DeMythifying science.

Science Doesn’t Work the Way You Might Think
Not even for Einstein
THOMAS LEVENSON  NOV 10, 2015   SCIENCE


One hundred years ago this month, Albert Einstein put the final polish on a new theory, one that transformed how humankind understands the fundamental nature of reality. With his general theory of relativity Einstein displaced the most famous idea in science, Newton’s theory of gravity, replacing the old idea of a force with a radically strange vision of a cosmos in which space warps and time bends.

When, four years later, during a total eclipse, measurements of starlight curving around the sun confirmed general relativity, Einstein became a global celebrity, and the first line of the catechism of science was reaffirmed: A single brute fact can destroy the most beautiful idea.


Richard Feynman once phrased that credo a bit more gracefully, writing that science gains its unique power to determine “whether something is so or not” through the commandment that “observation is the ultimate and final judge of the truth of an idea.” In one form or another, that’s what would-be scientists (and the rest of us) are told from a first-science-fair Coke-and-Mentos volcano onwards: Science advances because at every turn it is subject to the test of reality, the judgment of nature from which there is no appeal.That’s what happened, or seemed to, when the British scientists who measured the path of starlight around the sun reported to a meeting of the Royal Society that they had observed a number that matched Einstein’s prediction and contradicted Newton. A single unequivocal observation had spoken: Light swerves along the contours of spacetime, and just like that, the 200-year-old Newtonian cosmos came crashing down.There’s only one problem: It didn’t happen that way.

Albert Einstein had no need to wait four years for confirmation of his theory. From at least a week before he completed general relativity in its final form, he already knew that nature agreed with him. When he did his sums, what had seemed a tiny error in an obscure measurement could be completely accounted for by his theory. For him, that was enough: The general theory was the real thing.

At first glance, that’s just another example of how Feynman said science ought to work. But actually, the mystery that convinced Einstein had gone unsolved for over half a century—and no one, not even Einstein himself until the very end, had recognized the phenomenon for what it was: a decisive challenge to Newton’s whole approach. Instead, decades were spent in pursuit of a planet that by every reasonable measure should have existed, but didn’t.

The story of that missing planet begins with one that was and is very much present. A definitive analysis of the orbit of Mercury in 1859 had revealed a glitch. A tiny wobble, less than one part in 10,000 of the innermost planet’s track around the sun could not be explained by any known source of gravity within the solar system. Within the framework of Newtonian gravitation, the explanation was obvious: If every recognized body had been accounted for, then Mercury’s misbehavior could only be explained by something yet to be discovered, a planet between it and the sun.
First sight of the expected body, captured in transit across the face of the sun, came almost immediately, in December 1859. The new planet was so obviously necessary that there was no hesitation in naming it: Enter Vulcan. Astrophotography—the technique of attaching cameras to telescopes—was in its infancy, so this first observation was drawn and described, but to be confirmed, it would have to be repeated by someone else. No one did, but no matter. Professional and serious amateur astronomers would glimpse their version of Vulcan at least a dozen times over the next 20 years.


The final “Eureka!” came at the great American eclipse of 1878, when James Watson, the director of the Ann Arbor Observatory, recognized Vulcan in a small reddish object within a few degrees of the limb of the shadowed sun. Unfortunately, none of the other professional astronomers at the eight stations set up by the federal government to observe the eclipse saw anything out of the ordinary.

With that the scientific consensus came to rest: Each “discovery” had been a mistake; a sunspot, a mis-identified star, a wish. Vulcan had every right to exist. In Newton’s universe it had an obligation to be there. It wasn’t.

The next move was obvious, except no one dared make it: Could Newton be wrong? A few astronomers proposed ad-hoc solutions: Maybe the sun was fatter around the middle than believed (it’s not); perhaps there is an unseen halo of dust that could exert a gravitational tug on Mercury (there isn’t); maybe one could play with Newton’s numbers a bit to make all the sums work out (they don’t). But for the most part, for the next 30 years, Mercury’s rambles faded into obscurity. On one side, there was the most successful theory in the history of modern science. On the other, a tiny unaccountable anomaly. It was no contest.


The challenge to Newton did come, of course. In 1905, Albert Einstein published the special theory of relativity, which showed that the tick of time and the measurement of space must differ for observers in motion relative to each other. By 1907, Einstein realized that the logic of this first theory of relativity conflicted with the classical understanding of motion and gravity. For one example: In Newton’s view, the force of gravity leaps across empty space instantly, the sun’s tug grabbing earth with no time delay at all, while under Einstein’s relativity, nothing, not even force, can move faster than the speed of light.There were other issues as well, but it was that kind of contradiction and no mere awkward observation that led Einstein to extend relativity into a theory of gravity. It would take him eight years, but finally, in November of 1915, he had got it: both the physical picture of a universe in which energy and matter deform space and time—and the mathematical framework that allowed him to calculate the paths matter-energy must take in this new cosmos.And so, when Einstein had finally tuned his math to the point where he could calculate an actual example from the real world, he turned to the case of a planet traveling close to its star: Mercury. Sometime in the week between November 11 and November 18, he inserted the appropriate numbers and cranked through the equations. Twenty-four steps later and he had his answer. Mercury’s path, Vulcan-inspiring wobble and all, appeared on the page in all its glory—or, as Einstein wrote: “This theory agrees completely with the observations.”

With that, Einstein knew. He told one friend that on seeing Mercury drop out of his equations that he felt his heart stumble, and another that he was “beside himself with joy.” There was no need to wait for the eclipse—which is why he once said that if the British expedition had come back with the “wrong” numbers “I would feel sorry for the dear Lord. The theory is correct.”
A century on, we celebrate general relativity and Einstein’s re-imagining of how the universe organizes itself. Vulcan now rates barely a footnote to the history of astronomy. But it has its uses. Contrary to the myth of science, facts are not autonomous. They gain meaning from the frameworks within which human beings interpret them. It can be—it was for Vulcan—almost impossibly hard to see past what ought to exist to what does.

The decades Vulcan lasted as almost-real mark the distance separating our myth of scientific progress and the way science actually happens day by day. Its biography is perhaps the cleanest example of how hard it is in the midst of the fray to recognize the decisive observation, but it is hardly the only such case.

The strangeness of the geology and fossil evidence behind the theory of continental drift helped drive a half-century of resistance to the idea. Siddhartha Mukherjee documented in his book The Emperor of All Maladies how a fixation on the cure for a misconceived disease inhibited recognition of the complexity of cancer for a generation. It took decades before physicists came to grips with experiments that showed that the speed of light was constant for every observer—and even then, only the very young Einstein took that observation seriously enough to produce his first relativity theory.

In the long run, it’s true: Reality imposes a final and authoritative judgment on the rights and wrongs of any idea. In the moment, though, each moment, including ours, meaning in science emerges painfully, slowly, one fallible, historically contingent, self-deceiving and (very) occasionally triumphant scientist at a time. In other words, Vulcan’s brief brush with existence (1859-1915, RIP) is no mere curiosity. It’s a caution.

The terms "species " and "speciation" Just became a bit coudier

Snake turns out to be six different “species”
November 29, 2015 Posted by News under News, speciation

From ScienceDaily:

The Persian dwarf snake is wrongly classified as one species, scientists say. New research shows it is composed of six different species, a finding which might be important for the conservation of the snake.

Well, the new finding might be important for the conservation of the snake but, together with many other instances, it isn’t doing much for a science-based use of the term “species.”

That’s been noted here before. except for claiming instances of evolution right under our noses on weak evidence.

The research, which was published in the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, revealed that the Persian dwarf snake is not a single species at all. It is composed of 6 different species, wrongly classified as the species Eirenis persicus. A molecular clock analysis revealed that the divergence and diversification of the E. persicus species group mainly correspond to Eocene to Pliocene orogeny events subsequent to the Arabia-Eurasia collision.

The six species are Eirenis nigrofasciatus, Eirenis walteri, Eirenis angusticeps, Eirenis walteri, Eirenis mcmahoni and Eirenis occidentalis. Except for E. occidentalis, which is a completely new discovery by the researchers, these species were already described between 1872 and 1911. However, during the last half of the previous century, herpetologists considered them as a single species with some difference in color and pattern, because the overall morphology is quite similar. More.

The fact that the very concept of “species” is such a mess, with no sign of taking the matter in hand, is the sort of thing that causes some to call biology the “social sciences of the sciences.”* Apparently, the hallowed popular status of On the Origin of Species is enough warrant for comfort with chaos.

See also: Single jaw finds three species to be one

* Note: And social sciences return the compliment. Psychology Today informed us in 2009 that social sciences are branches of biology.I Oh no! It can’t be as bad as all that!

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Here’s the abstract:


The Persian dwarf snake Eirenis (Pseudocyclophis) persicus (Anderson, 1872) has a wide distribution range in south-western Asia. This species group was comprehensively studied here using traditional biometry, geometric morphometrics, ecological niche modelling, and genetics. Our analyses revealed that E.?persicus is split into two clades. A western clade, bearing at least two different species: E.?persicus, distributed in south-western Iran, and an undescribed species from south-eastern Turkey and western Iran. The eastern clade consists of at least three species: Eirenis nigrofasciatus, distributed across north-eastern Iraq, and western and southern Iran; Eirenis walteri, distributed across eastern Iran, southern Turkmenistan, and western and southern Pakistan, and Eirenis angusticeps, distributed in north-eastern Pakistan. Ecological niche modelling revealed that the distribution of the species in the western clade are mainly affected by winter precipitation, and those in the eastern clade are mainly affected by the minimum temperature of the coldest month. A molecular clock analysis revealed that the divergence and diversification of the E.?persicus species group mainly correspond to Eocene to Pliocene orogeny events subsequent to the Arabia–Eurasia collision. This study confirms that specimens with the unique morphology of having 13 dorsal scale rows on the anterior dorsum, occurring in the Suleiman Mountains in central Pakistan, can be referred to Eirenis mcmahoni (Wall, 1911). However, at this moment we have insufficient data to evaluate the taxonomy of this species. © 2015 The Linnean Society of London Open access – Mahdi Rajabizadeh, Zoltán T. Nagy, Dominique Adriaens, Aziz Avci, Rafaqat Masroor, Josef Schmidtler, Roman Nazarov, Hamid Reza Esmaeili, Joachim Christiaens. Alpine-Himalayan orogeny drove correlated morphological, molecular, and ecological diversification in the Persian dwarf snake (Squamata: Serpentes:Eirenis persicus). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015; DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12342

Depending on whom you ask the human brain just became more "comprehensible"

We Just Discovered 6 New Kinds of Brain Cells

The map of the human brain gets a little more complete.

By William Herkewitz

Nov 26, 2015 @ 3:19 PM

Thanks to a handful of newly discovered neurons, the brain just became a little bit less mysterious.

Today a team of neuroscientists led by Xiaolong Jiang and Andreas Tolias at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston announced six altogether new types of brain cells. The neuroscientists came across these new neurons while conducting a census of brain cells in adult mice in a part of the brain called the the primary visual cortex, an area chiefly concerned with  sight. The researchers credit their new insight to a recently developed method of slicing razor-thin slices of mature brain. The discovery is reported today in the journal Science. 

"Just asking 'what types of cells make up the brain' is such a basic question... that establishing a complete census of all neuron cell types is of great importance in moving the field of neuroscience forward," says Tolias, at Baylor College of Medicine.​

Most previous studies investigating the odd menagerie of brain cells have used juvenile mice, mostly because it's easier to get high-resolution pictures of their brains. But there's a problem: Brains keep maturing and complicating as they get older, and Jiang's team believes that their new-found neurons might not form until adulthood. 

In their study, Jiang and his colleagues meticulously surveyed 11,000 neurons in three layers of the primary visual cortex in adult mice.​ All told, they found 15 types of neurons, six of which had never before been seen or described. The neuroscientists used a complex recoding method called octuple patch-clamp recordings—a way of tracking the many connections brain cells form with one another, all at the same time.

"You can almost think of the task of finding these news cell types like identifying trees and grouping them into classes like pine, cedar or oak—we're separating the groups based on their obvious differences of shape and structure," says Tolias. But there's a huge difference between grouping cells and trees. For neuroscientists, tracing the absurdly complex branch-work in even just a few neurons is an insanely arduous task. Tolias says that this cell census (remember, this is just three layers of one tiny section of the brain) took three and a half years and over 200 separate imaging experiments.​

Although we call them all neurons, your brain has an enormous menagerie of brain cells. Even if we ignore the specialized neurons that attach to our muscles or sensory organs like our eyes and tongue (and forget our brains' helpful support cells, called glial cells) mammals like mice or humans are thought to have in excess of hundreds of flavors of so-called interneurons—brain cells that just connect with other brain cells. And today's six new neurons fall in this class.​These neurons can differ from one another in a myriad of ways, such as when they'll fire up or what their genetic makeup looks like. But the most glaring difference is how they're shaped; specifically, in how they wend and branch, and which other cells they connect to. In fact, the names of many of previously-discovered interneurons become clear when you create a 3D rendering of them. For example: chandelier, shrub, and basket cells form wiry connections that look like those three objects. Today's six new neurons form a variety of shapes that haven't been seen before. 

"Our brains contain billions of neurons linked through trillions of synaptic connections. Obviously, we are faced with a problem of immense complexity," explains Tolias. "However, if neurons can be classified into distinct cell types... and if we understand [their underlying] rules, it will be an important step in deciphering the wiring of the brain," he says.​

It's hard to understate just how important it could be to scientists to find and describe all these new cells. It will help neuroscientists to refine the human brain's complex wiring diagram, and that circuitry map underlies almost every question we have about how our brains work, from understanding how memories are created to defining consciousness. Plus, it's thought that malfunctions of the microcircutry of individual cell types (lets say, your chandelier cells just aren't chandelier-ing) could be related to brain disorders as disparate as epilepsy or autism spectrum disorders.

"And we can safely say that there a plenty more cell types to be discovered, throughout the brain in both mice and humans. We only studied a few layers in the visual cortex of a mouse, even just in other parts of that same cortex, there could be many more cell types waiting to be discovered," says Tolias. ​

On cybernetics and the challenge of optimal design.

What Can We Learn from Cybernetics?
Evolution News & Views January 11, 2013 3:49 PM

Cybernetics is a multi-disciplinary field that provides hope for those who have lost the ability to move their bodies. It is also a field that is rife with ethical dilemmas and grandiose promises. In a BBC article, Martin Angler explores the question of neural enhancement through cybernetic interfaces. The reality is that we have things like cochlear implants that convey signals to the brain. The dream is to implants to make people smarter and, perhaps, eventually full man/machine integration (a cyborg).

On a practical level, cybernetics teaches us about the difficulties in repairing lost function versus the difficulties of creating entirely new (and improved) functionality. This is a key distinction from an evolutionary perspective because one of the roles of natural selection (coupled with random mutations) in a Darwinian paradigm is to not only restore lost function or optimize current function, but also to create entirely new function.

Angler comments:

The dream is to create the type of brain augmentations we see in fiction that provide cyborgs with advantages or superhuman powers. But the ones being made in the lab only aim to restore lost functionality -- whether it's brain implants that restore limb control, or cochlear implants for hearing... Creating implants that improve cognitive capabilities, such as an enhanced vision "gadget" that can be taken from a shelf and plugged into our brain, or implants that can restore or enhance brain function is understandably a much tougher task. But some research groups are [beginning] to make some inroads.
Working within the design of a fully functioning organism is one thing. The difficult task of coming up with a design that will perform a function, then integrating it into the body, has already been accomplished for you. The components are there for a reason and as we have seen with genetics and neuroscience, these functions are intricately interwoven into the organism's system. When a part of the body malfunctions, we still understand what it was meant to do. A broken foot is still a foot. In cybernetics, the goal is often to re-gain (or gain for the first time) functionality that should have been there in the first place. The components and structure are in place; there is either something missing, or something is malfunctioning.
If engineers struggle with adding new design components to the body, can we expect natural selection to do better? Natural selection coupled with mutations (and subsequent reproduction) can optimize an organism for its environment. Those organisms with traits that are best suited for a particular environment are able to live and reproduce, as in the case of bacterial resistance. If an organism lacks functionality that it should have, and this lack affects its ability to survive, then natural selection is optimizing the population for proper functionality, or at least it does so up to a point. This is limited to factors that affect survival.

However, this is not the same thing as producing a completely novel feature. Michael Behe addresses this in his book The Edge of Evolution. Natural selection acting on mutations can do things like adapt to environmental pressures, but the extent to which the organism changes is limited. Much as in cybernetics, to make a completely novel component would require an incredible amount of planning to overcome the barriers in integrating the component into a system. It isn't just an matter of attaching a new piece, but of rewiring. Similarly, regarding claims that the Darwinian mechanisms can form novel components, it needs to be show how these mechanisms were also able to integrate the components into the already existing system so that the organism has some sort of survival advantage at each step of the process; otherwise there is no reason to expect the new components to be preserved into the next generation.


Cybernetics has helped restore hearing and movement to those who have lost them. It is a field that helps us understand the incredible biological and mechanical barriers that must be overcome in order to restore function. It also helps us understand what is entailed in adding novel functionality to an organism -- it is about more than constructing a part, it also involves integrating that part into the body plan. It seems to entail quite a bit of goal-oriented planning and design. These are not strengths of Darwinian evolution.

On absence of evidence and evidence of absence re:Darwinism's tree of life

Clearcut: Publish the Claim, then Destroy the Data
Evolution News & Views January 16, 2013 5:55 PM 

Most of the data to support claims about Darwin's Tree of Life over the last two decades have been "irrevocably lost," a survey found.

Bryan T. Drew, working in conjunction with the Open Tree of Life Project, decided to check the data supporting the growing construction of Darwin's tree. He reported the somewhat shocking results in Nature:

Of 6,193 papers we surveyed in more than 100 peer-reviewed journals, only 17% present accessible trees and alignments (used to infer relatedness). Contacting lead authors to procure data sets was only 19% successful. DNA sequences were deposited in GenBank for almost all these studies, but it is the actual character alignments that are pivotal for reproducing phylogenetic analyses. We estimate that more than 64% of existing alignments or trees are permanently lost. (Emphasis added.)
This implies that nearly 4,000 published papers cannot back up their claims with the actual evidence. Perhaps improved practices in the future can rectify the situation, but Drew believes it is serious:
This problem will increasingly hinder phylogenetic inference as the use of whole-genome data sets becomes common. Journals need to reinforce a policy of online data deposition, either as supplementary material or in repositories such as TreeBASE (http://treebase.org) or Dryad (http://datadryad.org) -- including for data sets based on previously published sequences. Ecologists, evolutionary biologists and others will then have access to rigorous phylogenetics for testing their hypotheses.
The "others" could reasonably include skeptics of the Tree of Life who want to evaluate whether the claims made are justified by the data or instead are held aloft by prior assumptions that Darwinian evolutionary common descent is true.
The Open Tree of Life website adds more reason for concern. Only a small portion of phylogenetic data is stored publicly, an article headlined "The Glass Is Still Pretty Empty" warns:

Sometimes you wonder whether the glass is half full or half empty.
But when it is only filled for four percent -- the other 96 percent is just air -- there is only one conclusion: it is time for more.
Despite Drew's estimate in Nature that more than 64% of phylogenetic data are lost, the actual number could be much higher. This article says that only a tiny portion of published trees can be checked against the data:
At least that is what some scientists in the phylogenetic community argue, because only about four percent of all published phylogenies are stored in places such as TreeBASE or Dryad. Their message is quite simple: it is time to bring together more databases with estimations on how species are possibly related to each other.
Several journals in the evolutionary biology field recently adopted policies that encourage or require contributors to make their data publicly available online. Yet, this only leads to the storage of a very small percentage of ten-thousands of phylogenies that have been constructed in the past few decades.

What this implies is that evolutionary phylogenies are largely baseless (if you'll pardon the pun). Sure, there may be ways to reconstruct some of them, but who would be willing to go to the trouble?
Of course, there are also other ways to receive data that are not stored on the Internet, but those alternatives are commonly not the most efficient routes. For instance, it is possible to send an email to a scientist who published a phylogenetic tree and "sometimes wait for six months to maybe get a response -- either with or without the data," says Keith Crandall, one of the Open Tree of Life investigators and the founding director of the Computational Biology Institute at George Washington University.
Multiply that by 4,000 papers and you can be sure nobody has that kind of time or patience. Evolutionary biologists are not necessarily being deceptive about their claims; it's just too much bother to upload all those sequences when there are no standards. Nevertheless, this data loss hinders one of science's primary ideals: reproducibility. How many "Libraries of Alexandria" are figuratively being burned by negligence? (See "Science Can Perpetuate Myths.")
Only an overwhelming amount [of online data] provides scientists the opportunity to efficiently explore where prior studies are in agreement on how species are related, but also where there are conflicts that still need to be resolved.
Where replication has been tried, it has often failed:
A group of scientists from the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and United States recently published an article about current practices for storing datasets with tree estimates. They concluded that "most phylogenetic knowledge is not easily re-used due to a lack of archiving, lack of awareness of best practices, and lack of community-wide standards for formatting data, naming entities, and annotating data." As a result, "[m]ost attempts at data re-use seem to end in disappointment."
The article ends with optimism that things will get better. Up till now, some participants have been "appropriately cautious" about promised solutions. They also want to see "some positive signs that the Open Tree of Life project will be successful" first. This implies that, to date, it has not been successful.
Maybe things will get better. Maybe someday inferences about Darwin's Tree will be justified by overwhelming data available for all to check. But for now, despite all the advances in genome sequencing, Darwin's Tree is a phantom, not a reality. Knock on the wood. It's 96% air.

Meanwhile, a recent paper in PNAS finds "widespread horizontal gene transfer of retrotransposons" in vertebrate genomes, including those of cattle, cats and koalas. This could further confound evolutionary inferences:

A phylogenetic tree built from BovB sequences from species in all of these groups does not conform to expected evolutionary relationships of the species, and our analysis indicates that at least nine HT [horizontal transfer] events are required to explain the observed topology. Our results provide compelling evidence for HT of genetic material that has transformed vertebrate genomes.

This is not the kind of "transformism" that Darwin hoped to document. It implies the documentation itself has been transformed, making it harder to see a tree.

Yet more materialism of the gaps speculation from Darwinists.

Could original life forms have been completely different from today?
November 27, 2015 Posted by News under News, Origin Of Life

Physical organic chemist Michael Page asks that at The Conversation:

Living systems are chemically based and therefore must obey the laws of science. Life appears to be just a series of chemical reactions – and we now understand how these reactions work at the molecular level. So surely this should tell us how life came about?

But what are the laws of science?

We are still looking for dark matter, and some would wish away the current Higgs boson.

The assumption that early life forms must have been similar to what we see today may be preventing us from answering this question. It’s possible that there were many unsuccessful precursors that bore little resemblance to present-day life. There has been speculation that primitive starting points could even have been based around an element other than carbon (the substance at the heart of all life today). Some researchers suggest that life may have originally evolved in liquids other than water. These alternatives are fascinating, but it’s difficult to find a starting point for researching them because they are so unfamiliar.

It’s the same problem as with intelligent non-carbon-based life forms or alternative universes that don’t obey our laws of physics. It may be true but…  then how does one research it?

A key trait that sets life apart from inanimate matter is its reliance on organisation. Molecules must be arranged in a specific way and replicate according to a detailed pattern. But the natural tendency of the whole universe is towards a state of equilibrium, or balance – where everything is spread out and nothing is ordered. Maintaining an ordered structure means life is constantly off-balance and this requires energy, which organisms must extract from their surroundings. More.


Which is why some think that the answer lies not in chemistry but in a better understanding of information (Page calls it “organisation” above).

On the biblical covenants:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

COVENANT:

An agreement between two or more persons to do or refrain from doing some act; a compact; a contract. The Hebrew word berithʹ, whose etymology is uncertain, appears over 280 times in the Hebrew Scriptures; more than 80 of these occurrences are in the five books of Moses. That its basic meaning is “covenant,” comparable to our modern legal word “contract,” is seen from cuneiform tablets found in 1927 at Qatna, an ancient non-Israelite city SE of Hamath. “The contents of the two tablets [of 15 found] are simple. Tablet A contains a list of names . . . Tablet B is a ration list . . . List A is thus a compact in which the men in question . . . agree to enter someone’s service or to carry out certain obligations. List B, written by the same scribe, then illustrates the nature of the compact; the men were to receive specified rations in return for their services. . . . the Israelite concept of berit, ‘covenant,’ was a central theme in Yahwist theology. Here we have the first published extra-biblical occurrence of the word from early times—not later than the first third of the fourteenth century B.C.”—Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, February 1951, p. 22.

In some translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures the word di·a·theʹke is variously rendered “covenant,” “will,” “testament” (testamentum, Vg). However, M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia (1891) says, under “Covenant”: “There seems, however, to be no necessity for the introduction of a new word [other than “covenant”] conveying a new idea. The Sept[uagint] having rendered [berithʹ] (which never means will or testament, but always covenant or agreement) by [di·a·theʹke] consistently throughout the O.T., the N.T. writers, in adopting that word, may naturally be supposed to intend to convey to their readers, most of them familiar with the Greek O.T., the same idea. Moreover, in the majority of cases, the same thing which has been called a ‘covenant’ (berithʹ) in the O.T. is referred to in the N.T. (e.g. 2Cor. iii, 14; Heb. vii, ix; Rev. xi, 19); while in the same context the same word and thing in the Greek are in the English [in KJ] sometimes represented by ‘covenant,’ and sometimes by ‘testament’ (Heb. vii, 22; viii, 8-13; ix, 15).”—See also NW appendix, pp. 1584, 1585.

Repeatedly in the book of Hebrews (Heb 7:22; 8:6, 8, 9, 10; 9:4, 15, 16, 17, 20) the writer uses the word di·a·theʹke with undeniable reference to a covenant in the old Hebrew sense, even quoting from Jeremiah 31:31-34 and referring to “the ark of the covenant.” In translating these verses of Jeremiah, the Greek Septuagint uses di·a·theʹke for the ancient Hebrew berithʹ, meaning “covenant.” Also, Hebrews 9:20 quotes from Exodus 24:6-8, where a covenant is unmistakably spoken of.

Application of the Word. Covenants always involved two or more parties. They could be unilateral (where the party on one side was solely responsible to carry out the terms) or bilateral (where parties on both sides had terms to carry out). Besides the covenants in which God is a party, the Bible records the making of covenants between men, and between tribes, nations, or groups of persons. To break a covenant was a grievous sin.—Eze 17:11-20; Ro 1:31, 32.

The term “covenant” is applied to a sure ordinance, such as that concerning the showbread (Le 24:8), or to God’s creation governed by his laws, as the unchangeable succession of day and night (Jer 33:20); it is also used figuratively, as in the expression “covenant with Death.” (Isa 28:18) Jehovah also speaks of a covenant in connection with the wild beasts. (Ho 2:18) The marriage compact is called a covenant. (Mal 2:14) The expression “owners (masters) of a covenant” has the sense of “confederates,” as at Genesis 14:13.

In effect, any promise made by Jehovah is a covenant; it is certain to be carried out; it can be relied on with confidence for its fulfillment. (Heb 6:18) A covenant is in force as long as the terms of it are operative and the obligation to perform rests on one or both parties. The results or the blessings brought about by the covenant may continue, even forever.

Methods of Ratifying a Covenant. God was often invoked as a witness. (Ge 31:50; 1Sa 20:8; Eze 17:13, 19) An oath was sworn. (Ge 31:53; 2Ki 11:4; Ps 110:4; Heb 7:21) Men at times arranged a sign or witness, such as a gift (Ge 21:30), a pillar or heap of stones (Ge 31:44-54), or the naming of a place (Ge 21:31). Jehovah used a rainbow in one instance. (Ge 9:12-16) One method was to kill and divide animals, the covenanting parties passing between the pieces; from this custom came the standard Hebrew idiom ‘cut a covenant.’ (Ge 15:9-11, 17, 18, ftn; Jer 34:18, ftn, 19) At times festivities accompanied the making of alliances. (Ge 26:28, 30) A communion meal might be participated in, as in conjunction with the making of the Law covenant. (Ob 7; Ex 24:5, 11) The superior party might present to the other some article of his dress or arms. (1Sa 18:3, 4) Some pagan nations followed the custom of drinking one another’s blood or blood mixed with wine (in violation of God’s prohibition to all persons, at Genesis 9:4, and to Israel under the Law), and the covenanters uttered the strongest curses on the party who should later violate the covenant.

The Bible uses the expression “covenant of salt” to denote the permanence and immutability of a covenant. (Nu 18:19; 2Ch 13:5; Le 2:13) Among ancient peoples it was a sign of friendship to eat salt together and denoted enduring fidelity and loyalty; the eating of salt with communion sacrifices symbolized perpetual loyalty.

Written Instruments. The Ten Commandments were written on stone by “God’s finger” (Ex 31:18; 32:16); Jeremiah wrote a deed, affixed a seal, and took witnesses (Jer 32:9-15); clay tablets of ancient peoples have been found, setting forth the terms of contracts. Often these were sealed within clay envelopes.

The Edenic Promise. Jehovah God, at Genesis 3:15, stated his purpose prophetically in the garden of Eden in the presence of Adam, Eve, and the “serpent.”

As to the identity of those involved in this promise and prophecy: The vision given to the apostle John, at Revelation 12:9, informs us that the “serpent” is Satan the Devil. Evidence indicates that the “seed” of the “woman,” long looked for by righteous men, is to be identified with the “seed” of Abraham, Jesus Christ. (Ga 3:16; Mt 1:1) The “seed” was to be bruised in the heel by the serpent. Jesus Christ was put to death, a wound that proved not to be permanent, however, for God raised Jesus out of death. But the “seed” is, in turn, to bruise the serpent’s head, defeating him permanently.

Who is the “woman” involved in the covenant? Certainly not Eve, who had become God’s enemy. In order to defeat, “bring to nothing,” the spirit creature Satan the Devil, the “seed” would have to be, not human, but spirit. (Heb 2:14) Jesus at birth was a human Son of God, but at the time of Jesus’ baptism God acknowledged him as His Son, sending holy spirit down upon him. Jesus here became the spirit-begotten Son of God. (Mt 3:13-17; Joh 3:3-5) Later, at his resurrection, he was “made alive in the spirit.” (1Pe 3:18) Who, then, was the “mother,” not of the human babe Jesus but of the spirit-begotten Son of God? The apostle Paul says that Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Hagar, and Ishmael figured in a symbolic drama, in which Isaac represented those who had heavenly hopes, including Paul himself. Paul then states that their “mother” is “the Jerusalem above.” Jesus Christ calls these his “brothers,” indicating they have the same mother. (Heb 2:11) This provides a basis for identifying the “woman” of Genesis 3:15 with “the Jerusalem above.”—Ga 4:21-29.

The terms of the promise imply a lapse of time during which the “serpent” would bring forth a “seed” and enmity would develop between the two ‘seeds.’ Some 6,000 years have passed since the statement of the promise. Just prior to Christ’s Thousand Year Reign the “serpent” will be hurled into the abyss of inactivity, and following the end of the thousand years he will be annihilated forever.—Re 20:1-3, 7-10; Ro 16:20.

Covenant With Noah. Jehovah God made a covenant with Noah, who represented his family, with regard to His purpose to preserve human and animal life while destroying the wicked world of that day. (Ge 6:17-21; 2Pe 3:6) Noah had begun to have sons after he was 500 years old. (Ge 5:32) At the time God revealed this purpose to Noah, his sons were grown and married. Noah, on his part, was to build the ark and take in his wife, his sons, and his sons’ wives, as well as animals and food; Jehovah was to preserve flesh on earth, both of man and animals. Noah’s obediently keeping the terms of the covenant resulted in Jehovah’s preservation of human and animal life. The covenant was completely fulfilled in 2369 B.C.E., after the Flood, when men and animals were again able to live on the ground and to reproduce their kind.—Ge 8:15-17.

Rainbow Covenant. The rainbow covenant was made between Jehovah God and all flesh (human and animal), as represented by Noah and his family, in 2369 B.C.E., in the mountains of Ararat. Jehovah stated that he would never again destroy all flesh by means of a flood. The rainbow was then given as a sign of the covenant, which endures as long as mankind lives on earth, that is, forever.—Ge 9:8-17; Ps 37:29.

Covenant With Abraham. The covenant with Abraham apparently went into effect when Abram (Abraham) crossed the Euphrates on his way to Canaan. The Law covenant was made 430 years later. (Ga 3:17) Jehovah had spoken to Abraham when he was living in Mesopotamia, in Ur of the Chaldeans, telling him to travel to the country that God would show him. (Ac 7:2, 3; Ge 11:31; 12:1-3) Exodus 12:40, 41 (LXX) tells us that at the end of 430 years of dwelling in Egypt and in the land of Canaan, “on this very day” Israel, who had been in slavery in Egypt, went out. The day they were delivered from Egypt was Nisan 14, 1513 B.C.E., the date of the Passover. (Ex 12:2, 6, 7) This would seem to indicate that Abraham crossed the Euphrates River on his way to Canaan on Nisan 14, 1943 B.C.E., and evidently that is when the Abrahamic covenant took effect. God appeared to Abraham again after he had traveled into Canaan as far as Shechem and enlarged on the promise, saying, “To your seed I am going to give this land,” thereby giving an indication of the connection of this covenant with the promise in Eden, and revealing that the “seed” would take a human course, that is, would run through a human line of descent. (Ge 12:4-7) Other enlargements by Jehovah were later expressed, as recorded at Genesis 13:14-17; 15:18; 17:2-8, 19; 22:15-18.

The covenant promises were passed on to Abraham’s posterity through Isaac (Ge 26:2-4) and Jacob. (Ge 28:13-15; 35:11, 12) The apostle Paul says that Christ (as primary one) and those in union with Christ are the real “seed.”—Ga 3:16, 28, 29.

God revealed the purpose and accomplishments of the Abrahamic covenant, saying that through Abraham the seed of promise would come; this seed would possess the gate of his enemies; Abraham’s seed through Isaac would number many, uncountable to man at that time; Abraham’s name would be made great; the seed would possess the Promised Land; all families of the earth would bless themselves by means of the seed. (See above texts from Genesis.) There was a literal fulfillment of these things, which was typical of the greater fulfillment through Christ. Paul gives additional information as to the symbolic and prophetic nature of the terms of this covenant when he says that Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Hagar, and Ishmael enacted a symbolic drama.—Ga 4:21-31.

The Abrahamic covenant is “a covenant to time indefinite.” Its terms require that it extend on until the destruction of all God’s enemies and the blessing of the families of the earth have been accomplished.—Ge 17:7; 1Co 15:23-26.

In discussing the Abrahamic and the Law covenants, Paul stated the principle that “there is no mediator where only one person is concerned,” and then he added that “God is only one.” (Ga 3:20; see MEDIATOR.) Jehovah made the covenant with Abraham unilaterally. It was in reality a promise, and Jehovah set forth no conditions that Abraham must meet in order for the promise to be fulfilled. (Ga 3:18) Thus, no mediator was needed. On the other hand, the Law covenant was bilateral. It was made between Jehovah and the nation of Israel, with Moses as mediator. The Israelites agreed to the terms of the covenant, making a sacred promise to obey the Law. (Ex 24:3-8) This latter covenant did not invalidate the Abrahamic covenant.—Ga 3:17, 19.

Covenant of Circumcision. The covenant of circumcision was made in 1919 B.C.E., when Abraham was 99 years old. Jehovah made the covenant with Abraham and his natural seed; all males of the household, including slaves, were to be circumcised; anyone refusing was to be cut off from his people. (Ge 17:9-14) Later, God stated that the alien resident who desired to eat the passover (one who wished to become a worshiper of Jehovah with Israel) would have to circumcise the males of his household. (Ex 12:48, 49) Circumcision served as a seal of the righteousness Abraham had by faith while in the uncircumcised state, and it was a physical sign of the covenant relationship of Abraham’s descendants through Jacob, with Jehovah. (Ro 4:11, 12) God recognized circumcision until the ending of the Law covenant, in 33 C.E. (Ro 2:25-28; 1Co 7:19; Ac 15) Even though physical circumcision was carried on under the Law, Jehovah repeatedly showed that he was more concerned with its symbolic significance, counseling Israel to ‘circumcise the foreskin of their hearts.’—De 10:16; Le 26:41; Jer 9:26; Ac 7:51.

Law Covenant. The Law covenant between Jehovah and the nation of natural Israel was made in the third month after their leaving Egypt, in 1513 B.C.E. (Ex 19:1) It was a national covenant. One born a natural Israelite was, by birth, in the Law covenant and was thus in this special relationship with Jehovah. The Law was in the form of a code, arranged in an orderly way, its statutes grouped together. The Law, transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator, Moses, was made operative by a sacrifice of animals (in the place of Moses, the mediator, or “covenanter”) at Mount Sinai. (Ga 3:19; Heb 2:2; 9:16-20) At that time Moses sprinkled half the blood of the sacrificed animals on the altar, then he read the book of the covenant to the people, who agreed to be obedient. Afterward he sprinkled the blood upon the book and upon the people. (Ex 24:3-8) Under the Law, a priesthood was established in the house of Aaron, of the family of Kohath of the tribe of Levi. (Nu 3:1-3, 10) The high priesthood passed by descent from Aaron to his sons, Eleazar succeeding Aaron, Phinehas succeeding Eleazar, and so forth.—Nu 20:25-28; Jos 24:33; Jg 20:27, 28.

The terms of the Law covenant were that if the Israelites kept the covenant they would be a people for the name of Jehovah, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, with His blessing (Ex 19:5, 6; De 28:1-14); if they violated the covenant, they would be cursed. (De 28:15-68) Its purposes were: to make transgressions manifest (Ga 3:19); to lead the Jews to Christ (Ga 3:24); to serve for a shadow of the good things to come (Heb 10:1; Col 2:17); to protect the Jews from false, pagan religion and preserve the true worship of Jehovah; to protect the line of the seed of promise. Added to the covenant with Abraham (Ga 3:17-19), it organized the natural seed-nation of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob.

The Law covenant extended benefits to others not of natural Israel, for they could become proselytes, getting circumcised, and could receive many of the Law’s benefits.—Ex 12:48, 49.

How did the Law covenant become “obsolete”?

However, the Law covenant became in a sense “obsolete” when God announced by means of the prophet Jeremiah that there would be a new covenant. (Jer 31:31-34; Heb 8:13) In 33 C.E. the Law covenant was canceled on the basis of Christ’s death on the torture stake (Col 2:14), the new covenant replacing it.—Heb 7:12; 9:15; Ac 2:1-4.

Covenant With the Tribe of Levi. Jehovah made a covenant with the tribe of Levi, that the entire tribe should be set aside to constitute the tabernacle service organization, including the priesthood. This occurred in the wilderness of Sinai, in 1512 B.C.E. (Ex 40:2, 12-16; Mal 2:4) Aaron and his sons, of the family of Kohath, were to be priests, the remaining families of Levi taking care of other duties, such as setting up the tabernacle, moving it, and other matters. (Nu 3:6-13; chap 4) Later, they served likewise at the temple. (1Ch 23) The installation services for the priesthood were carried out Nisan 1-7, 1512 B.C.E., and they began serving on Nisan 8. (Le chaps 8, 9) The Levites had no inheritance in the land, but received tithes from the other tribes, and had enclave cities in which to dwell. (Nu 18:23, 24; Jos 21:41) On account of Phinehas’ zeal for exclusive devotion to Jehovah, God made a covenant of peace with him, a covenant for the priesthood to time indefinite for him and his offspring. (Nu 25:10-13) The covenant with Levi continued in operation until the ending of the Law covenant.—Heb 7:12.

Covenant With Israel at Moab. Just before Israel entered the Promised Land, in 1473 B.C.E., Jehovah made a covenant with natural Israel at Moab. (De 29:1; 1:3) Much of the Law was here restated and explained by Moses. The purpose of the covenant was to encourage faithfulness to Jehovah and to make adjustments and set forth certain laws necessary for the Israelites as they changed from a life of wandering to a settled life in the land. (De 5:1, 2, 32, 33; 6:1; compare Le 17:3-5 with De 12:15, 21.) This covenant ended with the abolition of the Law covenant, for it was an integral part of the Law.

Covenant With King David. The covenant with David was made at some time during David’s reign in Jerusalem (1070-1038 B.C.E.), the parties being Jehovah and David as representative of his family. (2Sa 7:11-16) The terms of this covenant were that a son from David’s line would possess the throne forever, and that this son would build a house for Jehovah’s name. God’s purpose in this covenant was to provide a kingly dynasty for the Jews; to give Jesus, as David’s heir, the legal right to the throne of David, “Jehovah’s throne” (1Ch 29:23; Lu 1:32); and to provide identification for Jesus as the Messiah. (Eze 21:25-27; Mt 1:6-16; Lu 3:23-31) This covenant included no priesthood; the Levitical priesthood served in conjunction with kings of David’s line; priesthood and kingship were strictly separate under the Law. Since Jehovah acknowledges this kingship and works through it forever, the covenant has everlasting duration.—Isa 9:7; 2Pe 1:11.

Covenant to Be a Priest Like Melchizedek. This covenant is expressed at Psalm 110:4, and the writer of the Bible book of Hebrews applies it to Christ at Hebrews 7:1-3, 15-17. It is a covenant made by Jehovah with Jesus Christ alone. Jesus apparently referred to it when making a covenant for a kingdom with his followers. (Lu 22:29) By Jehovah’s oath Jesus Christ, the heavenly Son of God, would be a priest according to the manner of Melchizedek. Melchizedek was king and priest of God on earth. Jesus Christ would hold both offices of King and High Priest, not on earth, but in heaven. He was installed permanently into office after his ascension to heaven. (Heb 6:20; 7:26, 28; 8:1) The covenant is forever in operation, since Jesus will act under Jehovah’s direction as King and High Priest forever.—Heb 7:3.

New Covenant. Jehovah foretold the new covenant by the prophet Jeremiah in the seventh century B.C.E., stating that it would not be like the Law covenant, which Israel broke. (Jer 31:31-34) On the night before his death, Nisan 14, 33 C.E., when he established the celebration of the Lord’s Evening Meal, Jesus Christ announced the new covenant, to be validated by his sacrifice. (Lu 22:20) On the 50th day from his resurrection and 10 days after he had ascended to his Father, he poured out the holy spirit, which he had received from Jehovah, on his disciples gathered in an upper room in Jerusalem.—Ac 2:1-4, 17, 33; 2Co 3:6, 8, 9; Heb 2:3, 4.

The parties to the new covenant are Jehovah, on one side, and “the Israel of God,” the spirit-begotten ones in union with Christ, making up his congregation or body, on the other side. (Heb 8:10; 12:22-24; Ga 6:15, 16; 3:26-28; Ro 2:28, 29) The new covenant is made operative by the shed blood (the sacrifice of the human life) of Jesus Christ, the value of which was presented to Jehovah after Jesus’ ascension to heaven. (Mt 26:28) When one is selected by God for the heavenly calling (Heb 3:1), God brings that one into His covenant over Christ’s sacrifice. (Ps 50:5; Heb 9:14, 15, 26) Jesus Christ is the Mediator of the new covenant (Heb 8:6; 9:15) and is the primary Seed of Abraham. (Ga 3:16) By means of Jesus’ mediatorship of the new covenant, he assists those in the covenant to become part of the real seed of Abraham (Heb 2:16; Ga 3:29) through forgiveness of their sins. Jehovah declares them righteous.—Ro 5:1, 2; 8:33; Heb 10:16, 17.

These spirit-begotten, anointed brothers of Christ become underpriests of the High Priest, “a royal priesthood.” (1Pe 2:9; Re 5:9, 10; 20:6) These do a priestly work, a “public service” (Php 2:17), and are called “ministers of a new covenant.” (2Co 3:6) These called ones must follow Christ’s steps closely, faithfully, until laying down their lives in death; Jehovah will then make them a kingdom of priests, making them sharers in divine nature, and will reward them with immortality and incorruption as joint heirs in the heavens with Christ. (1Pe 2:21; Ro 6:3, 4; 1Co 15:53; 1Pe 1:4; 2Pe 1:4) The purpose of the covenant is to take out a people for Jehovah’s name as a part of Abraham’s “seed.” (Ac 15:14) They become the “bride” of Christ, and are the body of persons whom Christ takes into a covenant for the Kingdom, to rule with Him. (Joh 3:29; 2Co 11:2; Re 21:9; Lu 22:29; Re 1:4-6; 5:9, 10; 20:6) The purpose of the new covenant requires that it continue in operation until all of the “Israel of God” are resurrected to immortality in the heavens.

The benefits from that accomplished purpose will be everlasting, and for this reason it can be called “an everlasting covenant.”—Heb 13:20.

Jesus’ Covenant With His Followers. On the night of Nisan 14, 33 C.E., after celebrating the Lord’s Evening Meal Jesus made this covenant with his faithful apostles. To the 11 faithful apostles he promised that they would sit on thrones. (Lu 22:28-30; compare 2Ti 2:12.) Later, he showed that this promise extended to all spirit-begotten ‘conquerors.’ (Re 3:21; see also Re 1:4-6; 5:9, 10; 20:6.) On the day of Pentecost he inaugurated this covenant toward them by the anointing with holy spirit of those disciples present in the upper room in Jerusalem. (Ac 2:1-4, 33) Those who would stick with him through trials, dying his kind of death (Php 3:10; Col 1:24), would reign with him, sharing his Kingdom rule. The covenant remains operative between Jesus Christ and these associate kings forever.—Re 22:5.


Various Other Covenants. (a) Joshua and the chieftains of Israel with the inhabitants of the city of Gibeon to let them live. Though they were cursed Canaanites, whom the Israelites were to destroy, yet a covenant was considered so binding that the Gibeonites were allowed to live, but the curse was carried out by making them gatherers of wood and drawers of water for the assembly of Israel. (Jos 9:15, 16, 23-27) (b) Joshua with Israel to serve Jehovah. (Jos 24:25, 26) (c) The older men of Gilead with Jephthah at Mizpah to make him head over the inhabitants of Gilead if Jehovah gave him victory over the Ammonites. (Jg 11:8-11) (d) Between Jonathan and David. (1Sa 18:3; 23:18) (e) Jehoiada the priest with the chiefs of the Carian bodyguard and of the runners. (2Ki 11:4; 2Ch 23:1-3) (f) Israel with Jehovah to put away foreign wives. (Ezr 10:3) (g) Jehovah to give his servant as a covenant of (for) the people. (Isa 42:6; 49:8) (h) David with all the older men of Israel, at Hebron. (1Ch 11:3) (i) A covenant of the people, during Asa’s reign, to search for Jehovah with all their heart and soul. (2Ch 15:12) (j) Josiah with Jehovah to keep Jehovah’s commandments, according to the Law. (2Ch 34:31) (k) The “braggarts” who ruled Jerusalem were erroneously thinking they were safe in “a covenant with Death.”—Isa 28:14, 15, 18.

Just so/Just in time

Whiffs from cyanobacteria likely responsible for Earth's oxygen
Date:
November 20, 2015
Source:
University of Waterloo
Summary:
Earth's oxygen-rich atmosphere emerged in whiffs from a kind of cyanobacteria in shallow oceans around 2.5 billion years ago, according to new research.

Earth's oxygen-rich atmosphere emerged in whiffs from a kind of cyanobacteria in shallow oceans around 2.5 billion years ago, according to new research from Canadian and US scientists.

These whiffs of oxygen likely happened in the following 100 million years, changing the levels of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere until enough accumulated to create a permanently oxygenated atmosphere around 2.4 billion years ago -- a transition widely known as the Great Oxidation Event.

"The onset of Earth's surface oxygenation was likely a complex process characterized by multiple whiffs of oxygen until a tipping point was crossed," said Brian Kendall, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Waterloo. "Until now, we haven't been able to tell whether oxygen concentrations 2.5 billion years ago were stable or not. These new data provide a much more conclusive answer to that question."

The findings are presented in a paper published this month in Science Advances from researchers at Waterloo, University of Alberta, Arizona State University, University of California Riverside, and Georgia Institute of Technology. The team presents new isotopic data showing that a burst of oxygen production by photosynthetic cyanobacteria temporarily increased oxygen concentrations in Earth's atmosphere.

"One of the questions we ask is: 'did the evolution of photosynthesis lead directly to an oxygen-rich atmosphere? Or did the transition to today's world happen in fits and starts?" said Professor Ariel Anbar of Arizona State University. "How and why Earth developed an oxygenated atmosphere is one of the most profound puzzles in understanding the history of our planet."

The new data supports a hypothesis proposed by Anbar and his team in 2007. In Western Australia, they found preliminary evidence of these oxygen whiffs in black shales deposited on the seafloor of an ancient ocean.

The black shales contained high concentrations of the elements molybdenum and rhenium, long before the Great Oxidation Event.

These elements are found in land-based sulphide minerals, which are particularly sensitive to the presence of atmospheric oxygen. Once these minerals react with oxygen, the molybdenum and rhenium are released into rivers and eventually end up deposited on the sea floor.

In the new paper, researchers analyzed the same black shales for the relative abundance of an additional element: osmium. Like molybdenum and rhenium, osmium is also present in continental sulfide minerals. The ratio of two osmium isotopes -- 187Os to 188Os -- can tell us if the source of osmium was continental sulfide minerals or underwater volcanoes in the deep ocean.

The osmium isotope evidence found in black shales correlates with higher continental weathering as a result of oxygen in the atmosphere. By comparison, slightly younger deposits with lower molybdenum and rhenium concentrations had osmium isotope evidence for less continental input, indicating the oxygen in the atmosphere had disappeared.

The paper's authors also include Professor Robert Creaser of the University of Alberta, Professor Timothy Lyons from the University of California Riverside and Professor Chris Reinhard from the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Story Source:

The above post is reprinted from materials provided by University of Waterloo. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

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.