On the history of life a question worth asking:The watchtower Society's commentary III

Where Did the Instructions Come From?

Why do you look the way you do? What determines the color of your eyes, your hair, your skin? What about your height, your build, or your resemblance to one or both of your parents? What tells the ends of your fingers to grow soft pads on one side and hard, protective nails on the other?

In Charles Darwin’s day, the answers to such questions were shrouded in mystery. Darwin himself was fascinated by the way traits are passed along from one generation to the next, but he knew little about the laws of genetics and even less about the mechanisms within the cell that govern heredity. Now, however, biologists have spent decades studying human genetics and the detailed instructions that are embedded in the amazing molecule called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). Of course, the big question is, Where did these instructions come from?

What do many scientists claim? Many biologists and other scientists feel that DNA and its coded instructions came about through undirected chance events that took place over the course of millions of years. They say that there is no evidence of design in the structure of this molecule nor in the information that it carries and transmits nor in the way that it functions.17

What does the Bible say? The Bible suggests that the formation of our different body parts—and even the timing of their formation—involves a figurative book that originates with God. Notice how King David was inspired to describe matters, saying of God: “Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing, as regards the days when they were formed and there was not yet one among them.”—Psalm 139:16.

What does the evidence reveal? If evolution is true, then it should seem at least reasonably possible that DNA could have come about by means of a series of chance events. If the Bible is true, then DNA should provide strong evidence that it is the product of an orderly, intelligent mind.

When considered in the simplest of terms, the subject of DNA is quite understandable—and fascinating. So let us take another trip to the inside of a cell. This time, though, we will visit a human cell. Imagine that you are going to a museum designed to teach you about how such a cell works. The whole museum is a model of a typical human cell—but magnified some 13,000,000 times. It is the size of a giant sports arena, the kind that can seat an audience of about 70,000 people.

You enter the museum and stare awestruck at this wondrous place full of strange forms and structures. Near the center of the cell stands the nucleus, a sphere about 20 stories tall. You make your way there.

You go through a door in the nucleus’ outer skin, or membrane, and look around you. Dominating this chamber are 46 chromosomes. Arranged in identical pairs, they vary in height, but the pair nearest you is about 12 stories tall (1). Each chromosome has a pinched place near the middle, so it looks a bit like a link sausage but is as thick as a massive tree trunk. You see a variety of bands running across the model chromosomes. As you draw closer, you see that each horizontal band is divided by vertical lines. Between those are shorter horizontal lines (2). Are they stacks of books? No; they are the outer edges of loops, packed tightly in columns. You pull at one of them, and it comes free. You are amazed to see that the loop is composed of smaller coils (3), also neatly arranged. Within those coils is the main feature of all of this—something resembling a long, long rope. What is it?

THE STRUCTURE OF AN AMAZING MOLECULE
Let us simply call this part of the model chromosome a rope. It is about an inch [2.6 cm] thick. It is looped tightly around spools (4), which help to form the coils within coils. These coils are attached to a kind of scaffold that holds them in place. A sign on the display explains that the rope is packed very efficiently. If you were to pull the rope from each of these model chromosomes and lay it all out, from end to end it would stretch about halfway around the earth!*

One science book calls this efficient packaging system “an extraordinary feat of engineering.”18 Does the suggestion that there was no engineer behind this feat sound credible to you? If this museum had a huge store with millions of items for sale and they were all so tidily arranged that you could easily find any item you needed, would you assume that no one had organized the place? Of course not! But such order would be a simple feat by comparison.

In the museum display, a sign invites you to take a length of this rope in your hands for a closer look (5). As you run it between your fingers, you see that this is no ordinary rope. It is composed of two strands twisted around each other. The strands are connected by tiny bars, evenly spaced. The rope looks like a ladder that has been twisted until it resembles a spiral staircase (6). Then it hits you: You are holding a model of the DNA molecule—one of the great mysteries of life!

A single DNA molecule, tidily packaged with its spools and scaffold, makes up a chromosome. The rungs of the ladder are known as base pairs (7). What do they do? What is all of this for? A display sign offers a simplified explanation.

THE ULTIMATE INFORMATION STORAGE SYSTEM
The key to the DNA, the sign says, lies in those rungs, the bars connecting the two sides of the ladder. Imagine the ladder split apart. Each side has partial rungs sticking out. They come in only four types. Scientists dub them A, T, G, and C. Scientists were amazed to discover that the order of those letters conveys information in a sort of code.

You may know that Morse code was invented in the 19th century so that people could communicate by telegraph. That code had only two “letters”—a dot and a dash. Yet, it could be used to spell out countless words or sentences. Well, DNA has a four-letter code. The order in which those letters—A, T, G, and C—appear forms “words” called codons. Codons are arranged in “stories” called genes. Each gene contains, on average, 27,000 letters. These genes and the long stretches between them are compiled into chapters of a sort—the individual chromosomes. It takes 23 chromosomes to form the complete “book”—the genome, or total of genetic information about an organism.*

The genome would be a huge book. How much information would it hold? All told, the human genome is made up of about three billion base pairs, or rungs, on the DNA ladder.19 Imagine a set of encyclopedias in which each volume is over a thousand pages long. The genome would fill 428 of such volumes. Adding the second copy that is found in each cell would make that 856 volumes. If you were to type out the genome by yourself, it would be a full-time job—with no vacations—lasting some 80 years!

Of course, what you would end up with after all that typing would be useless to your body. How would you fit hundreds of bulky volumes into each of your 100 trillion microscopic cells? To compress so much information so greatly is far beyond us.

A professor of molecular biology and computer science noted: “One gram of DNA, which when dry would occupy a volume of approximately one cubic centimeter, can store as much information as approximately one trillion CDs [compact discs].”20 What does that mean? Remember, the DNA contains the genes, the instructions for building a unique human body. Each cell has a complete set of instructions. DNA is so dense with information that a single teaspoonful of it could carry the instructions for building about 350 times the number of humans alive today! The DNA required for the seven billion people living on earth now would barely make a film on the surface of that teaspoon.21

A BOOK WITH NO AUTHOR?
Despite advances in miniaturization, no man-made information storage device can approach such a capacity. Yet, the compact disc offers an apt comparison. Consider this: A compact disc may impress us with its symmetrical shape, its gleaming surface, its efficient design. We see clear evidence that intelligent people made it. But what if it is embedded with information—not random gibberish, but coherent, detailed instructions for building, maintaining, and repairing complex machinery? That information does not perceptibly change the weight or the size of the disc. Yet, it is the most important feature of that disc. Would not those written instructions convince you that there must be some intelligent mind at work here? Does not writing require a writer?

It is not far-fetched to compare DNA to a compact disc or to a book. In fact, one book about the genome notes: “The idea of the genome as a book is not, strictly speaking, even a metaphor. It is literally true. A book is a piece of digital information . . . So is a genome.” The author adds: “The genome is a very clever book, because in the right conditions it can both photocopy itself and read itself.”22 That brings up another important aspect of DNA.

MACHINES IN MOTION
As you stand there in the quiet, you find yourself wondering if the nucleus of a cell is really as still as a museum. Then you notice another display. Above a glass case containing a length of model DNA is a sign that reads: “Push Button for Demonstration.” You push the button, and a narrator explains: “DNA has at least two very important jobs. The first is called replication. DNA has to be copied so that every new cell will have a complete copy of the same genetic information. Please watch this simulation.”

Through a door at one end of the display comes a complex-looking machine. It is actually a cluster of robots closely linked together. The machine goes to the DNA, attaches itself, and begins to move along the DNA as a train might follow a track. It moves a little too fast for you to see exactly what it is doing, but you can easily see that behind it, there are now two complete DNA ropes instead of one.

The narrator explains: “This is a greatly simplified version of what goes on when DNA is replicated. A group of molecular machines called enzymes travel along the DNA, first splitting it in two, then using each strand as a template to make a new, complementary strand. We cannot show you all the parts involved—such as the tiny device that runs ahead of the replication machine and snips one side of the DNA so that it can twirl around freely instead of getting wound up too tight. Nor can we show you how the DNA is ‘proofread’ several times. Errors are detected and corrected to an amazing degree of accuracy.”—See the diagram on pages 16 and 17.

The narrator continues: “What we can show you clearly is the speed. You noticed this robot moving at a pretty good clip, didn’t you? Well, the actual enzyme machinery moves along the DNA ‘track’ at a rate of about 100 rungs, or base pairs, every second.23 If the ‘track’ were the size of a railroad track, this ‘engine’ would be barreling along at the rate of over 50 miles [80 km] per hour. In bacteria, these little replication machines can move ten times faster than that! In the human cell, armies of hundreds of these replication machines go to work at different spots along the DNA ‘track.’ They copy the entire genome in just eight hours.”24 (See the box “A Molecule That Can Be Read and Copied,” on page 20.)

“READING” DNA
The DNA-replicating robots trundle off the scene. Another machine appears. It too moves along a stretch of DNA, but more slowly. You see the DNA rope entering one end of this machine and emerging from the other—unchanged. But a single strand, a new one, is coming out of a separate opening in the machine, like a growing tail. What is going on?

Again the narrator provides an explanation: “DNA’s second job is called transcription. The DNA never leaves the safe shelter of the nucleus. So how can its genes—the recipes for all the proteins your body is made of—ever be read and used? Well, this enzyme machine finds a spot along the DNA where a gene has been switched on by chemical signals coming in from outside the cell nucleus. Then this machine uses a molecule called RNA (ribonucleic acid) to make a copy of that gene. RNA looks a lot like a single strand of DNA, but it is different. Its job is to pick up the information coded in the genes. The RNA gets that information while in the enzyme machine, then exits the nucleus and heads to one of the ribosomes, where the information will be used to build a protein.”

As you watch the demonstration, you are filled with wonder. You are deeply impressed by this museum and the ingenuity of those who designed and built its machines. But what if this entire place with all its exhibits could be set in motion, demonstrating all the thousands upon thousands of tasks that go on in the human cell at the same time? What an awe-inspiring spectacle that would be!

You realize, though, that all these processes carried out by tiny, complex machines are actually going on right now in your own 100 trillion cells! Your DNA is being read, providing directions to build the hundreds of thousands of different proteins that make up your body—its enzymes, tissues, organs, and so on. Right now your DNA is being copied and proofread for errors so that a fresh set of directions is there to be read in each new cell.

WHY DO THESE FACTS MATTER?
Again, let us ask ourselves, ‘Where did all these instructions come from?’ The Bible suggests that this “book” and its writing originate with a superhuman Author. Is that conclusion really out-of-date or unscientific?

Consider this: Could humans even build the museum just described? They would run into real difficulty if they tried. Much about the human genome and how it functions is little understood as yet. Scientists are still trying to figure out where all the genes are and what they do. And the genes comprise only a small part of the DNA strand. What about all those long stretches that do not contain genes? Scientists have called those parts junk DNA, but more recently they have been modifying that stance. Those parts may control how and to what extent the genes are used. And even if scientists could create a full model of the DNA and the machines that copy and proofread it, could they make it actually function as the real one does?

Famous scientist Richard Feynman left this note on a blackboard shortly before his death: “What I cannot create, I do not understand.”25 His candid humility is refreshing, and his statement, obviously true in the case of DNA. Scientists cannot create DNA with all its replication and transcription machinery; nor can they fully understand it. Yet, some assert that they know that it all came about by undirected chance and accidents. Does the evidence that you have considered really support such a conclusion?

Some learned men have decided that the evidence points the other way. For example, Francis Crick, a scientist who helped to discover DNA’s double-helix structure, decided that this molecule is far too organized to have come about through undirected events. He proposed that intelligent extraterrestrials may have sent DNA to the earth to help get life started here.26

More recently, noted philosopher Antony Flew, who advocated atheism for 50 years, did an about-face of sorts. At 81 years of age, he began to express a belief that some intelligence must have been at work in the creation of life. Why the change? A study of DNA. When asked if his new line of thought might prove unpopular among scientists, Flew reportedly answered: “That’s too bad. My whole life has been guided by the principle . . . [to] follow the evidence, wherever it leads.”27


What do you think? Where does the evidence lead? Imagine that you found a computer room in the heart of a factory. The computer is running a complex master program that directs all the workings of that factory. What is more, that program is constantly sending out instructions on how to build and maintain every machine there, and it is making copies of itself and proofreading them. What would that evidence lead you to conclude? That the computer and its program must have made themselves or that they were produced by orderly, intelligent minds? Really, the evidence speaks for itself.

(The textbook Molecular Biology of the Cell uses a different scale. It says that trying to pack these long strands into a cell nucleus would be like trying to pack 24 miles [40 km] of very fine thread into a tennis ball—but in such a neat, organized way that each part of the thread remains easily accessible.

Each cell contains two complete copies of the genome, 46 chromosomes in all.
  A MOLECULE THAT CAN BE READ AND COPIED
How can DNA be read and copied so reliably? The four chemical bases used in the DNA ladder—A, T, G, and C—form the ladder’s individual rungs by always pairing in the same way: A with T, and G with C. If one side of a rung is A, the other side is always T; G always meets C. Therefore, if you have one side of the ladder, you know the other side of the ladder. Where one side of the ladder reads GTCA, the other side must read CAGT. The partial rungs differ in length, but when they pair up with their complements, they make complete rungs of one uniform length.

Discovering that fact led scientists to another breakthrough about this remarkable molecule: DNA is perfectly suited for being copied over and over. The enzyme machine that replicates DNA takes in free-floating units of those four chemicals from the environment in the nucleus. Then it uses them to complete each rung on the split DNA strand.


So a DNA molecule really is like a book that is read and copied over and over again. In the average life span of a human, DNA is copied some 10,000,000,000,000,000 times, with amazing fidelity.28
FACTS AND QUESTIONS
▪ Fact: DNA is packaged within the chromosomes in a manner so efficient that it has been called a “feat of engineering.”

Question: How could such order and organization arise by undirected chance events?

▪ Fact: DNA’s capacity to store information still has no equal in today’s computer age.

Question: If human computer technicians cannot achieve such results, how could mindless matter do so on its own?

▪ Fact: DNA contains all the instructions needed to build a unique human body and maintain it throughout life.

Question: How could such writing come about without a writer, such programming without a programmer?

▪ Fact: For DNA to work, it has to be copied, read, and proofread by a swarm of complex molecular machines called enzymes, which must work together with precision and split-second timing.


Question: Do you believe that highly complex, highly reliable machinery can come about by chance? Without solid proof, would not such a belief amount to blind faith?
  

When strolling through the flea market that is 'settled science' ,caveat emptor.

William A. Wilson on the "Cult of Science

David Klinghoffer 

In First Things, William A. Wilson has what may be the most trenchant takedown of the "Science Says" mentality that I've come across. It's a long and fearless essay. Seeing it all put together in one place as Wilson does is liberating.

He utterly disenchants the popular, cult-like notion that science, any field of it -- from physics to psychology and everything in between -- is simply a distributor of objective truth, to be trusted implicitly. The reality is that scientists are built from the same "crooked timber" we all are, and it shows in their work. Buyer beware.

Much of this is familiar. There is the scandal of widespread failed replication. There is Stanford University Medical School professor John Ioannidis's notorious essay, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False." Says Wilson, "There is no putting it nicely, deliberate fraud is far more widespread than the scientific establishment is generally willing to admit." Retractions of research findings are common -- that's well known. But when celebrated findings are withdrawn, that is less likely to catch the attention of the media:

Two of the most vaunted physics results of the past few years -- the announced discovery of both cosmic inflation and gravitational waves at the BICEP2 experiment in Antarctica, and the supposed discovery of superluminal neutrinos at the Swiss-Italian border -- have now been retracted, with far less fanfare than when they were first published.

And there's peer review. Ah, the vaunted standard, peer review. This hits the nail on the head: "If peer review is good at anything, it appears to be keeping unpopular ideas from being published." Yes, proponents of counter-theories in competition with Darwinism know this dynamic particularly well:

What they do not mention is that once an entire field has been created -- with careers, funding, appointments, and prestige all premised upon an experimental result which was utterly false due either to fraud or to plain bad luck -- pointing this fact out is not likely to be very popular. Peer review switches from merely useless to actively harmful. It may be ineffective at keeping papers with analytic or methodological flaws from being published, but it can be deadly effective at suppressing criticism of a dominant research paradigm. Even if a critic is able to get his work published, pointing out that the house you've built together is situated over a chasm will not endear him to his colleagues or, more importantly, to his mentors and patrons.

It's built into the structure of the modern scientific enterprise that senior researchers are jealous guardians of orthodoxy, to whom younger colleagues bow and scrape. Funerals, as the aged pass on with the advance of time, don't solve the problem -- as some have hopefully suggested:

The quantum physicist Max Planck famously quipped: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Planck may have been too optimistic. A recent paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research studied what happens to scientific subfields when star researchers die suddenly and at the peak of their abilities, and finds that while there is considerable evidence that young researchers are reluctant to challenge scientific superstars, a sudden and unexpected death does not significantly improve the situation, particularly when "key collaborators of the star are in a position to channel resources (such as editorial goodwill or funding) to insiders."

Wilson raises the possibility that some of the best science may involve the rediscovery and unearthing of dormant truths. He gives a helpful formulation to describe this -- "scientific regress." Yes, check:

[I]f raw results are so often false, the filtering mechanisms so ineffective, and the self-correcting mechanisms so compromised and slow, then science's approach to truth may not even be monotonic. That is, past theories, now "refuted" by evidence and replaced with new approaches, may be closer to the truth than what we think now. Such regress has happened before: In the nineteenth century, the (correct) vitamin C deficiency theory of scurvy was replaced by the false belief that scurvy was caused by proximity to spoiled foods. Many ancient astronomers believed the heliocentric model of the solar system before it was supplanted by the geocentric theory of Ptolemy. The Whiggish view of scientific history is so dominant today that this possibility is spoken of only in hushed whispers, but ours is a world in which things once known can be lost and buried.

His description of the Cult of Science, a noxious and juvenile culture familiar from countless science blogs and news sites, cannot be improved on:

The Cult is related to the phenomenon described as "scientism"; both have a tendency to treat the body of scientific knowledge as a holy book or an a-religious revelation that offers simple and decisive resolutions to deep questions. But it adds to this a pinch of glib frivolity and a dash of unembarrassed ignorance. Its rhetorical tics include a forced enthusiasm (a search on Twitter for the hashtag "#sciencedancing" speaks volumes) and a penchant for profanity. Here in Silicon Valley, one can scarcely go a day without seeing a t-shirt reading "Science: It works, b--es!" The hero of the recent popular movie The Martian boasts that he will "science the sh-- out of" a situation. One of the largest groups on Facebook is titled "I f--ing love Science!" (a name which, combined with the group's penchant for posting scarcely any actual scientific material but a lot of pictures of natural phenomena, has prompted more than one actual scientist of my acquaintance to mutter under her breath, "What you truly love is pictures"). Some of the Cult's leaders like to play dress-up as scientists -- Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson are two particularly prominent examples -- but hardly any of them have contributed any research results of note. Rather, Cult leadership trends heavily in the direction of educators, popularizers, and journalists.

It's significant that Wilson himself is a software engineer, meaning that he is in the business of satisfying paying customers, not merely ginning up publicity for himself, impressing colleagues, and boosting his own self-esteem. If he were active in any other area of science, he could not possibly have gotten away with writing as frankly as this.

The Watchtower Society's commentary on king Saul

SAUL

[Asked [of God]; Inquired [of God]].

1. A Benjamite descended from Jeiel (presumably also called Abiel) through Ner and Kish (1Ch 8:29-33; 9:35-39; see ABIEL No. 1); the first divinely selected king of Israel. (1Sa 9:15, 16; 10:1) Saul came from a wealthy family. A handsome man, standing head and shoulders taller than all others of his nation, he possessed great physical strength and agility. (1Sa 9:1, 2; 2Sa 1:23) The name of his wife was Ahinoam. Saul fathered at least seven sons, Jonathan, Ishvi, Malchi-shua, Abinadab, Ish-bosheth (Eshbaal), Armoni, and Mephibosheth, as well as two daughters, Merab and Michal. Abner, evidently King Saul’s uncle (see ABNER), served as chief of the Israelite army.—1Sa 14:49, 50; 2Sa 2:8; 21:8; 1Ch 8:33.

The young man Saul lived during a turbulent time of Israel’s history. Philistine oppression had reduced the nation to a helpless state militarily (1Sa 9:16; 13:19, 20), and the Ammonites under King Nahash threatened aggression. (1Sa 12:12) Whereas Samuel had faithfully judged Israel, his sons were perverters of justice. (1Sa 8:1-3) Viewing the situation from a human standpoint and, therefore, losing sight of Jehovah’s ability to protect his people, the older men of Israel approached Samuel with the request that he appoint a king over them.—1Sa 8:4, 5.

Anointed as King. Thereafter Jehovah guided matters to provide the occasion for anointing Saul as king. With his attendant, Saul looked for the lost she-asses of his father. Since the search proved to be fruitless, he decided to return home. But his attendant suggested that they seek the assistance of the “man of God” known to be in a nearby city. This led to Saul’s meeting Samuel. (1Sa 9:3-19) In his first conversation with Samuel, Saul showed himself to be a modest man. (1Sa 9:20, 21) After eating a sacrificial meal with Saul, Samuel continued speaking with him. The next morning Samuel anointed Saul as king. To confirm that God was with Saul, Samuel gave him three prophetic signs, all of which were fulfilled that day.—1Sa 9:22–10:16.

Later, at Mizpah, when chosen as king by lot (1Sa 10:20, 21, JB; NE), Saul bashfully hid among the luggage. Found, he was presented as king, and the people approvingly shouted: “Let the king live!” Escorted by valiant men, Saul returned to Gibeah. Though good-for-nothing men spoke disparagingly of him and despised him, Saul remained silent.—1Sa 10:17-27.

Early Victories. About a month later (according to the reading of the Greek Septuagint and Dead Sea Scroll 4QSama in 1Sa 11:1) Ammonite King Nahash demanded the surrender of Jabesh in Gilead. (See NAHASH No. 1.) When messengers brought news of this to Saul, God’s spirit became operative upon him. He quickly rallied an army of 330,000 men and led it to victory. This resulted in a strengthening of Saul’s position as king, the people even requesting that those who had spoken against him be put to death. But Saul, appreciating that Jehovah had granted the victory, did not consent to this. Subsequently, at Gilgal, Saul’s kingship was confirmed anew.—1Sa 11:1-15.

Next Saul undertook steps to break the power of the Philistines over Israel. He chose 3,000 Israelites, placing 2,000 under himself and the remainder under his son Jonathan. Evidently acting at his father’s direction, “Jonathan struck down the garrison of the Philistines that was in Geba.” In retaliation, the Philistines assembled a mighty force and began camping at Michmash.—1Sa 13:3, 5.

Sins Presumptuously. Meanwhile Saul had withdrawn from Michmash to Gilgal in the Jordan Valley. There he waited seven days for Samuel. But Samuel did not come at the appointed time. Fearing that the enemy would sweep down upon him when he had not secured Jehovah’s help and that further delay would result in losing his army, Saul ‘compelled himself’ to offer up the burnt sacrifice. Samuel, on arriving, condemned Saul’s ‘foolish act’ as sinful. Evidently, Saul’s sin consisted of his presumptuously going ahead with the sacrifice and not obeying Jehovah’s commandment, which had been given through his representative Samuel, to wait for Samuel to offer up the sacrifice. (Compare 1Sa 10:8.) As a consequence of this act, Saul’s kingdom was not to last.—1Sa 13:1-14.

In the progress of the campaign against the Philistines, Saul pronounced a curse upon anyone partaking of food before vengeance was executed on the enemy. This rash oath led to adverse consequences. The Israelites tired, and though they triumphed over the Philistines, their victory was not as great as it might have been. Famished, they did not take time to drain the blood from the animals they afterward slaughtered, thereby violating God’s law concerning the sanctity of blood. Not having heard his father’s oath, Jonathan ate some honey. Saul, therefore, pronounced the death sentence upon him. But the people redeemed Jonathan, for he had been instrumental in Israel’s gaining the victory.—1Sa 14:1-45.

Rejected by God. Throughout Saul’s reign there were repeated battles against the Philistines and other peoples, including the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, and Amalekites. (1Sa 14:47, 48, 52) In the war against the Amalekites, Saul transgressed Jehovah’s command by sparing the best of their flock and herd as well as their king, Agag. When asked why he had not obeyed Jehovah’s voice, Saul disclaimed guilt and shifted the blame onto the people. Only after Samuel emphasized the serious nature of the sin and said that, because of it, Jehovah was rejecting him as king did Saul acknowledge that his error was the result of his fearing the people. After Saul pleaded with Samuel to honor him in front of the older men and in front of Israel by accompanying him, Samuel did appear with him before them. Then Samuel himself proceeded to put Agag to death. After that, Samuel parted from Saul and they had no further association.—1Sa 15:1-35.

It was after this and after the anointing of David as Israel’s future king that Jehovah’s spirit left Saul. From then on “a bad spirit from Jehovah terrorized him.” Having withdrawn his spirit from Saul, Jehovah made it possible for a bad spirit to gain possession of him, depriving Saul of his peace of mind and stirring up his feelings, thoughts, and imaginations in a wrong way. Saul’s failure to obey Jehovah indicated a bad inclination of mind and heart, against which God’s spirit offered Saul no protection or resistive force. However, since Jehovah had permitted the “bad spirit” to replace his spirit and terrorize Saul, it could be termed a “bad spirit from Jehovah,” so that Saul’s servants spoke of it as “God’s bad spirit.” On the recommendation of one of his attendants, Saul requested that David be his court musician to calm him when he was troubled by the “bad spirit.”—1Sa 16:14-23; 17:15.

Relationships With David. Thereafter the Philistines threatened Israel’s security. While they were camped on one side of the Low Plain of Elah and King Saul’s forces were camped on the opposite side, Goliath, morning and evening, for 40 days, emerged from the Philistine camp, challenging Israel to furnish a man to fight him in single combat. King Saul promised to enrich and to form a marriage alliance with any Israelite who might strike down Goliath. Also, the house of the victor’s father was to be “set free,” probably from the payment of taxes and compulsory service. (Compare 1Sa 8:11-17.) When David arrived on the scene with food supplies for his brothers and certain portions for the chief of the thousand (possibly the commander under whom David’s brothers served), his questionings apparently suggested his willingness to answer the challenge. This led to his being brought to Saul and to his subsequent victory over Goliath.—1Sa 17:1-58.

Develops enmity for David. Saul thereafter placed David over the men of war. This eventually resulted in David’s being celebrated in song more than the king himself. Saul, therefore, came to view David with suspicion and envious hatred. On one occasion, as David was playing on the harp, Saul ‘began behaving like a prophet.’ Not that Saul began to utter prophecies, but he evidently manifested extraordinary feeling and a physical disturbance like that of a prophet just prior to prophesying or when prophesying. While in that unusual, disturbed state, Saul twice hurled a spear at David. Failing in his attempts to pin David to the wall, Saul later agreed to give his daughter Michal in marriage to David upon the presentation of a hundred foreskins of the Philistines. Saul’s intent in making this offer was that David would die at their hands. The scheme failed, David presenting, not 100, but 200 foreskins to form a marriage alliance with Saul. The king’s fear of and hatred for David therefore intensified. To his son Jonathan and to all of his servants, Saul spoke about his desire to put David to death. When Jonathan interceded, Saul promised not to kill David. Nevertheless, David was forced to flee for his life, as Saul hurled a spear at him for the third time. Saul even had messengers watch David’s house and commanded that he be put to death in the morning.—1Sa 18:1–19:11.

That night David made his escape through a window of his house and ran to Ramah, where Samuel resided. With Samuel he then took up dwelling in Naioth. When news of this reached Saul, he sent messengers to seize David. But, upon arriving, they “began behaving like prophets.” Evidently God’s spirit operated upon them in such a way that they completely forgot the purpose of their mission. When this also happened to two other groups of messengers dispatched by him, Saul personally went to Ramah. He likewise came under the control of God’s spirit, and that for a prolonged period, this evidently providing David sufficient time to flee.—1Sa 19:12–20:1; see PROPHET (Means of Appointment and Inspiration).

David spares Saul’s life as God’s anointed. After these unsuccessful attempts on David’s life, Jonathan, for a second time, spoke out in behalf of David. But Saul became so enraged that he hurled a spear at his own son. (1Sa 20:1-33) From that time onward Saul relentlessly pursued David. Learning that High Priest Ahimelech had assisted David, Saul ordered that he and his associate priests be executed. (1Sa 22:6-19) Later, he planned to attack the Judean city of Keilah because David was residing there but abandoned the plan when David escaped. Saul continued the chase, hunting for him in wilderness regions. A Philistine raid, however, brought his pursuit to a temporary halt and enabled David to seek refuge in the Wilderness of En-gedi. On two occasions thereafter Saul came into a position that would have allowed David to kill him. But David refused to put out his hand against Jehovah’s anointed one. The second time Saul, learning of David’s restraint, even promised not to do injury to David. But this was an insincere expression, for it was only when he learned that David had run away to the Philistine city of Gath that he abandoned the chase.—1Sa 23:10–24:22; 26:1–27:1, 4.

Saul turns to spiritism. About a year or two later (1Sa 29:3), the Philistines came against Saul. Without Jehovah’s spirit and guidance, and abandoned to a disapproved mental state, he turned to spiritism, a transgression worthy of death. (Le 20:6) Disguised, Saul went to see a spirit medium at En-dor, requesting that she bring up the dead Samuel for him. From her description of what she saw, Saul concluded that it was Samuel. However, it should be noted that Jehovah had not answered Saul’s inquiries and obviously did not do so by means of a practice condemned by His law as warranting the death penalty. (Le 20:27) Therefore, what the woman said must have been of demonic origin. The message gave no comfort to Saul but filled him with fear.—1Sa 28:4-25; see SPIRITISM.

Saul’s death. In the ensuing conflict with the Philistines, Saul was severely wounded at Mount Gilboa and three of his sons were slain. As his armor-bearer refused to put him to death, Saul fell upon his own sword. (1Sa 31:1-7) About three days later a young Amalekite came to David, boasting that he had put the wounded king to death. This was evidently a lie, designed to gain David’s favor. David, however, commanded that the man be executed on the basis of the claim, because Saul had been Jehovah’s anointed one.—2Sa 1:1-15.

Meanwhile the Philistines had fastened the corpses of Saul and his three sons on the wall of Beth-shan. Courageous men of Jabesh-gilead, however, retrieved the bodies, burned them, and then buried the bones.—1Sa 31:8-13.

Years later, during David’s reign, the bloodguilt that had been incurred by Saul and his house in connection with the Gibeonites was avenged when seven of his descendants were slain.—2Sa 21:1-9.


2. A Benjamite of the city of Tarsus in Asia Minor who persecuted Christ’s followers but later became an apostle of Jesus Christ. (Ac 9:1, 4, 17; 11:25; 21:39; Php 3:5) In all of his letters he referred to himself by his Latin name Paul.—See PAUL.

On the history of life a question worth asking:The Watchtower Society's commentary II

Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?

Your body is one of the most complex structures in the universe. It is made up of some 100 trillion tiny cells—bone cells, blood cells, brain cells, to name a few.7 In fact, there are more than 200 different types of cells in your body.8

Despite their amazing diversity in shape and function, your cells form an intricate, integrated network. The Internet, with its millions of computers and high-speed data cables, is clumsy in comparison. No human invention can compete with the technical brilliance evident in even the most basic of cells. How did the cells that make up the human body come into existence?

What do many scientists claim? All living cells fall into two major categories—those with a nucleus and those without. Human, animal, and plant cells have a nucleus. Bacterial cells do not. Cells with a nucleus are called eukaryotic. Those without a nucleus are known as prokaryotic. Since prokaryotic cells are relatively less complex than eukaryotic cells, many believe that animal and plant cells must have evolved from bacterial cells.

In fact, many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them. Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated.9*

What does the Bible say? The Bible states that life on earth is the product of an intelligent mind. Note the Bible’s clear logic: “Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.” (Hebrews 3:4) Another Bible passage says: “How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions. . . . There are moving things without number, living creatures, small as well as great.”—Psalm 104:24, 25.

What does the evidence reveal? Advances in microbiology have made it possible to peer into the awe-inspiring interior of the simplest living prokaryotic cells known. Evolutionary scientists theorize that the first living cells must have looked something like these cells.10

If the theory of evolution is true, it should offer a plausible explanation of how the first “simple” cell formed by chance. On the other hand, if life was created, there should be evidence of ingenious design even in the smallest of creatures. Why not take a tour of a prokaryotic cell? As you do so, ask yourself whether such a cell could arise by chance.

THE CELL’S PROTECTIVE WALL
To tour a prokaryotic cell, you would have to shrink to a size that is hundreds of times smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. Keeping you out of the cell is a tough, flexible membrane that acts like a brick and mortar wall surrounding a factory. It would take some 10,000 layers of this membrane to equal the thickness of a sheet of paper. But the membrane of a cell is much more sophisticated than the brick wall. In what ways?

Like the wall surrounding a factory, the membrane of a cell shields the contents from a potentially hostile environment. However, the membrane is not solid; it allows the cell to “breathe,” permitting small molecules, such as oxygen, to pass in or out. But the membrane blocks more complex, potentially damaging molecules from entering without the cell’s permission. The membrane also prevents useful molecules from leaving the cell. How does the membrane manage such feats?

Think again of a factory. It might have security guards who monitor the products that enter and leave through the doorways in the factory wall. Similarly, the cell membrane has special protein molecules embedded in it that act like the doors and the security guards.

Some of these proteins (1) have a hole through the middle of them that allows only specific types of molecules in and out of the cell. Other proteins are open on one side of the cell membrane (2) and closed on the other. They have a docking site (3) shaped to fit a specific substance. When that substance docks, the other end of the protein opens and releases the cargo through the membrane (4). All this activity is happening on the surface of even the simplest of cells.

INSIDE THE FACTORY
Imagine that you have been allowed past the “security guard” and are now inside the cell. The interior of a prokaryotic cell is filled with a watery fluid that is rich in nutrients, salts, and other substances. The cell uses these raw ingredients to manufacture the products it needs. But the process is not haphazard. Like an efficiently run factory, the cell organizes thousands of chemical reactions so that they take place in a specific order and according to a set timetable.

A cell spends a lot of its time making proteins. How does it do so? First, you would see the cell make about 20 different basic building blocks called amino acids. These building blocks are delivered to the ribosomes (5), which may be likened to automated machines that link the amino acids in a precise order to form a specific protein. Just as the operations of a factory might be governed by a central computer program, many of the functions of a cell are governed by a “computer program,” or code, known as DNA (6). From the DNA, the ribosome receives a copy of detailed instructions that tell it which protein to build and how to build it (7).

What happens as the protein is made is nothing short of amazing! Each one folds into a unique three-dimensional shape (8). It is this shape that determines the specialized job that the protein will do.* Picture a production line where engine parts are being assembled. Each part needs to be precisely constructed if the engine is to work. Similarly, if a protein is not precisely constructed and folded to exactly the right shape, it will not be able to do its work properly and may even damage the cell.

How does the protein find its way from where it was made to where it is needed? Each protein the cell makes has a built-in “address tag” that ensures that the protein will be delivered to where it is needed. Although thousands of proteins are built and delivered each minute, each one arrives at the correct destination.

Why do these facts matter? The complex molecules in the simplest living thing cannot reproduce alone. Outside the cell, they break down. Inside the cell, they cannot reproduce without the help of other complex molecules. For example, enzymes are needed to produce a special energy molecule called adenosine triphosphate (ATP), but energy from ATP is needed to produce enzymes. Similarly, DNA (section 3 discusses this molecule) is required to make enzymes, but enzymes are required to make DNA. Also, other proteins can be made only by a cell, but a cell can be made only with proteins.*

Microbiologist Radu Popa does not agree with the Bible’s account of creation. Yet, in 2004 he asked: “How can nature make life if we failed with all the experimental conditions controlled?”13 He also stated: “The complexity of the mechanisms required for the functioning of a living cell is so large that a simultaneous emergence by chance seems impossible.”14

What do you think? The theory of evolution tries to account for the origin of life on earth without the necessity of divine intervention. However, the more that scientists discover about life, the less likely it appears that it could arise by chance. To sidestep this dilemma, some evolutionary scientists would like to make a distinction between the theory of evolution and the question of the origin of life. But does that sound reasonable to you?

The theory of evolution rests on the notion that a long series of fortunate accidents produced life to start with. It then proposes that another series of undirected accidents produced the astonishing diversity and complexity of all living things. However, if the foundation of the theory is missing, what happens to the other theories that are built on this assumption? Just as a skyscraper built without a foundation would collapse, a theory of evolution that cannot explain the origin of life will crumble.


After briefly considering the structure and function of a “simple” cell, what do you see—evidence of many accidents or proof of brilliant design? If you are still unsure, take a closer look at the “master program” that controls the functions of all cells.


  (HOW FAST CAN A CELL REPRODUCE?

Some bacteria can make replicas of themselves within 20 minutes. Each cell copies all the controlling “computer programs.” Then it divides. If it had unlimited access to fuel, just one cell could increase in number exponentially. At that rate, it would take only two days to produce a clump of cells with a weight more than 2,500 times greater than that of the earth.15 Cells that are more complex can also replicate quickly. For example, when you were developing in your mother’s womb, new brain cells formed at the astounding rate of 250,000 per minute!16

Human manufacturers often have to sacrifice quality to produce an item at a fast pace. How is it possible, then, that cells can reproduce so fast and so accurately if they are the product of undirected accidents?
  FACTS AND QUESTIONS

▪ Fact: The extraordinarily complex molecules that make up a cell—DNA, RNA, proteins—seem designed to work together.

Question: What seems more likely to you? Did unintelligent evolution construct the intricate machines depicted on page 10, or were those machines the product of an intelligent mind?

▪ Fact: Some respected scientists say that even a “simple” cell is far too complex to have arisen by chance on earth.

Question: If some scientists are willing to speculate that life came from an extraterrestrial source, what is the basis for ruling out God as that Source?

[Diagram on page 10]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

The cell membrane has “security guards” that allow only specific substances to pass in or out)

Suboptimal?Says who?

Design Can Be Suboptimal on Purpose
Evolution News & Views

Evolutionists wrongly argue that ID can't be true because some designs are not optimal. But there might be a perfectly intelligent reason for some suboptimal designs in nature.

"When It Comes to Genetic Code, Researchers Prove Optimum Isn't Always Best," according tothe news from Texas A&M University. For example, "Imagine two steel springs identical in look and composition but that perform differently because each was tempered at a different rate." Engineers might want the springs to perform differently, and temper them that way for a reason.

Turning to the living cell, the researchers considered how variations in the coding of the biological clock can create similar timing differences. Their finding is related to our comments the other day on the "snooze button" on the biological clock. They were part of the team that found out how synonymous codons allow for timing differences that fine-tune circadian rhythms. Applying their analogy about tempered springs, we learn:

The group's research indicates that the protein in the fungal genus Neurospora they studied, frequency, performs better when the genetic code specifying it has non-optimal codon usage, as is normally found. However, when the genetic code is deliberately altered so that codon usage is optimized, clock function is lost. The reason for this is that non-optimal codon usage slows translation of the genetic code into protein, allotting the frequency protein the necessary time to achieve its optimal protein structure.
The team's results also demonstrate that genetic codons do more than simply determine the amino acid sequence of a protein as previously thought: They also affect how much protein can be made as well as the functional quality of that protein. (Emphasis added.)

So what at first appeared sloppy or suboptimal actually has a purpose. "Less is more" sometimes. Even though an alternate codon specifies the same amino acid, it can affect the action of the resulting enzymatic reaction through timing.
Also noteworthy about the news from Texas A&M is its elevated praise of design in the biological clock:

"Living organisms' inner clocks are like Swiss watches with precisely manufactured spring mechanisms," said Matthew Sachs, a professor in the Texas A&M Department of Biology. "For example, if you fast-temper a critical spring, the watch may be unable to keep time, as opposed to slow-tempering it. It's not just about the composition of the components, such as which alloy is used. It's about the manner in which the components are made. Our research says the genetic code is important for determining both composition and fabrication rate for a central component of the circadian clock, and that the fabrication rate also is critical. And that's essentially a discovery."
Swiss watch, you say? That sounds almost like an echo of Paley. But Paley's approach was natural theology. This approach is intelligent design: finding complex specified information, functioning with a purpose, that implies not necessarily a deity, but an intelligent cause that can be rightly inferred scientifically from our uniform experience with what intelligence routinely does.

Darwinism vs. the real world XXVI

Thyroid Function: When Real Numbers Don't Add Up

Howard Glicksman 

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 is delighted to offer this series, "The Designed Body." For the complete series, see here. Dr. Glicksman practices palliative medicine for a hospice organization.


By only considering DNA and the molecules that derive from it, evolutionary biologists only talk about how life looks, not how it actually works within the laws of nature to survive. It's like explaining how all the parts of the Saturn V came together as a functioning rocket without showing how it developed the capacity to overcome the Earth's gravitational pull to boost the Apollo XI into space.

In previous articles in this series I have shown that life does not exist within a vacuum or in the imagination of evolutionary biologists, but within the laws of nature. Those laws state that heat is the transfer of energy from one object to another, whereas temperature is a measure of the random motion within an object or its internal energy. The body must control its core temperature because if it isn't just right it can adversely affect enzyme function and the integrity of the plasma membrane and other cellular structures.

The core temperature is directly related to how much heat the body's metabolism releases, whether at complete rest (basal metabolic rate, or BMR) or with activity, and how much heat it loses to, or gains from, its surroundings. The BMR represents the minimum amount of heat the body produces and is mainly controlled by thyroid hormone activity. The exact mechanism of how thyroid hormone affects the metabolism of the cell is as yet poorly understood. However, studies indicate that it binds to a specific receptor in the nucleus of all of the body's cells to stimulate protein synthesis and cellular respiration, causing an increase in oxygen consumption and heat production.

We saw in a previous article that thyroid hormone production is controlled by the hypothalamus and the pituitary, both of which can detect its level in the blood. If the level is too low, the hypothalamus sends out more thyrotropin-releasing factor (TRF) and the pituitary sends out more thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH). If it is too high, they send out less of the hormones. The more TRF is sent to the pituitary, where it attaches to specific receptors, the more TSH it releases, and vice versa. And the more TSH sent to the thyroid gland, where it attaches to specific receptors, the more thyroid hormone it releases, and the less sent, the less it releases. Clinical experience shows that the normal blood level for thyroid hormone is 60-140 units and for TSH, 0.4-4.2 units.

When your car isn't working properly, you can appreciate why all the different parts must be present and in good working order for it to function right. The same can be said for your body. Medical science's attention is usually brought to bear when the body is suffering from a condition that is affecting its ability to function properly. So, knowledge and appreciation for what thyroid function accomplishes in the body may best be viewed through the lens of dysfunction. Let's look at what happens to the body when the real numbers regarding thyroid function don't add up right.

Along with diabetes mellitus, diseases that affect thyroid function are one of the commonest endocrine disorders. In general, if the hypothalamus and pituitary are working normally, when the thyroid produces too much, or not enough hormone the blood level of thyroid hormone and TSH are outside the normal range. If the thyroid hormone level goes too low (hypothyroidism) there normally is a compensatory rise in the TSH as the pituitary tries to make the thyroid make more. And if the thyroid hormone level goes too high (hyperthyroidism) there normally is a drop in TSH, often approaching zero, as the pituitary tries to turn off the thyroid's excessive production.

Hypothyroidisminvolves a major drop in the production of thyroid hormone. World-wide, the commonest cause is a deficiency in iodine which, like iron for hemoglobin, is an important element for thyroid hormone production. The normal daily intake of iodine is about 150 micrograms, but there are many areas in the world where it may be as low as 20 micrograms. Most developed countries add iodine to salt and flour to prevent deficiency. The commonest cause for hypothyroidism in these countries is Hashimoto's thyroiditis, an autoimmune disease that produces antibodies that attack thyroid tissue, causing inflammation and tissue injury. Over time, as enough of thyroid tissue is destroyed, the thyroid gland is rendered incapable of producing adequate amounts of thyroid hormone to meet the body's normal metabolic needs.

Hypothyroidism causes all of the cells in the body to function slower than normal, use less energy, consume less oxygen, and give off less heat. All of this results in a major drop in the basal metabolic rate and every organ in the body is affected. People with hypothyroidism usually experience weight gain, despite eating less than usual, severe fatigue, muscle weakness, dry skin, loss of hair, increased sensitivity to cold, constipation, a slower heart rate, and may even have problems with concentration, memory, and depression. A person with severe hypothyroidism may even develop myxedema in which all of the tissues of the body become swollen. If not diagnosed and treated in time, these people can slip into a coma. Congenital hypothyroidism takes place in about 1 in 4,000 newborns and if not quickly diagnosed and treated can lead to permanent growth problems and intellectual deficiency.

Hyperthyroidism involves a major rise in the production of thyroid hormone activity and the commonest cause is Grave's Disease. This is also an autoimmune disease, but instead of causing inflammation and destruction of tissue, the antibodies stimulate the TSH receptors on the thyroid gland, making it produce more thyroid hormone. In this setting, the usual control mechanisms for thyroid hormone production are no longer working right, since the formation of these antibodies has nothing to do with the hypothalamus or the pituitary. Since these antibodies and their effect on the TSH receptors are not under hypothalamic and pituitary control, the thyroid gland becomes over-stimulated. This causes it to swell up and form a goiter and release increased amounts of thyroid hormone.

Hyperthyroidism causes all of the cells in the body to function faster than normal, use more energy, consume more oxygen and give off more heat. All of this, results in a major rise in the basal metabolic rate and every organ in the body is affected. People with hyperthyroidism usually experience weight loss, despite often eating more than usual, severe fatigue, muscle weakness, excessive sweating, nervousness, tremors, increased sensitivity to heat, diarrhea, and a faster heart rate that can sometimes lead to palpitations and life-threatening rhythm problems. Occasionally a person with hyperthyroidism may experience a thyrotoxic crisis where the core temperature rises above 105oF (41oC), and becomes confused, restless, and agitated which, if not diagnosed and treated can quickly progress to lethargy or a coma.

When it comes to thyroid hormone real numbers have real consequences. Not only is the total absence of thyroid hormone incompatible with human life, but for our earliest ancestors to have survived, not just any amount would have been sufficient. c The system the body uses to control the blood level of thyroid hormone demonstrates irreducible complexity. But, this article has shown that this is not enough for human life to survive within the laws of nature. Just like the systems the body uses to control oxygen, carbon dioxide, hydrogen ion, hemoglobin, iron, water, sodium, potassium, respiration, heart rate, and blood pressure, the one for thyroid function must have natural survival capacity, because it seems to know what the normal range is and then, using an irreducibly complex system, achieves it.


However, the control of thyroid hormone and the basal metabolic rate represents only one part of what the body must do to control its core temperature. After all, life is a dynamic process and the body must stay very active within an environment to which it can lose heat, or gain from it. In the next article, I will review what it takes for the body to control its core temperature and what happens when the numbers just aren't right.

Another failed Darwinian prediction XVIII

Nature does not make leaps

Evolution is a process. It occurs gradually via variations within populations. The tempo may vary, but “the canon of ‘Natura non facit saltum,’” as Darwin explained, was “on this theory intelligible.” But today this is no longer true. The first problem, that species appeared abruptly in the strata, could be explained as a spotty fossil record, though incredible stretches of evolutionary progress would have to have gone missing.

But the fossil record is not the only evidence for leaps. Since Darwin, rapid change has been directly observed in species ranging from bacteria and yeast to plants and animals. Consider the house finches which began spreading throughout the United States in the 1940s from Mexico and the southwest. The beaks of these birds adapted to their new environments with great speed. Within a decade or so their beaks had adjusted to the new habitats. (Grant) In another example, Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia responded rapidly, developing new head morphology and digestive tract structure. (Herrel, et. al.) Such change “would normally take millions of years to play out …” (Johnson) Likewise mussels introduced to a new environment were found to evolve “in an evolutionary nanosecond compared to the thousands of years previously assumed.” (Mussels evolve quickly to defend against invasive crabs) Such examples of adaptation are not new, and one evolutionist concluded that “evolution can occur much more rapidly than we previously thought. Rapid evolution is pervasive, and the list of examples is growing.” (Rapid Evolution Helps Hunted Outwit Their Predators)

All of this means that evolution may need a new mechanism of change. In fact it appears doubtful that minor biological variations leads to large-scale change. As one evolutionist put it, macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. (Irwin) Increasingly evolutionists have recognized the need for a new mechanism to explain evolutionary change. (Gould, 579, 582) In recent years evolutionists have considered precisely what Darwin ruled out: saltational evolution. Here are some examples:

As nature does jump, exclusive gradualism is dismissed. Saltatory evolution is a natural phenomenon, provided by a sudden collapse of the thresholds which resist against evolution. The fossil record and the taxonomic system call for a macromutational interpretation. (van Waesberghe)

We offer evidence for three independent instances of saltational evolution in a charismatic moth genus with only eight species. … Each saltational species exhibits a markedly different and discrete example of discontinuous trait evolution (Rubinoff and Le Roux)

Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal “types” seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate “grades” or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. (Koonin)

Here we provide for the first time evidence of major phenotypic saltation in the evolution of segment number in a lineage of centipedes (Minelli, Chagas-Júnior and Edgecombe)

Titles of research papers, which include phrases such as “farewell to Darwinism, neo- and otherwise,” “when natura non facit saltum becomes a myth,” “Saltational evolution: hopeful monsters are here to stay,” and “a Neo-Goldschmidtian view of unicellular hopeful monsters,” highlight this falsification of evolution’s prediction that there are no leaps.

References

Gould, Steven Jay. 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge: Belknap Press.

Grant, B. 2010. “Should Evolutionary Theory Evolve?.” TheScientist January 1.

Herrel, A., et. al. 2008. “Rapid large scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with the exploitation of a novel dietary resource in the lizard Podarcis sicula.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105:4792-4795.

Irwin, D. 2000. “Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution.” Evolution & Development 2:61-62.

Johnson, K. 2008. “Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island.” National Geographic News April 21.

Koonin, E. 2007. “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution.” Biology Direct 2:21.

Minelli, A., A. Chagas-Júnior, G. Edgecombe. 2009. “Saltational evolution of trunk segment number in centipedes.” Evolution & Development 11:318-322.

“Mussels evolve quickly to defend against invasive crabs.” 2006. ScienceDaily August 11. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060811091251.htm

“Rapid Evolution Helps Hunted Outwit Their Predators.” 2003. NewsWise July 16.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/?id=500152&sc=wire

Rubinoff, D., J. Le Roux. 2008. “Evidence of repeated and independent saltational evolution in a peculiar genus of sphinx moths (Proserpinus: Sphingidae).” PLoS One 3:e4035.

van Waesberghe, H. 1982. “Towards an alternative evolution model.” Acta Biotheoretica 31:3-28.