Darwinism Vs. the real world XXI

Clotting: Controlling the System
Howard Glicksman November 28, 2015 2:28 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 human body is made up of matter and must follow the laws of nature. Since blood is under pressure as it circulates throughout the body, these laws cause bleeding when blood vessel damage takes place. It's just like what happens when a water pipe bursts in the home. To prevent serious injury or death, the body had to come up with a mechanism that could apply a substance strong enough to stop the blood loss.

This innovation is called hemostasis and involves three actions; vasoconstriction, platelet aggregation, and activation of the clotting factors. Hemostasis ultimately forms a fibrin clot, stops the bleeding, and allows healing to take place. However, since heart attacks and strokes occur due to clotting, the body must be able to control hemostasis so that it only turns on when it's needed and turns off and stays off when it's not. In other words, controlled hemostasis is a delicate balance between the forces that promote and prevent clotting.

It is the endothelium, lining the inner surface of the blood vessel, that provides a chemical environment to prevent vasoconstriction and platelet aggregation. When blood vessel and endothelial damage takes place, this changes the milieu and allows these first two components of hemostasis to swing into action. My last article in this series explained how activation of the clotting factors to form a fibrin clot takes place. We will now look at the anti-clotting mechanisms the body uses to control hemostasis.

To understand how the anti-clotting mechanisms work, it's important to review how activating the clotting factors, most of which are produced in the liver and are dissolved in the blood, produces a fibrin clot. Fibrinogen, which attaches to binding sites on the platelet plug, must be activated by an enzyme called thrombin to become fibrin. Thrombin also activates Factor XIII which helps to strengthen and stabilize the fibrin clot. Thrombin comes about from the activation of prothrombin by prothrombinase which is an enzyme made up of activated Factors V and X. Prothrombinase, which converts prothrombin into thrombin, which then converts fibrinogen into fibrin, is the key to fibrin clot formation.

Medical science has determined that there are two chemical pathways for the production of prothrombinase. One is called the Tissue Factor Pathway. This pathway involves activation of Factor VII which, with blood vessel injury, comes in contact with Tissue Factor, a protein on the surface of the tissue that supports the blood vessel. Activated Factor VII activates Factor X, which joins activated Factor V to form prothrombinase.

The other pathway is called the Contact Activation Pathway. This takes place due to direct contact of blood with the damaged tissue and involves other clotting factors. The contact first activates Factor XII, which activates Factor XI, which activates Factor IX, which with the help of Factor VIII, activates Factor X. Activated Factor X then joins activated Factor V to form prothrombinase.

The combination of events involving the clotting factors when blood vessel injury takes place that results in the formation of a fibrin clot is called the coagulation cascade. Now that you understand how clotting takes place we can look at the anti-clotting mechanisms that the body uses to control hemostasis.

In the same way it provides a chemical environment to prevent vasoconstriction and platelet aggregation, normal endothelium sends out anti-clotting factors that deactivate and neutralize some of the clotting factors to prevent fibrin clot formation. So, when the endothelium is disrupted by injury, the loss of these anti-clotting factors removes the inhibition of the powerful coagulation cascade and clot formation is allowed to take place. Also, since the vessel walls on either side of the injury still have an intact endothelium, this usually prevents activation of the clotting factor in either direction from the injury site. In this way, fibrin clot formation is usually limited to mainly the site of blood vessel injury.

The liver produces a protein called antithrombin,which is the body's main inhibitor of thrombin. Antithrombin works by chemically entrapping thrombin, like a fly in a spider web. This makes thrombin unavailable to convert fibrinogen into fibrin and prevents clotting. However, normal endothelium produces a chemical called heparan sulfate which, when it attaches to antithrombin, makes it change its shape in a way that enhances its ability (by more than a thousand fold) to bind thrombin. Antithrombin also blocks activated Factor X and to a lesser degree activated Factors IX and VII. Since all of these clotting factors are needed in the chain reaction that produces thrombin, one can see that the combination of antithrombin (made in the liver) and heparan sulfate (made in the endothelium) work well together to prevent clot formation.

Another chemical produced by intact endothelium is thrombomodulin. Thrombomodulin attaches to thrombin and together they activate protein C,which is also produced in the liver. Activated protein C (APC) is a protease which breaks specific chemical bonds and neutralizes activated Factors V and VIII. Since both of these clotting factors are needed for the coagulation cascade to work properly, it's apparent that the combination of protein C(made in the liver) and thrombomodulin (made in the endothelium) also work well together to prevent clotting.

Recall from above, that the Tissue Factor pathwayworks because Factor VII is activated when it comes in contact with Tissue Factor after blood vessel damage occurs. Another anti-clotting factor produced in normal endothelium is Tissue Factor Pathway Inhibitor (TFPI), which works to prevent clotting by attaching to activated Factor X and deactivating it. This complex is then able to attach to activated Factor VII and deactivate it as well.

So, in summary, the clottingfactors in the blood remain inactive until blood vessel injury takes place to turn on the coagulation cascade. Meanwhile, the liver and the endothelium combine to produce anti-clotting factors that together work to turn off hemostasis and allow it to stay off when it's not needed. It is this delicate balance of clotting and anti-clotting factors that allows the body to normally be able to stop bleeding when injured, while at the same time allowing blood to flow freely to the tissues. Moreover, the total absence of fibrinogen, or prothrombin, or Tissue Factor, or Factor V, or Factor VII, or Factor VIII, or Factor IX, or Factor X, or Factor XI, or Factor XIII, or antithrombin, or protein C or TFPI would have made it impossible for our earliest ancestors to live long enough to reproduce.

Michael Behe has described a system where the absence of any one part renders it non-functional as being irreducibly complex. It certainly looks like hemostasis is irreducibly complex, because if any one of the many clotting or anti-clotting factors were absent life would be impossible.


However, as I have stated before, having an irreducibly complex system does not automatically allow for survival. The body must follow the laws of nature, and when it comes to hemostasis, these laws demand that there be enough platelets and clotting and anti-clotting factors present and that they work fast and well. Evolutionary biologists may imagine how each of these factors came into being but clinical experience shows that when it comes to hemostasis and survival, real numbers have real consequences. That's what we'll look at next time.

Islamic moderates struggle with their extremist counterparts for the soul of the 'umma'

Rumors of Wars IV

On the Origin of Israel's sabbath law

In the course of advocating the retention of the weekly O.T Sabbath in Christian worship some of our Adventists friends/neighbours suggests that the the requirement to observe a weekly Sabbath preceded the mosaic law.While recognising the right of all such to to their opinion I hope to illustrate why many sincere bible students would have difficulty accepting such a view.
Let's begin by taking note of Jehovah's Word penned through Moses at Deuteronomy5:3,4ASV "Jehovah made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. Jehovah spake with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire(emphasis mine)"
These are the words of the prophet Moses,Jehovah's servant,prior to restating the decalogue( which included the weekly Sabbath law) as the basis for the nation's covenant with God almighty.Note please that this covenant and hence its legal basis was not laid upon the nation's ancestral patriarchs.In fact Moses goes on to specifically state that the Covenant and its accompanying legislature was only binding on those gathered in the flesh on that day and by implication any subsequent offspring.
The view of our lord is also of interest observe for instance his words at John7:19ASV" Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you doeth the law? Why seek ye to kill me?"
To reinforce the point note verse 22,23ASV"Moses hath given you circumcision (not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers); and on the sabbath ye circumcise a man.If a man receiveth circumcision on the sabbath, that the law of Moses may not be broken; are ye wroth with me, because I made a man every whit whole on the sabbath?(emphasis mine)" Please note that our Lord takes utmost care to delineate between that which originated through Moses and that which originated through the Patriarchs prior to Moses,circumcision is of the "Fathers"the covenanted law including the weekly Sabbath is of Moses.Given the above mentioned facts the claim that the weekly O.T Sabbath is some kind of continuation of patriarchal law seems week to many.

Jehovah God sends Darwinists back to school re:optimisation.

Backwards eye wiring? Lee Spetner comments
November 26, 2015 Posted by News under Design inference, Evolution

A friend must have been a really jumpin’ social event recently. Was buttonholed by a Darwin follower, just up from the crypt, who launched into the hoary old claim that the backwards eye wiring of vertebrates shows that the vertebrate eye is poorly designed—therefore not designed at all.

Now, of course, it is a non-sequitur to say that something that is poorly designed is not designed at all. Which is the followers’ point. Thus, it is unclear why they find eye wiring even an interesting argument, let alone a compelling one. No matter.


In any actual (rather than imaginary) situation, one can hope only for optimal, not “perfect” design. Perfection does not exist in time and space as Lee Spetner, author of The Evolution Revolution, kindly writes to say,

The retina of the eye is the screen on which the eye’s optical image is focused. Nerves (bundled in the optic nerve) convey the image information to the brain. One would think the nerves (neurons) should come off the back of the retina, the side opposite the one having the image. But in vertebrates they, surprisingly, come off the front where the image is formed. A naive observer would think this to be a poor arrangement because the neurons might interfere with the light falling on the retina. The Darwinists say, with their usual theological argument, that if it were designed by an omniscient Creator, it would surely have the nerve connections coming out of the back side of the retina. Since they come off the front side, against one’s expectation, Darwinists conclude there is no omniscient Creator and therefore evolution must be true. [11] …

With regard to the inverted retina, it has recently been discovered that, rather than being a dumb design, it is actually remarkably clever. The cleverness is not in the neurons on the image side of the retina, but in the glial cells, which always accompany neurons. The neurons are transparent and do not interfere with the passage of light, but the glial cells aid the process of vision by channeling the light. The glial cells of the retina are long and thin and propagate light as in an optical fiber (Franze et al. 2007), and have been called “ingeniously designed light collectors.” Amichai Labin and Ezra Ribak of the physics department of the Technion (Israel Institute of Technology) have shown by simulation and calculation that the glial cells improve the optical resolution of the retina and compensate for chromatic aberration (Labin and Ribak 2010). Had the optic neurons come off the back side of the retina, these advantages would not have accrued.

[11] Of course, they have no precise idea of how evolution could have led to the development of the retina. Typical of their vague arguments, they don’t know what mutations would be necessary to generate the nerve network, or if it could be done at all through a sequence of adaptive mutations.

More on “backwards” eye wiring, if of interest:

2011: A New Article in Salvo Magazine Rebuts Objections that the Vertebrate Eye is Poorly Designed

Dawkins concedes that the optic nerve’s impact on vision is “probably not much,” but the negative effect is even less than he admits. Only if you cover one eye and stare directly at a fixed point does a tiny “blind spot” appear in your peripheral vision as a result of the optic nerve covering the retina. When both eyes are functional, the brain compensates for the blind spot by meshing the visual fields of both eyes. Under normal circumstances, the nerves’ wiring does nothing to hinder vision.

Nonetheless, Dawkins argues that even if the design works, it would “offend any tidy-minded engineer.” But the overall design of the eye actually optimizes visual acuity.

To achieve the high-quality vision that vertebrates need, retinal cells require a large blood supply. By facing the photoreceptor cells toward the back of the retina, and extending the optic nerve out over them, the cells are able to plug directly into the blood vessels that feed the eye, maximizing access to blood.

Yes, there’s that concept of optimization…

2014: Phys.org: Specialized Retinal Cells Are a “Design Feature,” Showing that the Argument for Suboptimal Design of the Eye “Is Folly”

Now a new paper in Nature Communications, “Müller cells separate between wavelengths to improve day vision with minimal effect upon night vision,” has expanded upon this research, further showing the eye’s optimal design. According to the paper, Müller cells not only act as optical fibers to direct incoming light through the optic nerve, but are fine-tuned to specific wavelengths to ensure that light reaches the proper retinal cells.we know it.

File under 'Well said' XV

"People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war, or before an election." Otto von Bismarck

The Watchtower Society's commentary on the Books of Kings

KINGS, BOOKS OF

Books of the Holy Scriptures relating the history of Israel from the last days of King David until the release of King Jehoiachin from prison in Babylon.

Originally the two books of Kings comprised one roll called Kings (Heb., Mela·khimʹ), and in the Hebrew Bible today they are still counted as one book, the fourth in the section known as the Former Prophets. In the Greek Septuagint the Books of the Kings were called Third and Fourth Kingdoms, the Books of Samuel having been designated First and Second Kingdoms. In the Latin Vulgate these books were together known as the four books of Kings because Jerome preferred the name Regum (Kings), in harmony with the Hebrew title, to the literal translation of the Septuagint title Regnorum (Kingdoms). Division into two books in the Septuagint became expedient because the Greek translation with vowels required almost twice as much space as did Hebrew, in which no vowels were used until the second half of the first millennium of the Common Era. The division between Second Samuel and First Kings has not always been at the same place in the Greek versions. Lucian, for one, in his recension of the Septuagint, made the division so that First Kings commenced with what is 1 Kings 2:12 in our present-day Bibles.

Writing of the Books. Although the name of the writer of the books of Kings is not given in the two accounts, Scriptural indications and Jewish tradition point to Jeremiah. Many Hebrew words and expressions found in these two books appear elsewhere in the Bible only in Jeremiah’s prophecy. The books of Kings and the book of Jeremiah complement each other; events, as a rule, are briefly covered in one if they are fully described in the other. Absence of any mention of Jeremiah in the books of Kings, although he was a very prominent prophet, could be expected if Jeremiah was the writer, because his activities were detailed in the book bearing his name. The books of Kings tell of conditions in Jerusalem after the exile had begun, indicating that the writer had not been taken to Babylon, even as Jeremiah was not.—Jer 40:5, 6.

Some scholars see in the books of Kings what they consider to be evidence of the work of more than one writer or compiler. However, except for variation because of the sources used, it must be observed that the language, style, vocabulary, and grammar are uniform throughout.

First Kings covers a period of about 129 years, commencing with the final days of King David, about 1040 B.C.E., and running through to the death of Judean King Jehoshaphat in about 911 B.C.E. (1Ki 22:50) Second Kings begins with Ahaziah’s reign (c. 920 B.C.E.) and carries through to the end of the 37th year of Jehoiachin’s exile, 580 B.C.E., a period of about 340 years. (2Ki 1:1, 2; 25:27-30) Hence the combined accounts of the books of Kings cover about four and a half centuries of Hebrew history. As the events recorded therein include those up to 580 B.C.E., these books could not have been completed before this date, and because there is no mention of the termination of the Babylonian exile, they, as one roll, were undoubtedly finished before that time.

The place of writing for both books appears to have been, for the most part, Judah, because most of the source material would be available there. However, Second Kings was logically completed in Egypt, where Jeremiah was taken after the assassination of Gedaliah at Mizpah.—Jer 41:1-3; 43:5-8.

The books of Kings have always had a place in the Jewish canon and are accepted as canonical. There is good reason for this, because these books carry forward the development of the foremost Bible theme, the vindication of Jehovah’s sovereignty and the ultimate fulfillment of his purpose for the earth, by means of his Kingdom under Christ, the promised Seed. Moreover, three leading prophets, Elijah, Elisha, and Isaiah, are given prominence, and their prophecies are shown to have had unerring fulfillments. Events recorded in the books of Kings are referred to and elucidated elsewhere in the Scriptures. Jesus refers to what is written in these books three times—regarding Solomon (Mt 6:29), the queen of the south (Mt 12:42; compare 1Ki 10:1-9), and the widow of Zarephath and Naaman (Lu 4:25-27; compare 1Ki 17:8-10; 2Ki 5:8-14). Paul mentions the account concerning Elijah and the 7,000 men who did not bend the knee to Baal. (Ro 11:2-4; compare 1Ki 19:14, 18.) James speaks of Elijah’s prayers for drought and rain. (Jas 5:17, 18; compare 1Ki 17:1; 18:45.) These references to the actions of individuals described in the books of Kings vouch for the canonicity of these writings.

The books of Kings were largely compiled from written sources, and the writer shows clearly that he referred to these outside sources for some of his information. He refers to “the book of the affairs of Solomon” (1Ki 11:41), “the book of the affairs of the days of the kings of Judah” (1Ki 15:7, 23), and “the book of the affairs of the days of the kings of Israel” (1Ki 14:19; 16:14).

One of the oldest extant Hebrew manuscripts containing the books of Kings in full is dated 1008 C.E. The Vatican No. 1209 and the Alexandrine Manuscript contain the books of Kings (in Greek), but the Sinaitic Manuscript does not. Fragments of the books of Kings evidently dating from the B.C.E. period have been found in the Qumran caves.

The framework of these books shows that the writer or compiler gave pertinent facts about each king for the purpose of chronology and to reveal God’s estimate, favorable or unfavorable, of each king. The relationship of their reigns to the worship of Jehovah stands out as the most important factor. After considering the reign of Solomon, there is, with some exceptions, a general set pattern for describing each reign, as two parallel lines of history are interwoven. For the kings of Judah there is usually given first an introductory synchronism with the contemporaneous king of Israel, then the age of the king, the length of his reign, the place of rule, and the name and home of his mother, the latter being an item of interest and importance because at least some of the kings of Judah were polygamous. In concluding the account for each king, the source of the information, the burial of the king, and the name of his successor are given. Some of the same details are provided for each king of Israel, but the king’s age at the time of his accession and the name and home of his mother are not given. Information supplied in First and Second Kings has been very useful in the study of Bible chronology.—See CHRONOLOGY.

The books of Kings are more than just annals or a recital of events as in a chronicle. They report the facts of history with an explanation of their significance. Eliminated from the account, it seems, is anything that does not have direct bearing on the developing purpose of God and that does not illustrate the principles by which Jehovah deals with his people. The faults of Solomon and the other kings of Judah and Israel are not disguised but are related with the utmost candor.

Archaeological Evidence. The discovery of numerous artifacts has furnished certain confirmation that the books of Kings are historically and geographically accurate. Archaeology, as well as living proof today, confirms the existence of the cedar forests of Lebanon, from which Solomon obtained timbers for his building projects in Jerusalem. (1Ki 5:6; 7:2) Evidence of industrial activity has been found in the basin of the Jordan, where Succoth and Zarethan once stood.—1Ki 7:45, 46.

Shishak’s invasion of Judah in Rehoboam’s time (1Ki 14:25, 26) is confirmed by the Pharaoh’s own record on the walls of the temple of Karnak in Egypt. A black limestone obelisk of Assyrian King Shalmaneser III found at Nimrud in 1846 depicts perhaps an emissary of Jehu bowing before Shalmaneser, an incident that, though not mentioned in the books of Kings, adds testimony to the historicity of Israel’s King Jehu. The extensive building works of Ahab, including “the house of ivory that he built” (1Ki 22:39), are well attested by the ruins found at Samaria.

The Moabite Stone relates some of the events involved in King Mesha’s revolt against Israel, giving the Moabite monarch’s version of what took place. (2Ki 3:4, 5) This alphabetic inscription also contains the Tetragrammaton.

The name Pekah is found in an annalistic text credited to Tiglath-pileser III. (2Ki 15:27) The campaign of Tiglath-pileser III against Israel is mentioned in his royal annals and in an Assyrian building inscription. (2Ki 15:29) The name Hoshea has also been deciphered from inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser’s campaign.—2Ki 15:30; Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, pp. 282-284.

While some of Assyrian King Sennacherib’s engagements are mentioned in his annals, the angelic destruction of his army of 185,000 when it threatened Jerusalem is not mentioned (2Ki 19:35), and we would not expect to find in his boastful records an account of this overwhelming setback. Notable archaeological confirmation of the last statement in the books of Kings has been found in cuneiform tablets excavated at Babylon. These indicate that Jaʼukinu (Jehoiachin) was imprisoned in Babylon and mention that he was provided with rations from the royal treasury.—2Ki 25:30; Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 308.

Fulfillments of Prophecy. The books of Kings contain various prophecies and point to striking fulfillments. For example, 1 Kings 2:27 shows the fulfillment of Jehovah’s word against the house of Eli. (1Sa 2:31-36; 3:11-14) Prophecies regarding Ahab and his house were fulfilled. (Compare 1Ki 21:19-21 with 1Ki 22:38 and 2Ki 10:17.) What was foretold concerning Jezebel and her remains came true. (Compare 1Ki 21:23 with 2Ki 9:30-36.) And the facts of history confirm the veracity of the prophesied destruction of Jerusalem.—2Ki 21:13.

Among the many points highlighted in the books of Kings is the importance of adherence to Jehovah’s requirements and the dire consequences of ignoring his just laws. The two books of Kings forcefully verify the predicted consequences of both obedience and disobedience to Jehovah God.

[Box on page 171]

HIGHLIGHTS OF FIRST KINGS

A concise summary of the history of both the kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Israel from the last days of David until the death of Jehoshaphat

Originally the first book of Kings was part of one scroll with Second Kings

Solomon is known for outstanding wisdom at the start of his rule, but he ends up in apostasy

Nathan, by decisive action, blocks Adonijah’s attempt to be king in Israel; Solomon is enthroned (1:5–2:12)

Asked by Jehovah what he desires, Solomon requests wisdom; he is additionally granted riches and glory (3:5-15)

Divinely given wisdom is evident in Solomon’s handling of the case of two prostitutes, each claiming to be the mother of the same baby boy (3:16-28)

King Solomon and Israel under his rule prosper; the king’s unparalleled wisdom is world famous (4:1-34; 10:14-29)

Solomon builds Jehovah’s temple and later a palace complex; then all the older men of Israel gather for the inauguration (5:1–8:66)

Jehovah sanctifies the temple, assures Solomon of permanence of the royal line, but warns against unfaithfulness (9:1-9)

The queen of Sheba comes to see Solomon’s wisdom and prosperity for herself (10:1-13)

In old age, Solomon is influenced by his many foreign wives and goes after foreign gods (11:1-8)

The nation is split in two; calf worship is instituted to prevent those in the northern kingdom from going up to Jerusalem

Because of Solomon’s apostasy, Jehovah foretells division of the nation (11:11-13)

After Solomon’s death, his son Rehoboam threatens to impose a heavier yoke on the people; ten tribes revolt and make Jeroboam king (12:1-20)

Jeroboam establishes worship of golden calves in the northern kingdom to prevent his subjects from going to Jerusalem for worship and possibly wanting to reunite the kingdom (12:26-33)

The southern kingdom, Judah, has both good kings and bad ones

Rehoboam and Abijam after him allow detestable false worship (14:21-24; 15:1-3)

Abijam’s son Asa and his son Jehoshaphat actively promote true worship (15:9-15; 22:41-43)

The northern kingdom, Israel, is marred by power struggles, assassinations, and idolatry

Jeroboam’s son Nadab becomes king; Baasha assassinates him and seizes the throne (15:25-30)

Baasha’s son Elah succeeds to the throne and is assassinated by Zimri; Zimri commits suicide when facing defeat by Omri (16:6-20)

Omri’s victory leads to civil war; Omri finally triumphs, becomes king, and later builds Samaria; his sins are even worse than those of earlier kings (16:21-28)

Ahab becomes king and marries the daughter of Ethbaal, king of the Sidonians; he introduces Baal worship into Israel (16:29-33)

Wars between Judah and Israel end with an alliance

Wars take place between Jeroboam and both Rehoboam and Abijam; Baasha fights against Asa (15:6, 7, 16-22)

Jehoshaphat makes an alliance with Ahab (22:1-4, 44)

Jehoshaphat and Ahab battle together against Ramoth-gilead; Ahab is killed (22:29-40)

Prophetic activity in Israel and Judah

Ahijah foretells ripping of ten tribes away from David’s house; later he proclaims Jehovah’s judgment against Jeroboam (11:29-39; 14:7-16)

Shemaiah conveys Jehovah’s word that Rehoboam and his subjects should not fight against the rebellious ten tribes (12:22-24)

A man of God announces Jehovah’s judgment against the altar for calf worship at Bethel (13:1-3)

Jehu the son of Hanani pronounces Jehovah’s judgment against Baasha (16:1-4)

Elijah foretells a prolonged drought in Israel; during the drought, he miraculously extends the food supply of a widow and resurrects her son (17:1-24)

Elijah proposes a test on Mount Carmel to determine who is the true God; when Jehovah is proved true, the Baal prophets are killed; Elijah flees for his life from Ahab’s wife Jezebel, but Jehovah sends Elijah to anoint Hazael, Jehu, and Elisha (18:17–19:21)

Micaiah foretells Ahab’s defeat in battle (22:13-28)

[Box on page 172]

HIGHLIGHTS OF SECOND KINGS

Continuation of the history of Judah and of Israel begun in First Kings; it reaches to the destruction of Samaria and then of Jerusalem, due to unfaithfulness

The writing of it was likely completed in Egypt about 27 years after Jerusalem’s destruction by Babylon

After Elijah, Elisha serves as Jehovah’s prophet

Elijah predicts Ahaziah’s death; he also calls down fire upon two disrespectful military chiefs and their companies of 50 sent to get the prophet (1:2-17)

Elijah is taken away in a windstorm; Elisha receives his official garment (2:1-13)

Elisha divides the Jordan and heals water in Jericho; his inspired advice saves the allied armies of Israel, Judah, and Edom from perishing for lack of water and results in defeat of Moabites; he increases a widow’s oil supply, resurrects a Shunammite woman’s son, renders poisonous stew harmless, multiplies a gift of bread and grain, heals Naaman of leprosy, announces that Naaman’s leprosy would come upon greedy Gehazi and his offspring, and causes a borrowed axhead to float (2:14–6:7)

Elisha warns the king of Israel in advance of surprise attacks by the Syrians; a Syrian force comes to seize him but is stricken with temporary mental blindness; the Syrians besiege Samaria, and Elisha is blamed for the resulting famine; he foretells the end of the famine (6:8–7:2)

The commission given to Elijah is completed when Elisha tells Hazael that he will become king of Syria and sends a messenger to anoint Jehu as king over Israel (8:7-13; 9:1-13)

Jehu acts against Ahab’s house, eradicating Baal worship from Israel (9:14–10:28)

Elisha, on his deathbed, is visited by Jehu’s grandson King Jehoash; he foretells three victories over Syria (13:14-19)

Israel’s disrespect for Jehovah leads to exile in Assyria

The calf worship started by Jeroboam continues during the reigns of Jehu and his offspring—Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, and Zechariah (10:29, 31; 13:6, 10, 11; 14:23, 24; 15:8, 9)

During Israel’s final days, King Zechariah is assassinated by Shallum, Shallum by Menahem, Menahem’s son Pekahiah by Pekah, and Pekah by Hoshea (15:8-30)

During Pekah’s reign, Tiglath-pileser III, king of Assyria, exiles many Israelites; in the ninth year of Hoshea, Samaria is destroyed and Israel is taken into exile because of disrespecting Jehovah; Israel’s territory is populated by other peoples (15:29; 17:1-41)

Religious reforms in Judah bring no lasting change; Babylon destroys Jerusalem and takes God’s people into exile

Jehoram of Judah marries Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and Jezebel; Jehoram apostatizes, as does his son Ahaziah after him (8:16-27)

When Ahaziah dies, Athaliah tries to kill off the seed of David so that she herself can rule; Jehoash, son of Ahaziah, is rescued by his aunt and eventually made king; Athaliah is killed (11:1-16)

As long as High Priest Jehoiada lives and advises him, Jehoash restores true worship, but ‘sacrificing on the high places’ persists during his reign and that of his successors—Amaziah, Azariah (Uzziah), and Jotham (12:1-16; 14:1-4; 15:1-4, 32-35)

Jotham’s son Ahaz practices idolatry; Ahaz’ son Hezekiah makes good reforms, but these are undone by the subsequent bad reigns of Manasseh and Amon (16:1-4; 18:1-6; 21:1-22)

Amon’s son Josiah undertakes firm measures to rid the land of idolatry; he is killed in a battle with Pharaoh Nechoh (22:1–23:30)


Judah’s last four kings are unfaithful: Josiah’s son Jehoahaz dies in captivity in Egypt; Jehoahaz’ brother Jehoiakim reigns after him; Jehoiakim’s son and successor Jehoiachin is carried into Babylonian exile; Jehoiakim’s brother Zedekiah reigns until Jerusalem is conquered by the Babylonians and most survivors of the conquest are taken into exile (23:31–25:21)

On categorizing information.

A Taxonomy of Information
Casey Luskin November 24, 2015 12:02 PM

Note: I've gotten a few requests for notes or a handout from my recent talk at the Christian Scientific Society meeting, "A Taxonomy of Information and the Design Inference." The talk should be available online eventually, but for the time being below is a condensed and reader-friendly reformatted version of my notes from the talk.

The question I want to address is this: What are some common definitions of information, and which definition is most useful for making the design inference? To answer this question, let's review several different definitions of information.

What Is Information?

Information is not always easy to define, but it often involves a measure of degree of randomness. The fundamental intuition behind information is a reduction in possibilities. The more possibilities you rule out, the more information you've conveyed.

Nature can produce "information" under certain definitions. Intelligent agents also produce information (certain types, at least). As Henry Quastler observed, "The creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity."

To put it another way: The reduction in uncertainty could occur by an intelligent agent, or through a physical occurrence. For example:

Nature: Blue sky reduces uncertainty about whether it is raining.
Intelligent agents: 18 people playing baseball outdoors reduces uncertainty about whether it is raining.
Syntactic Information
Syntactic information is information that often (though not always) involves a sequence of symbols. Syntactic information uses a set of characters or symbols, or some other set of items. Symbols put into a sequence, where symbols are drawn from a fixed symbol set, with one symbol at each position.


Examples include: written language, binary code, computer language. But must syntactic information be an alphabet? Would a color count? How about a nucleotide base, like TGA?
Shannon Information:
Shannon information always pertains to syntactic information, using a fixed character set, with characters in a sequence. It's based upon the probability of a sequence occurring. Once you have that fixed character set, you can start asking about probabilities. For example, in calculating probabilities, some letters appear more than others -- i.e., "e" appears 13 percent of the time, or "q" is followed by "u" nearly 100 percent of the time.

Shannon information is measured in bits. Bits = I = - Log2 (p) (where p = probability). How do you calculate in Log2? It's easy!

Loga (x) = Logb (x) / Logb (a)
Loga (p) = Logb (p) / Logb (a)
So we can calculate bits as follows: - Log2 (p) = - Log10 (p) / Log10 (2)
Here's a little tutorial on Shannon information, using binary code as an example:

In binary code, each character has 2 possibilities: 0 or 1. Thus, the probability of any character = 0.5. So how much information does each binary digit convey? Here's the equation:

- Log2 (0.5) = - Log10 (0.5) / Log10 (2) = 1

In binary code, each binary digit conveys 1 bit of information. Thus, a string like "00110" contains 5 bits. But here's a key point: "5 bits" doesn't tell you anything about the content or meaning of the string!

Shannon information is thus only concerned with reduction in uncertainty. It is not concerned with the content or "meaning" of the string. A random string might have the same Shannon information as a meaningful string. Thus, the purpose of Shannon information is to help measure fidelity of transmission of information. What the transmission says doesn't matter.

For example, consider this 22-character string (generated by Random.org/strings):

IOAPWYDJNDGAJFLEBRSNYN
The string has 103 bits of Shannon information (using only capital letters; assuming equal probability of all letters).
Now consider this 22-character string (only upper case letters):

THISISANONRANDOMSTRING
This string likewise has 103 bits of Shannon information.
The random and non-random strings have the same amount of Shannon information! Shannon information does not help you distinguish between functional and non-functional information. Thus Shannon information doesn't quite capture the special nature of living organisms and other designed structures:

[C]lassical information theory [i.e., Shannon information] ... does not consider the meaning of a message, defining the information content of a string of symbols as simply that required to specify, store or transmit the string. ... A new measure of information -- functional information -- is required to account for all possible sequences that could potentially carry out an equivalent biochemical function, independent of the structure or mechanism used."
(Nobel Prize winner Jack W. Szostak, "Molecular messages," Nature, 423: 689 (June 12, 2003).)

Kolmogorov Information
Kolmogorov complexity is a form of algorithmic information theory. Andrey Kolmogorov sought to understand randomness. His definition of information pertained to compressibility of a string, and compressibility assumes a computer environment. We can thus express Kolmogorov complexity in terms of computer programming commands. Winston Ewert's definitions are very good: "Length of the smallest program that produces a given output" or "The number of symbols required to describe the object."

Under Kolmogorov complexity, compressibility ~ 1/randomness. If it's compressible, it's NOT random (and it's not complex). If it's not compressible it's random (and it's very complex).

For example, assume we have the string 000,111,000. We could compress it to "0,1,0." It's highly compressible with, therefore, low Kolmogorov complexity.

How many 1-bit programs are possible? Two: 0 and 1. How many programs with 100 bits? 2100. Very few 100-bit sequences would be compressible.

As another example, consider this string:

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
It's very compressible: "Repeat '1' 57 times." It has low Kolmogorov complexity.
Now consider this string (From Random.org):

4858686631031287008016234687093634769523
This one is much harder to describe, and it's not compressible. It has much higher Kolmogorov complexity.
How about this example:

KOMOLGOROVINFORMATIONISAPOORMEASUREOFBIOLOGICALCOMPLEXITY
How might we compress it? By removing its vowels?
How about this one:

JLNNUKFPDARKSWUVWEYTYKARRBVCLTLOPDOUUMUEVCRLQTSFFWKJDXS
It's a random string -- not compressible.
Here's the point: Kolmogorov information is not necessarily tied to likelihood. In fact, higher Kolmogorov bits could mean more randomness. In that regard, it's not useful for distinguishing functional information from non-functional.

Semantic Information

The definition of semantic information is information that has meaning. As Dr. Randy Isaac explains, semantic information indicates "the significance of a message, whether or not an intelligent agent was involved." ("Information, Intelligence and the Origins of Life," PSCF 63(4):219-230 (Dec. 2011).) Is this the best way to detect design?

Well, where does meaning come from? We assign it. This is not what Shannon had in mind, and it's really not what's at stake with complex and specified information (CSI), as I'll explain below.

CSI identifies some subset within a reference class of possibilities. Semantic information looks at subjective meaning. But CSI isn't about subjective meaning. It's objective.

Dr. Isaac writes: "In abstract symbolism, the symbol has a meaning assigned to it which does not necessarily derive from its physical properties." I agree. Semantic information could occur by a natural cause, or by intelligence. For example:

Human intelligence creates stop signs to tell car drivers to stop.
Nature uses TGA in the genetic code to tell translation to stop.
In the genetic code, any other codon would serve to signify "stop." Does TGA then possess abstract meaning assigned to it that doesn't derive from its physical properties? Yes, it does. Why, then, should the genetic code be considered anything but intelligently designed, semantic information?
Randy Isaac further writes: "Coding in and of itself does not necessitate intelligence unless the coding represents abstract symbolic meaning," and "Abstract symbolism is a hallmark of intelligence, especially as manifest in language and communication techniques." Yes -- I agree! So again, why should the genetic code be excluded from examples of abstract symbolism? It too carries semantic information that, presumably, we can use to detect design.

Complex and Specified Information (CSI) and the Design Inference

Complex and specified information can be understood as follows:

Complexity is related to unlikelihood. Information is "complex" if it is unlikely.
Specification is present if an event or string or scenario or object matches an independent pattern.
Stephen Meyer gives these examples of CSI:
Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source -- from a mind or personal agent.
(Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2):213-239 (2004).)

It's important to understand that the idea of complex and specified information is NOT an invention of ID proponents. The first use I'm aware of comes from origin-of-life theorist Leslie Orgel in the 1970s:
[L]iving organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple, well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures which are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.
(Leslie E. Orgel, The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection, p. 189 (Chapman & Hall: London, 1973).)

Between CSI and Semantic Information, Which Is the Better Indicator of Design?
There are many examples where CSI helps us detect design in objects that clearly carry no semantic information. This shows that CSI is a superior method of detecting design, and we don't need to necessarily find semantic information to detect design.

First, consider Mount Rushmore: This mountain has an unlikely shape that matches an independent pattern. We find high CSI, and detect design, without finding semantic information!

Or consider the life-friendly fine-tuning of the physical laws and constants of the universe. Here, we have very unlikely values of laws and constants that match a narrow pattern of settings that is required for life. This is high CSI, but not semantic information.

Or consider a car engine: There's no abstract "message" here, but there certainly is high CSI, and a designed system.

The same goes for the bacterial flagellum. It has a complex pattern that existed before we observed it, and it matches many aspects of designed systems. It has high CSI, but carries no semantic information.


I would describe the relationship between CSI and semantic information as follows:Again, semantic information is useful for detecting design -- but it's not the only way to detect design. Semantic information is a subset of CSI, which is a more generally useful definition of information for detecting design. The genetic code is a form of semantic information and is high in CSI.

Conclusion

To summarize, Information can be understood and defined in different ways. Some are useful for detecting design and/or measuring bioinformation. Some are not. Semantic information is useful for detecting design, but it's not the only way to detect design. It's a special case of design, not the general case. Semantic information as a class falls within complex and specified information, which is a more general mode of design detection. The genetic code is a form of syntactic, semantic, and complex specified information.
Acknowledgments:
I would like to thank William Dembski and Stephen Meyer for their insights and thoughts in preparation of this talk and material.

Ever a cause for gratitude

What to Feel Thankful for on Thanksgiving? How About a Universe Minutely Tailored for You
David Klinghoffer November 25, 2015 12:40 PM

It's a Thanksgiving custom with many families to go around the table and everyone has to say what he or she is especially thankful for. This puts everyone on the spot -- perhaps that's the point -- and can be an occasion for awkwardness since some may feel more or less "blessed" than their dining companions.

But how about this? A reason to be thankful that equally encompasses every human being that has ever existed and will ever exist.

That's the thesis advanced by biologist Michael Denton in the 33-mintue Discovery Institute documentary Privileged Species: The extraordinary fine-tuning of biology, chemistry, and physics powerfully testifies that the cosmos saw us coming from the beginning. Somehow, everything was set in place for creatures very much like ourselves.


Rather than argue about politics or sports -- two other Thanksgiving staples -- why not share Privileged Species with your friends and loved ones this holiday? There couldn't be a more a persuasive case than the one Dr. Denton makes that human life is special and meaningful, and that its remarkable status in the universe is not just a matter of assertion but compelled by objective scientific evidence.

Frequently asked question.

Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Have a Paid Clergy

Following the model of first-century Christianity, Jehovah’s Witnesses have no clergy-laity division. All baptized members are ordained ministers and share in the preaching and teaching work. Witnesses are organized into congregations of about 100 members. Spiritually mature men in each congregation serve as “older men,” or elders. (Titus 1:5) They do so without being paid for their services.

The Junk DNA meme continues to take flak

Stanford U: Ancient viruses are part of us and we need them
November 25, 2015 Posted by News under Genomics, Human evolution, News


From The Telegraph:

The human genome is littered with sequences left behind from long-ago viral infections but now scientists have found the code is still active

Now researchers at Stanford University School of Medicine have found that genetic material from a retrovirus called HERV-H is not only active, but is crucial in allowing a fertilised human egg to grow into an embryo.

…

“What’s really interesting is that these sequences are found only in primates, raising the possibility that their function may have contributed to unique characteristics that distinguish humans from other animals.

Let’s back up and be cautious here. For one thing, many primates are not particularly clever, so we need to be much more specific about why it worked (if it did) so well in the human, and not especially in the tarsier. And the way things have been going, the same sequence or a very similar one could turn up in the opossum, but no one has looked. Who knew the water bear shared so many genes with unrelated life forms?

“We’re starting to accumulate evidence that these viral sequences, which originally may have threatened the survival of our species, were co-opted by our genomes for their own benefit.” More.

But we don’t know that either, do we? HERV-H could once have been a useless or even useful parasite that somehow got incorporated into the system.

Question: What were fertilised human eggs doing, to grow into embryos, before HERV-H was available? Or are we to assume it always was available, for all humans? Stay tuned.

See also: Horizontal gene transfer: Sorry, Darwin, it’s not your evolution any more


and This just in: One sixth of water bear’s genes are from microbes Researcher: More than 90 percent of these come from bacteria, but others come from archaea (a distinct group of microbes), fungi, and even plants. “The number of them is pretty staggering,” he says.

An unmistakable signature IV

Denying the Signature: More on Substance Dualism
Stephen C. Meyer November 25, 2015 4:43 AM

Editor's note: Readers of Evolution News likely know the central thesis of Stephen Meyer's bestseller, Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. Meyer argues that the functional biological information necessary to build the Cambrian animals is best explained by the activity of a designing intelligence, rather than an undirected, materialistic evolutionary process. Most reviews of Darwin's Doubt curiously omitted to address or even to accurately report this central claim. However, a review by philosophers Robert Bishop and Robert O'Connor in Books & Culture was a welcome exception. In this 6-part series, adapted from Debating Darwin's Doubt, edited by ENV's David Klinghoffer, Dr. Meyer responds to their critiques. 

Though I don't need to justify substance dualism as a condition of making design inferences, it doesn't follow that there are not good justifications either for (a) presupposing some form of minimalist pre-theoretic form of dualism or (b) for the philosophical position of substance dualism itself.

In the first place, some form of dualism may well be a properly basic belief, justified by the universal human experience of being aware of ourselves as simple, conscious subjects or "I's" distinct from our physical bodies. Since we have a similar awareness of our mind's causal powers (and their ability to exercise "downward" causation on the physical world as opposed to being a mere epiphenomenon resting inertly atop a neurophysiological substrate) our pre-theoretic awareness of these powers may well implicitly constitute a dualist understanding of mind. Yet, it does not follow from this fact that our pre-theoretic conceptions of mind need explicit philosophical justification. Instead, assuming a (minimally dualistic) conception of mind may well be a properly basic belief.

Indeed, virtually everyone accepts the belief that their minds have causal powers, including powers that material objects and process do not. Moreover, even those few materialist scientists or philosophers who deny this belief in their explicit philosophical or scientific statements betray a commitment to it in many ways as they go about their daily lives. Materialists cannot live consistently with their own denial of the causal powers of their own minds. Instead, their actions betray their belief in those powers.

In addition, virtually no one gives arguments for -- or, more importantly, feels the need to give arguments for -- their belief in the causal powers of their own mind. And almost no one (save for a few ideologically-zealous physicalist philosophers) thinks there are defeaters for this belief. For all these reasons, it seems the common belief that our minds have causal powers, including causal powers that material objects and processes do not, seems to qualify as properly basic.

In any case, there are also good explicit scientific and philosophical arguments justifying substance dualism as a theory of mind-body interaction. See, for example, The Mysterious Matter of Mind, by Arthur Custance, which summarizes the many neurophysiological experiments that led neuro-scientists such as Wilder Penfield and Sir John Eccles to adopt a "dualist interactionist" view of mind and brain.1 See also Angus Menuge's Agents Under Fire for a good philosophical defense of substance dualism.2 Just as there are good philosophical arguments showing that a minimalist pre-theoretic form of dualism does not need justification (i.e., is properly basic), there are also good scientific and philosophical arguments justifying substance dualism as a good theory of mind-body interaction.

Nevertheless, Bishop and O'Connor think that because mind-body dualism requires a philosophical justification, intelligent design does not qualify as a scientific theory, but instead "looks more like philosophy than science." But that doesn't follow for several reasons already discussed: The case for intelligent design does not depend upon substance dualism; a more minimalist pre-theoretic form of dualism doesn't necessarily require any justification (and may be regarded as properly basic); and there are scientific, as well as philosophical, justifications for substance dualism (or the closely related position of dualist interactionism).

In any case, many scientific theories -- Einstein's theory of general relativity, Newton's theory of universal gravitation, and Darwin's theory of evolution, to cite just a few examples -- are, arguably, based upon deeper philosophical premises, presuppositions, and concepts, which either can be, or need to be, justified by philosophical lines of argument. Despite their background in the philosophy of science, Bishop and O'Connor seem to assume the ability to make strict demarcations between science and philosophy in a way that philosophers of science have now almost universally repudiated (for reasons that I explain in both my books). Besides, as I argue in both books, what matters is not how we classify a theory, but whether a theory is true or warranted by the evidence.

One final point is worth making. Though I'm not obligated to justify substance dualism as a theory of the mind, I would certainly concede that offering a robust philosophical and/or scientific justification for such a theory would enhance the philosophical importance of the case I make for intelligent design.

If mind cannot be adequately accounted for by reference to materialistic processes, then any evidence of mind acting in the history of life would pose a more explicit challenge to the philosophy of scientific materialism than I develop in my books. It would provide evidence of an immaterial agency acting in the history of life. If, in addition, there is strong evidence for the activity of a designing agent establishing the finely tuned conditions of the universe present from its beginning, as I believe there is, then the conjunctions of these considerations would provide strong grounds for theistic belief.

References:

(1) Arthur C. Custance, The Mysterious Matter of Mind (second online edition, 2001; originally published by Probe Ministries and Zondervan Publishing, 1980).


(2) Angus Menuge, Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004)

Google loves Lucy.

Honoring the 41st Anniversary of the Discovery of "Lucy," Google Offers a Misleading Doodle:
Evolution News & Views November 24, 2015 11:12 AM


Yes, it's the 41st anniversary of the discovery of "Lucy." Google has a cute Doodle in her honor:However, back in 2009, Casey Luskin made a pilgrimage to see the lady's bones, then on display at the Seattle Science Center. He wrote here at Evolution News:

The whole experience seeing Lucy was enlightening, though probably not in the way its creators intended. In short, I left the exhibit struck by the paucity of actual hard evidence for human evolution from ape-like species, and the amount of subjective, contradictory interpretation that goes into fossil hominid reconstructions.

"Lucy" was discovered by paleoanthropologist Donald Johansen and his team in Ethiopia in 1974. The first half (or more!) of the exhibit was actually quite fascinating as it told the cultural and political history of the Ethiopian people and the Aksumite Empire. This history seemed well-documented by facts and evidence, replete with coins, weapons, religious artifacts, and art, which inform us about this rich and beautiful culture. And when the evidence was thin, the exhibit acknowledged that there are aspects of the Aksumite people where we know very little. This high standard of evidential documentation and appropriate tentativeness disappeared, however, as soon as we entered the section of the exhibit dealing with human evolution.

Lucy in the Dirt with Rock Rubble

The first thing my friends and I noticed when seeing Lucy's bones was the incompleteness of her skeleton. Only 40 percent was found, and a significant percentage of the known bones are rib fragments. Very little useful material from Lucy's skull was recovered. (This seems to be common: many of the replica skulls of early hominids at the exhibit were clearly based upon extremely fragmentary pieces.) And yet, according to the exhibit, Lucy still represents the most complete pre-Homo known hominid skeleton to date.

Not only was I underwhelmed by the incompleteness of Lucy's skeleton, but I was also struck by admissions at the exhibit that, in my mind, cast serious doubt on whether we know for certain that Lucy's bones are from a single individual from a single species.

On the issue of whether Lucy walked upright, as the Google Doodle misleadingly implies:

As noted, the most interesting part of Lucy's skeleton is her half-pelvis and half-femur that were discovered, which are said to indicate that she walked upright. Thus, despite these nagging questions about the integrity of Lucy's skeleton, the exhibit boldly states that "Lucy's species walked bipedally, in much the same way as we do," at one point saying Lucy's skeleton "approximate[s] a chimpanzee-like head perched atop a human-like body." Of course, this is a gross oversimplification of the data and a poor reflection of the sharply contradicting opinions of many learned paleoanthropologists.

Lucy did have a small, chimp-like head, but as Mark Collard and Leslie Aiello observe in Nature, much of the rest of the body of Lucy's species, Australopithecus afarensis, was also "quite ape-like" with respect to its "relatively long and curved fingers, relatively long arms, and funnel-shaped chest." (Nature, Vol 404:339-340, 3-23-00.)

Collard and Aiello's article also reports that we now have "good evidence" that A. afarensis (including Lucy) "'knuckle-walked,' as chimps and gorillas do today." Due to their evolutionary preconception that Lucy was a bipedal precursor to our genus Homo, they call this plain evidence that Lucy knuckled-walked "counterintuitive." They suggest the possibility that "the locomotor repertoire of A. afarensis included forms of bipedalism, climbing and knuckle-walking." This is a tenuous proposal, however, as knuckle-walking is obviously very different from bipedal locomotion. Collard and Aiello suggest avoiding the "counterintuitive" evidence that Lucy climbed and knuckle-walked by discarding it as unused "primitive retentions" from her ancestors.

By ignoring the skeletal evidence that Lucy didn't walk "bipedally, in much the same way as we do," I'm sure these Darwinists are pleased that Lucy can retain her prized position as our alleged bipedal ape-like ancestor.

Read the rest. As a monument to human evolution, clarifying the mystery of our origins, Lucy falls well short.

Aristotle Vs.Dualism

Aristotelian Anti-Dualism:
Aristotle, thus, opposes Platonic or Cartesian dualism. Body and soul together make up one substance. A major problem that Aristotle and Aquinas see with dualism is that it cannot explain why the soul, if it essentially different from and superior to the body, should be united to the body. For Aristotle and Aquinas, however, it is for the good of the soul (or rather, it is for the good of the composite which has its vital activities in virtue of its soul) that the soul is united to the body; a body is necessary for a soul to exercise all vital capacities, since (almost) all vital functions are the functions of body and soul together. The sensitive soul requires a body, since the acts of sensation, of seeing, for example, require bodily organs. Similarly, the act of intellection, which is proper to humans alone, requires sensation, and sensation in turn requires a body. Thus, if human beings are to exercise their proper functions, they necessarily must have a body.

Aquinas, interestingly, appeals to personal experience in his claim that a person is not his soul, or his intellect, alone, as Plato and Descartes claim. A man cannot be merely a mind without a body

because it is one and the same man who is conscious both that he understands and that he senses. But one cannot sense without a body, and therefore the body must be some part of man.(Summa Theologiae Ia 76, 1).

If a man were just a mind, essentially unrelated to the body, he would not directly experience things that happen to the body, as he clearly does when he senses. Therefore, the human soul is in essence the substantial form of a human body, and body and soul together make up one substance.

The favored place:The Watchtower Society's Commentary

BOSOM POSITION:
In an illustration, Jesus spoke of a beggar named Lazarus who was carried at his death to “the bosom position of Abraham,” and John refers to Jesus as being in “the bosom position with the Father.” (Lu 16:22, 23; Joh 1:18) The expression “bosom position” alludes to one’s reclining in front of another person on the same couch at a meal.

Guests reclined on their left side with a pillow supporting their left elbow, leaving the right arm free. Usually three persons occupied each couch, but there could be as many as five. The head of each one would be on or near the breast, or bosom, as it were, of the person behind him. The person with no one at his back was considered in the highest position and the one next to him in the second place of honor. In view of the nearness of the guests to one another, it was the custom that friend be placed next to friend, which made it rather easy to engage in confidential conversation if desired. To be in such a bosom position of another at a banquet was indeed to occupy a special place of favor with that one. So the apostle John, whom Jesus dearly loved, “was reclining in front of Jesus’ bosom,” and in such a position he “leaned back upon the breast of Jesus” and privately asked him a question at the celebration of the last Passover.—Joh 13:23, 25; 21:20.


For these reasons John, in describing the very special position of favor enjoyed by Jesus, said that he was in “the bosom position” of his Father Jehovah. Likewise, in Jesus’ illustration, Lazarus was carried to “the bosom position” of Abraham, denoting that this beggar finally came into a position of special favor with one who was his superior.

For Darwinism:Danger from the dark.

The Dark Proteome and Dark Evolution
Evolution Did It

A new PNAS paper published last week on the dark proteome has some interesting implications for the theory of evolution. The paper presents a survey of protein sequences, focusing on the many sequences for which the corresponding three dimensional protein structure is not known, and cannot be inferred from any remotely similar sequence. Why is this so-called “dark proteome” is so large? The survey finds that the various hypotheses to explain this—that the dark proteins are intrinsically disordered, or their sequences are compositionally biased, or they are transmembrane proteins, all reasons that can confound structure determination—don’t work very well. The paper concludes that “a surprisingly large fraction of dark proteins … cannot be easily accounted for by these conventional explanations.” And not surprisingly, these dark proteins are less common across the species. So where did all these dark protein sequences come from? Well evolution did it. As the paper explains, “dark proteins may be newly evolved proteins or rare proteins adapted to specific functional niches.”

We might call this dark evolution. Once again, the pattern is not one of common descent, but of unique structures.

The results also have implications for the so-called orphans, open reading frames found only in a particular species. Such genetic sequences contradict evolution and when they were first discovered evolutionists predicted they would be found in other species as more genomes were decoded. Instead the number of orphans just continued to grow.

Evolutionists next predicted that orphan sequences were probably not part of a mature protein coding gene and did not form functional proteins. That has not been found to be true, and this new survey provides further evidence for this. As the authors conclude, “Thus, our results suggest that many of the uncharacterized orphan sequences … are indeed real proteins.”

Protein science, however, is clear that blind mutations cannot form real proteins this fast from scratch (or at all for that matter). Hence we must believe that built-in cellular processes must have created these proteins—processes that are complex and require, among other things, proteins.

Real ones.

Posted by Cornelius Hunter at Monday, November 23, 2015