeled "deniers" for asking probing questions about climate science and evolutionary biology.
Consensus climate science and consensus evolutionary biology are no more credible than consensus forensic science. If anything, forensic scientists' ethical standards are higher than those of climate scientists and evolutionary biologists, who don't proclaim their theories in situations in which life and freedom are immediately at stake, who are unaccountable to the justice system, and who aren't under oath when they make their proclamations about scientific unanimity.
This lesson is clear: consensus science isn't science. Consensus science is groupthink, ideology-mongering, and censorship masquerading as science. Science is a continuous process of inquiry. We should reject "consensus science" in the courtroom, in the classroom, and in the public square.

Time to close the door on the world's huddled masses?:pros and cons.

The dragon in winter

The Watchtower Society's commentary on the biblical meaning of "soul"

SOUL

The original-language terms (Heb., ne′phesh [נֶפֶשׁ]; Gr., psy·khe′ [ψυχή]) as used in the Scriptures show “soul” to be a person, an animal, or the life that a person or an animal enjoys.

The connotations that the English “soul” commonly carries in the minds of most persons are not in agreement with the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words as used by the inspired Bible writers. This fact has steadily gained wider acknowledgment. Back in 1897, in the Journal of Biblical Literature (Vol. XVI, p. 30), Professor C. A. Briggs, as a result of detailed analysis of the use of ne′phesh, observed: “Soul in English usage at the present time conveys usually a very different meaning from נפש [ne′phesh] in Hebrew, and it is easy for the incautious reader to misinterpret.”

More recently, when The Jewish Publication Society of America issued a new translation of the Torah, or first five books of the Bible, the editor-in-chief, H. M. Orlinsky of Hebrew Union College, stated that the word “soul” had been virtually eliminated from this translation because, “the Hebrew word in question here is ‘Nefesh.’” He added: “Other translators have interpreted it to mean ‘soul,’ which is completely inaccurate. The Bible does not say we have a soul. ‘Nefesh’ is the person himself, his need for food, the very blood in his veins, his being.”—The New York Times, October 12, 1962.

What is the origin of the teaching that the human soul is invisible and immortal?

The difficulty lies in the fact that the meanings popularly attached to the English word “soul” stem primarily, not from the Hebrew or Christian Greek Scriptures, but from ancient Greek philosophy, actually pagan religious thought. Greek philosopher Plato, for example, quotes Socrates as saying: “The soul, . . . if it departs pure, dragging with it nothing of the body, . . . goes away into that which is like itself, into the invisible, divine, immortal, and wise, and when it arrives there it is happy, freed from error and folly and fear . . . and all the other human ills, and . . . lives in truth through all after time with the gods.”—Phaedo, 80, D, E; 81, A.

In direct contrast with the Greek teaching of the psy·khe′ (soul) as being immaterial, intangible, invisible, and immortal, the Scriptures show that both psy·khe′ and ne′phesh, as used with reference to earthly creatures, refer to that which is material, tangible, visible, and mortal.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Nepes [ne′phesh] is a term of far greater extension than our ‘soul,’ signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man—man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15, 17; 13.37).”—1967, Vol. XIII, p. 467.

The Roman Catholic translation, The New American Bible, in its “Glossary of Biblical Theology Terms” (pp. 27, 28), says: “In the New Testament, to ‘save one’s soul’ (Mk 8:35) does not mean to save some ‘spiritual’ part of man, as opposed to his ‘body’ (in the Platonic sense) but the whole person with emphasis on the fact that the person is living, desiring, loving and willing, etc., in addition to being concrete and physical.”—Edition published by P. J. Kenedy Sons, New York, 1970.

Ne′phesh evidently comes from a root meaning “breathe” and in a literal sense ne′phesh could be rendered as “a breather.” Koehler and Baumgartner’s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1958, p. 627) defines it as: “the breathing substance, making man a[nd] animal living beings Gn 1, 20, the soul (strictly distinct from the greek notion of soul) the seat of which is the blood Gn 9, 4f Lv 17, 11 Dt 12, 23: (249 X) . . . soul = living being, individual, person.”

As for the Greek word psy·khe′, Greek-English lexicons give such definitions as “life,” and “the conscious self or personality as centre of emotions, desires, and affections,” “a living being,” and they show that even in non-Biblical Greek works the term was used “of animals.” Of course, such sources, treating as they do primarily of classical Greek writings, include all the meanings that the pagan Greek philosophers gave to the word, including that of “departed spirit,” “the immaterial and immortal soul,” “the spirit of the universe,” and “the immaterial principle of movement and life.” Evidently because some of the pagan philosophers taught that the soul emerged from the body at death, the term psy·khe′ was also applied to the “butterfly or moth,” which creatures go through a metamorphosis, changing from caterpillar to winged creature.—Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, revised by H. Jones, 1968, pp. 2026, 2027; Donnegan’s New Greek and English Lexicon, 1836, p. 1404.

The ancient Greek writers applied psy·khe′ in various ways and were not consistent, their personal and religious philosophies influencing their use of the term. Of Plato, to whose philosophy the common ideas about the English “soul” may be attributed (as is generally acknowledged), it is stated: “While he sometimes speaks of one of [the alleged] three parts of the soul, the ‘intelligible,’ as necessarily immortal, while the other two parts are mortal, he also speaks as if there were two souls in one body, one immortal and divine, the other mortal.”—The Evangelical Quarterly, London, 1931, Vol. III, p. 121, “Thoughts on the Tripartite Theory of Human Nature,” by A. McCaig.

In view of such inconsistency in non-Biblical writings, it is essential to let the Scriptures speak for themselves, showing what the inspired writers meant by their use of the term psy·khe′, as well as by ne′phesh. Ne′phesh occurs 754 times in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Scriptures, while psy·khe′ appears by itself 102 times in the Westcott and Hort text of the Christian Greek Scriptures, giving a total of 856 occurrences. (See NW appendix, p. 1573.) This frequency of occurrence makes possible a clear concept of the sense that these terms conveyed to the minds of the inspired Bible writers and the sense their writings should convey to our mind. An examination shows that, while the sense of these terms is broad, with different shades of meaning, among the Bible writers there was no inconsistency, confusion, or disharmony as to man’s nature, as existed among the Grecian philosophers of the so-called Classical Period.

Earth’s First Souls. The initial occurrences of ne′phesh are found at Genesis 1:20-23. On the fifth creative “day” God said: “‘Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls [ne′phesh] and let flying creatures fly over the earth . . .’ And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul [ne′phesh] that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind.” Similarly on the sixth creative “day” ne′phesh is applied to the “domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth” as “living souls.”—Ge 1:24.

After man’s creation, God’s instruction to him again used the term ne′phesh with regard to the animal creation, “everything moving upon the earth in which there is life as a soul [literally, in which there is living soul (ne′phesh)].” (Ge 1:30) Other examples of animals being so designated are found at Genesis 2:19; 9:10-16; Leviticus 11:10, 46; 24:18; Numbers 31:28; Ezekiel 47:9. Notably, the Christian Greek Scriptures coincide in applying the Greek psy·khe′ to animals, as at Revelation 8:9; 16:3, where it is used of creatures in the sea.

Thus, the Scriptures clearly show that ne′phesh and psy·khe′ are used to designate the animal creation lower than man. The same terms apply to man.

The Human Soul. Precisely the same Hebrew phrase used of the animal creation, namely, ne′phesh chai·yah′ (living soul), is applied to Adam, when, after God formed man out of dust from the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, “the man came to be a living soul.” (Ge 2:7) Man was distinct from the animal creation, but that distinction was not because he was a ne′phesh (soul) and they were not. Rather, the record shows that it was because man alone was created “in God’s image.” (Ge 1:26, 27) He was created with moral qualities like those of God, with power and wisdom far superior to the animals; hence he could have in subjection all the lower forms of creature life. (Ge 1:26, 28) Man’s organism was more complex, as well as more versatile, than that of the animals. (Compare 1Co 15:39.) Likewise, Adam had, but lost, the prospect of eternal life; this is never stated with regard to the creatures lower than man.—Ge 2:15-17; 3:22-24.

It is true that the account says that ‘God proceeded to blow into the man’s nostrils the breath [form of nesha·mah′] of life,’ whereas this is not stated in the account of the animal creation. Clearly, however, the account of the creation of man is much more detailed than that of the creation of animals. Moreover, Genesis 7:21-23, in describing the Flood’s destruction of “all flesh” outside the ark, lists the animal creatures along with mankind and says: “Everything in which the breath [form of nesha·mah′] of the force of life was active in its nostrils, namely, all that were on the dry ground, died.” Obviously, the breath of life of the animal creatures also originally came from the Creator, Jehovah God.

So, too, the “spirit” (Heb., ru′ach; Gr., pneu′ma), or life-force, of man is not distinct from the life-force in animals, as is shown by Ecclesiastes 3:19-21, which states that “they all have but one spirit [weru′ach].”

Soul—A Living Creature. As stated, man “came to be a living soul”; hence man was a soul, he did not have a soul as something immaterial, invisible, and intangible residing inside him. The apostle Paul shows that the Christian teaching did not differ from the earlier Hebrew teaching, for he quotes Genesis 2:7 in saying: “It is even so written: ‘The first man Adam became a living soul [psy·khen′ zo′san].’ . . . The first man is out of the earth and made of dust.”—1Co 15:45-47.

The Genesis account shows that a living soul results from the combination of the earthly body with the breath of life. The expression “breath of the force of life [literally, breath of the spirit, or active force (ru′ach), of life]” (Ge 7:22) indicates that it is by breathing air (with its oxygen) that the life-force, or “spirit,” in all creatures, man and animals, is sustained. This life-force is found in every cell of the creature’s body, as is discussed under LIFE; SPIRIT.

Since the term ne′phesh refers to the creature itself, we should expect to find the normal physical functions or characteristics of fleshly creatures attributed to it. This is exactly the case. Ne′phesh (soul) is spoken of as eating flesh, fat, blood, or similar material things (Le 7:18, 20, 25, 27; 17:10, 12, 15; De 23:24); being hungry for or craving food and drink (De 12:15, 20, 21; Ps 107:9; Pr 19:15; 27:7; Isa 29:8; 32:6; Mic 7:1); being made fat (Pr 11:25); fasting (Ps 35:13); touching unclean things, such as a dead body (Le 5:2; 7:21; 17:15; 22:6; Nu 19:13); being ‘seized as a pledge’ or being ‘kidnapped’ (De 24:6, 7); doing work (Le 23:30); being refreshed by cold water when tired (Pr 25:25); being purchased (Le 22:11; Eze 27:13); being given as a vow offering (Le 27:2); being put in irons (Ps 105:18); being sleepless (Ps 119:28); and struggling for breath (Jer 15:9).

It may be noted that in many texts reference is made to “my soul,” “his [or her] soul,” “your soul,” and so forth. This is because ne′phesh and psy·khe′ can mean one’s own self as a soul. The sense of the term can therefore often be expressed in English by use of personal pronouns. Thus Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (p. 627) shows that “my ne′phesh” means “I” (Ge 27:4, 25; Isa 1:14); “your [singular] ne′phesh” means “thou” or “you” (Ge 27:19, 31; Isa 43:4; 51:23); “his ne′phesh” means “he, himself” (Nu 30:2; Isa 53:10); “her ne′phesh” means “she, herself” (Nu 30:5-12), and so forth.

The Greek term psy·khe′ is used similarly. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1981, Vol. 4, p. 54) says it may be used as “the equivalent of the personal pronoun, used for emphasis and effect:—1st person, John 10:24 (‘us’); Heb. 10:38; cp. [compare] Gen. 12:13; Num. 23:10; Jud. 16:30; Ps. 120:2 (‘me’); 2nd person, 2 Cor. 12:15; Heb. 13:17,” and so forth.

Represents life as a creature. Both ne′phesh and psy·khe′ are also used to mean life—not merely as an abstract force or principle—but life as a creature, human or animal.

Thus when Rachel was giving birth to Benjamin, her ne′phesh (“soul,” or life as a creature) went out from her and she died. (Ge 35:16-19) She ceased to be a living creature. Similarly, when the prophet Elijah performed a miracle regarding the dead son of the widow of Zarephath, the child’s ne′phesh (“soul,” or life as a creature) came back into him and “he came to life,” was again a living creature.—1Ki 17:17-23.

Because the creature’s life is so inseparably connected with and dependent on blood (shed blood standing for the life of the person or creature [Ge 4:10; 2Ki 9:26; Ps 9:12; Isa 26:21]), the Scriptures speak of the ne′phesh (soul) as being “in the blood.” (Ge 9:4; Le 17:11, 14; De 12:23) This is, obviously, not meant literally, inasmuch as the Scriptures also speak of the “blood of your souls” (Ge 9:5; compare Jer 2:34) and the many references already considered could not reasonably be applied solely to the blood or its life-supporting qualities.

Ne′phesh (soul) is not used with reference to the creation of vegetable life on the third creative “day” (Ge 1:11-13) or thereafter, since vegetation is bloodless.

Examples of the use of the Greek psy·khe′ to mean “life as a creature” may be found at Matthew 6:25; 10:39; 16:25, 26; Luke 12:20; John 10:11, 15; 13:37, 38; 15:13; Acts 20:10. Since God’s servants have the hope of a resurrection in the event of death, they have the hope of living again as “souls,” or living creatures. For that reason Jesus could say that “whoever loses his soul [his life as a creature] for the sake of me and the good news will save it. Really, of what benefit is it for a man to gain the whole world and to forfeit his soul? What, really, would a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Mr 8:35-37) Similarly, he stated: “He that is fond of his soul destroys it, but he that hates his soul in this world will safeguard it for everlasting life.” (Joh 12:25) These texts, and others like them, show the correct understanding of Jesus’ words at Matthew 10:28: “Do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; but rather be in fear of him that can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.” While men can kill the body, they cannot kill the person for all time, inasmuch as he lives in God’s purpose (compare Lu 20:37, 38) and God can and will restore such faithful one to life as a creature by means of a resurrection. For God’s servants, the loss of their “soul,” or life as a creature, is only temporary, not permanent.—Compare Re 12:11.

Mortal and destructible. On the other hand, Matthew 10:28 states that God “can destroy both soul [psy·khen′] and body in Gehenna.” This shows that psy·khe′ does not refer to something immortal or indestructible. There is, in fact, not one case in the entire Scriptures, Hebrew and Greek, in which the words ne′phesh or psy·khe′ are modified by terms such as immortal, indestructible, imperishable, deathless, or the like. (See IMMORTALITY; INCORRUPTION.) On the other hand, there are scores of texts in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures that speak of the ne′phesh or psy·khe′ (soul) as mortal and subject to death (Ge 19:19, 20; Nu 23:10; Jos 2:13, 14; Jg 5:18; 16:16, 30; 1Ki 20:31, 32; Ps 22:29; Eze 18:4, 20; Mt 2:20; 26:38; Mr 3:4; Heb 10:39; Jas 5:20); as dying, being “cut off” or destroyed (Ge 17:14; Ex 12:15; Le 7:20; 23:29; Jos 10:28-39; Ps 78:50; Eze 13:19; 22:27; Ac 3:23; Re 8:9; 16:3), whether by sword (Jos 10:37; Eze 33:6) or by suffocation (Job 7:15), or being in danger of death due to drowning (Jon 2:5); and also as going down into the pit or into Sheol (Job 33:22; Ps 89:48) or being delivered therefrom (Ps 16:10; 30:3; 49:15; Pr 23:14).

Dead soul. The expression ‘deceased or dead soul’ also appears a number of times, meaning simply “a dead person.”—Le 19:28; 21:1, 11; 22:4; Nu 5:2; 6:6; Hag 2:13; compare Nu 19:11, 13.

Desire. At times the word ne′phesh is used to express the desire of the individual, one that fills him and then occupies him in achieving its goal. Proverbs 13:2, for example, says of those dealing treacherously that ‘their very soul is violence,’ that is, that they are ‘all out’ for violence, in effect, become violence personified. (Compare Ge 34:3, ftn; Ps 27:12; 35:25; 41:2.) Israel’s false shepherds are called “dogs strong in soul[ful desire],” who have known no satisfaction.—Isa 56:11, 12; compare Pr 23:1-3; Hab 2:5.

Serving With One’s Whole Soul. The “soul” basically means the entire person, as has been shown. Yet certain texts exhort us to seek for, love, and serve God with ‘all our heart and all our soul’ (De 4:29; 11:13, 18), while Deuteronomy 6:5 says: “You must love Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your vital force.” Jesus said it was necessary to serve with one’s whole soul and strength and, additionally, “with your whole mind.” (Mr 12:30; Lu 10:27) The question arises as to why these other things are mentioned with the soul, since it embraces them all. To illustrate the probable meaning: A person might sell himself (his soul) into slavery to another, thereby becoming the possession of his owner and master. Yet he might not serve his master wholeheartedly, with full motivation and desire to please him, and thus he might not use his full strength or his full mental capacity to advance his master’s interests. (Compare Eph 6:5; Col 3:22.) Hence these other facets are evidently mentioned to focus attention on them so that we do not fail to remember and consider them in our service to God, to whom we belong, and to his Son, whose life was the ransom price that bought us. “Whole-souled” service to God involves the entire person, no bodily part, function, capacity, or desire being left out.—Compare Mt 5:28-30; Lu 21:34-36; Eph 6:6-9; Php 3:19; Col 3:23, 24.

Soul and Spirit Are Distinct. The “spirit” (Heb., ru′ach; Gr., pneu′ma) should not be confused with the “soul” (Heb., ne′phesh; Gr., psy·khe′), for they refer to different things. Thus, Hebrews 4:12 speaks of the Word of God as ‘piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints and their marrow.’ (Compare also Php 1:27; 1Th 5:23.) As has been shown, the soul (ne′phesh; psy·khe′) is the creature itself. The spirit (ru′ach; pneu′ma) generally refers to the life-force of the living creature or soul, though the original-language terms may also have other meanings.

Illustrating further the distinction between the Greek psy·khe′ and pneu′ma is the apostle Paul’s discussion, in his first letter to the Corinthians, of the resurrection of Christians to spirit life. Here he contrasts “that which is physical [psy·khi·kon′, literally, soulical]” with “that which is spiritual [pneu·ma·ti·kon′].” Thus, he shows that Christians until the time of their death have a “soulical” body, even as did the first man Adam; whereas, in their resurrection such anointed Christians receive a spiritual body like that of the glorified Jesus Christ. (1Co 15:42-49) Jude makes a somewhat similar comparison in speaking of “animalistic men [psy·khi·koi′, literally, soulical (men)], not having spirituality [literally, not having spirit (pneu′ma)].”—Jude 19.

God as Having Soul. In view of the foregoing, it appears that the scriptures in which God speaks of “my soul” (Le 26:11, 30; Ps 24:4; Isa 42:1) are yet another instance of an anthropomorphic usage, that is, the attributing of physical and human characteristics to God to facilitate understanding, as when God is spoken of as having eyes, hands, and so forth. By speaking of ‘my ne′phesh,’ Jehovah clearly means “myself” or “my person.” “God is a Spirit [Pneu′ma].”—Joh 4:24; see JEHOVAH (Descriptions of his presence).

At last some candor from a Darwinian apologist

An Honest Assessment of Why Darwinism Is Popular
Granville Sewell September 21, 2015 2:47 PM 


High school and college biology texts almost uniformly present Darwinian evolution as a theory that is now as well established as any other theory in science, and almost uniformly refuse to acknowledge that any serious scientists have doubts that the struggle for survival could produce human brains and human consciousness.


James Madison University mathematician Jason Rosenhouse has written a post criticizing a post, "Mathematicians Are Trained to Value Simplicity," that I wrote at Uncommon Descent. The main point of my article was that if you don't believe in intelligent design, you must believe that a few fundamental, unintelligent forces of physics alone can rearrange the basic particles of physics into (for example) Apple iPhones and nuclear reactors. I linked to a video, embedded below, which makes this point in a little more "scientific" manner.My first thought on reading the response from Rosenhouse was, wouldn't it be nice if high school biology texts presented as honest an assessment of the real reasons most scientists accept Darwinism as Jason Rosenhouse does. He writes:

Personally, I find it incredible that the four fundamental forces of physics, operating from the moment after the Big Bang, could rearrange matter into everything that we see today. That unintelligent causes can ultimately lead to the creation of intelligent creatures, who can then rearrange matter and energy in clever ways, is, I entirely agree, hard to believe. And Darwinian evolution strains credulity as well. I am very sympathetic to the view that natural forces do not construct delicate, biomolecular machines.

But he concludes:

However superficially implausible they seem, the only alternative on offer is much harder to believe.

Sewell urges us to look for the simple explanation. But there is nothing simple in the idea of an omnipotent magic man who lives in the clouds. Whatever mysteries you think you have found in the naturalistic view of life pale in comparison to what happens when you try to comprehend an entity with the attributes God is said to have...

Young children are content with magical, supernatural explanations for things. But as we grow up most of us come to realize that invocations of God never really explain much of anything. They just create big mysteries where only small ones existed before.

Actually, I didn't say "God" was a simple explanation. I didn't even mention God. I just said that there was a very simple argument against any naturalistic explanation. Of course I do understand why many people find invocations of "God" difficult to accept. All explanations of how we got here are difficult to believe. Yet here we are.

But telling high school students that no good scientists doubt that the survival of the fittest can account for all the magnificent species in the living world, and pretending to be surprised that anyone would find this idea surprising, is not the only alternative to attributing it to a "magic man who lives in the clouds." There is always the alternative of honestly admitting that we don't know how life began or evolved, and that some scientists think these problems are fundamentally harder than others solved by science.

How about acknowledging, as Rosenhouse does, that "Darwinian evolution strains credulity," and that it remains popular with scientists primarily because they see it as the only alternative to intelligent design? Then maybe we could let students wrestle for themselves with the philosophical question of whether it seems more reasonable to believe that intelligence came first and created the unintelligent forces of nature, or that these unintelligent forces created intelligence.

Now if biology textbooks would start presenting evolution as candidly as Jason Rosenhouse does, I would be quite satisfied.

Dr. Sewell is professor of mathematics at the University of Texas El Paso, and author of a recent Discovery Institute Press book, In the Beginning and Other Essays on Intelligent Design, 2nd edition.